Should the government even be in the business of marriages?

[otseng]

I think the whole issue of states allowing gay marriages, bans on gay marriage, laws on what defines a marriage are all misplaced. There's an even more fundamental question to all of this which I do not really see much discussion on.

Should the government even be in the business of marriages?
Should it be in the jurisdiction of state/federal governments to decide who is married or not?

[Goat]

I think the whole issue of states allowing gay marriages, bans on gay marriage, laws on what defines a marriage are all misplaced. There's an even more fundamental question to all of this which I do not really see much discussion on.

Should the government even be in the business of marriages?
Should it be in the jurisdiction of state/federal governments to decide who is married or not?

In my opinion, since 'marriage' is associated with a religious connotations, the state/federal governments should not.

However, they should provide for 'civil unions' that provide for the same benefits for such items as inheritance, property rights, guardianship and making medical decisions for partners who are unable to make choices on their own. Basically, all the rights and responsibilities associated with married couples.

[McCulloch]

I think the whole issue of states allowing gay marriages, bans on gay marriage, laws on what defines a marriage are all misplaced. There's an even more fundamental question to all of this which I do not really see much discussion on.

Should the government even be in the business of marriages?
Should it be in the jurisdiction of state/federal governments to decide who is married or not?

So long as marriages have a legal status, with both civil and criminal, then the state should be in the business of defining what is and is not marriage. What do you suggest? No tax implications for marriages, no common property, no divorce, no spousal privilege, no assumption of rights when one marriage partner dies without a will, no presumption of being next of kin. I think that unwinding marriage from all of our laws, federal, state/provincial and municipal would be a herculean undertaking.

[otseng]

First, I would say that it is out of the jurisdiction of the federal government to have any say in marriages (or civil unions). I don't remember reading anywhere in the US Constitution that it is the role of the federal government to be involved in this area.

On the state level, I would lean towards goat's suggestion. States can provide a civil union. Religious organizations would marry people. Civil unions would carry the same legal weight as marriages.

[McCulloch]

First, I would say that it is out of the jurisdiction of the federal government to have any say in marriages (or civil unions). I don't remember reading anywhere in the US Constitution that it is the role of the federal government to be involved in this area.

On the state level, I would lean towards goat's suggestion. States can provide a civil union. Religious organizations would marry people. Civil unions would carry the same legal weight as marriages.

Aren't you just playing with words? You are suggesting that what we currently call marriage (state licensed) be renamed to civil unions and create a new relationship with no legal meaning called marriage, to be administered by religious organizations.

[Goat]

First, I would say that it is out of the jurisdiction of the federal government to have any say in marriages (or civil unions). I don't remember reading anywhere in the US Constitution that it is the role of the federal government to be involved in this area.

On the state level, I would lean towards goat's suggestion. States can provide a civil union. Religious organizations would marry people. Civil unions would carry the same legal weight as marriages.

Aren't you just playing with words? You are suggesting that what we currently call marriage (state licensed) be renamed to civil unions and create a new relationship with no legal meaning called marriage, to be administered by religious organizations.

It is word play, yes, but it does provide the requirements people have for having legal protection, allows for more flexabilty for , let's say, two maiden aunts who live together to provide emergency care for each other, and it separates the religious from government.

[otseng]

Well, we are already playing word games today. Many people have a marriage in both a religious institution and in a courthouse. When are they married? After being pronounced husband and wife by the preacher or by the court? By separating the two, it becomes less ambiguous. In church, people get married. In a court, they get, um, civil unionized.

[JoeyKnothead]

As marriage is such a -ahem- sacred word and rite, I would contend those folks who wish to call their unions a "marriage" should have the right to do so (but not force churches to recognise or perform them).
As there are so many other privileges afforded "married" folks, then the government is involved in "sorting out" when these privileges are violated. When considering who makes medical decisions, often it comes down to a marriage over the immediate blood family and so I contend the government should and often must be the final "maintainer" of these privileges.

To me, the term "civil union" reeks of "seperate but equal" and should not be used if "for all intents and purposes" folks are to be treated as married.

[McCulloch]

Well, we are already playing word games today. Many people have a marriage in both a religious institution and in a courthouse. When are they married? After being pronounced husband and wife by the preacher or by the court? By separating the two, it becomes less ambiguous. In church, people get married. In a court, they get, um, civil unionized.

I don't know how it works in your jurisdiction, but here religious officers are licensed by the state to perform weddings. The couple is considered married, for purposes of their religion, by whatever criteria that religion specifies and for legal purposes when they affix their names on the document provided by the state and administered by the religious officer. I don't know anyone who has both a religious and a civil ceremony. Those who opt for a civil ceremony, essentially do the same thing, without the trappings of the religion.

[otseng]

I don't know how it works in your jurisdiction, but here religious officers are licensed by the state to perform weddings. The couple is considered married, for purposes of their religion, by whatever criteria that religion specifies and for legal purposes when they affix their names on the document provided by the state and administered by the religious officer. I don't know anyone who has both a religious and a civil ceremony. Those who opt for a civil ceremony, essentially do the same thing, without the trappings of the religion.

I'm not saying that many people have a civil "ceremony", but that they have to go the Probate Court and apply for a marriage license. According to the Probate Court, they are married after they sign the paperwork and pay the fees. Yes, religious authorities are bestowed rights by the state to perform marriages. But, the point is that we already now have a "religious marriage" and a "civil marriage". With each declaring that they are married. Separating the two into "marriage" and "civil union" would make things less ambiguous and not simply be just a play on words.