Marriage Idea...

[Inconel]

I'm just tossing this out here, it is my opinion and nothing more.

I think there is a solution to the marriage issue, one that could give equal rights to everyone.

What if the government got out of marriage altogether, erase the word from all legal documents, nullify all marriage licenses, and so on. Now, instead grant the legal benefits that currently come with marriage to each and every individual, married, single, gay, straight, or celibate. No longer would these benefits depend on relationship status. If someone wants to get married, they can go have a ceremony wherever they want with whomever they want, and the government does not care or contribute.

Any comments?

 

[appleofhiseye]

lovely idea! ain't gonna happen. oh well.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm just tossing this out here, it is my opinion and nothing more.

I think there is a solution to the marriage issue, one that could give equal rights to everyone.

What if the government got out of marriage altogether, erase the word from all legal documents, nullify all marriage licenses, and so on. Now, instead grant the legal benefits that currently come with marriage to each and every individual, married, single, gay, straight, or celibate. No longer would these benefits depend on relationship status. If someone wants to get married, they can go have a ceremony wherever they want with whomever they want, and the government does not care or contribute.

Any comments?

Besides the incentives for married people, we already have that. Its called freedom and rights. Things like healthcare and such isn't excluded from the single people and there are such things as contracts, etc. that aren't dependant on marriage to be effective.

I wouldn't care if the government got out to the marriage issue myself, I didn't marry because Uncle Sam was going to give me something as a gift. In fact, he can keep or take back that marriage penalty if he wants it.

But the giving all that other stuff to every citizen would be socialism and it would have its difficulties here in America. In fact, there would be many that would be set against socialism... including me. America handles it by state to state too. Handing over power isn't something the states like doing.

Like mentioned, improbable of happening.

 

[seebs]

Some of those special privileges can be conferred only on a set of people with respect to a given person. Consider "hospital visitation rights"; the default rule of "family only" is a little hard to give to "just the person involved".

For a more interesting case, consider that, in many cases, you cannot be compelled to testify against your spouse. Which people should get that protection? Everyone? That makes gang life a lot easier.

I think the government has a real and legitimate interest in identifying small groups of people as families and extending special rights and privileges to them.

 

[ralrachaan]

I'm just tossing this out here, it is my opinion and nothing more.

I think there is a solution to the marriage issue, one that could give equal rights to everyone.

What if the government got out of marriage altogether, erase the word from all legal documents, nullify all marriage licenses, and so on. Now, instead grant the legal benefits that currently come with marriage to each and every individual, married, single, gay, straight, or celibate. No longer would these benefits depend on relationship status. If someone wants to get married, they can go have a ceremony wherever they want with whomever they want, and the government does not care or contribute.

Any comments?

It's a very good thought... but it has a few flaws. In my opinion, it would only promote more relationship "flings". Because there would be no legal backing, getting in and out of a marriage would be too easy. And while it would eliminate the money and court time spent on marriage/divorce disputes, it wouldn't acctually stop the disputes, only stop them from being in courts.

 

[hernyaccent]

I have always loved that idea but people will argue that to. if it's not their way it's the highway.

 

[Murmur]

It is a wonderful idea.

 

[Lokisdottir]

I agree that the government needs to have no involvement with marriage whatsoever. Yet there are people out there who insist simultaneously that marriage is a religious institution AND that the government should stay involved! You can't have it both ways.

If marriage is a religious institution, get the government out of it. Separation of church and state, and all that.

If it's not a religious institution, then what's with all the "sanctity of marriage" stuff?

 

[xhristlives]

The fact of the matter is that in this case Church and state has already been seperated(not that i agree to this), because Church marriage is accepted as being before God by the government, while civil marriages are meant to be performed not in front of God(according to the government). This is a lie because by neglecting god's involvement it becomes null and void.

 

[Lokisdottir]

This is a lie because by neglecting god's involvement it becomes null and void.

So atheists can't get married?

 

[corvus_corax]

This is a lie because by neglecting god's involvement it becomes null and void.

No its not.
Its still legally binding.

No, I didnt miss your point. But you're still wrong.
A marriage is a legally binding contract and (between the two people involved) its only as personally binding as they make it, regardless of any religious conotations.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No its not.
Its still legally binding.

No, I didnt miss your point. But you're still wrong.
A marriage is a legally binding contract and (between the two people involved) its only as personally binding as they make it, regardless of any religious conotations.

He didn't say religious, he said God.
If we are simply throwing opinions around, then I agree with him. My marriage is held together by God, not us. That's why it was said "Let that which God has joined together, let no man come between".

 

[corvus_corax]

He didn't say religious, he said God.
If we are simply throwing opinions around, then I agree with him. My marriage is held together by God, not us. That's why it was said "Let that which God has joined together, let no man come between".

"This is a lie because by neglecting god's involvement it (marriage) becomes null and void."
(emphasis mine and insertion provided to clarify what i was addressing.)

 

[Jessica78]

Now, instead grant the legal benefits that currently come with marriage to each and every individual, married, single, gay, straight, or celibate.

I think you missed something here. The anyone could claim "be to married". Its equal to all laws we have, the point? Easy, to work in the society.

In Sweden, for example, we have something called "Sambo Lagen", together living it means. But it only applies if you have a relationship, (sex, and living togeheter for example). And you get certain advances, if two friends live togehter (as i do for example), we do not have a relatiosbip (and of course, we should not be able to claim it)... So i dont really understand your point here...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

"This is a lie because by neglecting god's involvement it (marriage) becomes null and void."
(emphasis mine and insertion provided to clarify what i was addressing.)

I see what you are saying and I still state that he has a right to make that statement. It is his religious right to give God the credit for any good thing and I too give God the glory for the stability and the joy in my marriage. An attempt to strip God out of all things ends when it effects us - as in telling us we can't do as we just did.
I'm sure if you relax and see what I am saying, you would not take issue on it being our freedom to excercise as such... at least I would hope.

 

[Jessica78]

corvus_corax surely can be clear

It is his religious right to give God the credit for any good thing and I too give God the glory for the stability and the joy in my marriage.

Does this depends on God? Or just the Christian one ?

 

[corvus_corax]

I see what you are saying and I still state that he has a right to make that statement. It is his religious right to give God the credit for any good thing and I too give God the glory for the stability and the joy in my marriage. An attempt to strip God out of all things ends when it effects us - as in telling us we can't do as we just did.
I'm sure if you relax and see what I am saying, you would not take issue on it being our freedom to excercise as such... at least I would hope.

Oh, he has the right to make the statement and hold his religious beliefs.
And this morning, I am very relaxed (as opposed to last night )
I guess he was talking from a religious POV, and I was talking from a legal one. His statement seemed all inclusive to me, hence my rebutal.
Sorry for any confusion

corvus_corax surely can be clear

I try. I dont always succeed, but I try

 

[ChristianCenturion]

corvus_corax surely can be clear




Does this depends on God? Or just the Christian one ?

Now what would be the point of explaining anyone that exalts Atheism and in their testimony states that they would never believe in a God and continues to insult that do. For that matter, what would be the sole purpose of said person entering into a Christian based forum?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Oh, he has the right to make the statement and hold his religious beliefs.
And this morning, I am very relaxed (as opposed to last night )
I guess he was talking from a religious POV, and I was talking from a legal one. His statement seemed all inclusive to me, hence my rebutal.
Sorry for any confusion

I try. I dont always succeed, but I try

I will refrain from persuing a possible implication that law has no room for including the subject of religion and accept your post as is.
BTW - glad to hear today is better.

 

[Jessica78]

Now what would be the point of explaining anyone that exalts Atheism and in their testimony states that they would never believe in a God and continues to insult that do. For that matter, what would be the sole purpose of said person entering into a Christian based forum?

You can only give your reasons to people whom agree with you? Interesting.