It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why should the gov't be involved in marriage?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Why not have it be common law? After you are together with someone for a certain length of time, you have a union. If you want the religious thing, fine.
Every time the government get involved in things, gov't taints it.
I just don't understand why we need Uncle Sam's permission to have rights as a couple. I have been with my spouse for 12+ years. We are not legally married, but have a permanent relationship together. If we want the things married couple have, we need an attorney. We could get married, being heterosexual, but we don't feel marriage is necessary. And, we have to pay more in taxes.

Why do we need this government intrusion?????????


[Edited on 24-2-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]
Shifted/interchanged 'be' and 'gov't'.


[Edited on 25-2-2004 by Seekerof]




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Why not have it be common law? After you are together with someone for a certain length of time, you have a union. If you want the religious thing, fine.
Every time the government get involved in things, gov't taints it.
I just don't understand why we need Uncle Sam's permission to have rights as a couple. I have been with my spouse for 12+ years. We are not legally married, but have a permanent relationship together. If we want the things married couple have, we need an attorney. We could get married, being heterosexual, but we don't feel marriage is necessary. And, we have to pay more in taxes.

Why do we need this government intrusion?????????


[Edited on 24-2-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]

exactly, people are missing the whole picture here... the issue is not if they should be allowed but it is why is it even controlled!
I fully agree!



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I also Agree and have posted my thoughts here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Marriage is not a religious matter under the law. The law allows the union to be performed by religious leaders. Marriage changes your legal relationship with others under the law. Property, adoption, inheritance, etc. are all affected by marriage. Under English Common law, a hushband and wife basically became the same legal entity. Under the Roman Civil law, marriage was really only about determining citizenship and rights and which paterfamilias you fell under.

Of course marriage is important to religions, but to classify it as strictly a religious issue is deceptive.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by piboy
Marriage is not a religious matter under the law. The law allows the union to be performed by religious leaders. Marriage changes your legal relationship with others under the law. Property, adoption, inheritance, etc. are all affected by marriage. Under English Common law, a hushband and wife basically became the same legal entity.

And the religious entity must fill out papers for the civil part. The law does not just allow it to be performed, it is part of the package.
The religious entity takes the place of the government entity in a civil ceremony. This civil ceremony is also called marriage.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
marriage is an institution God and therefore the judeo-christian faiths. even if you don't believe in God, you have to concede that marriage is religious in origin. ok, so what's the point? God speaks out against homosexuality, and therefore, gay people shouldn't get married. by asking the government to enforce the chance of gay marriage, they are stepping over the separation of church and state by telling churchs that, despite what you believe, you must do this or that. in this case it would be to make them marry gay couples. the government can't do this.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
marriage is an institution God and therefore the judeo-christian faiths. even if you don't believe in God, you have to concede that marriage is religious in origin.

I would say that is not true. Many other people from ancient times were married. I would not say marriage is an institution of God.
More likely, it is an civil institution that various faiths chose to acknowledge and make part of their religions, eah with their own ceremonies and rules.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
It isn't about God...

Marriage between a man and a woman gives certain legal benefits for a reason....it further adds (in the form of children) to the workforce of society, as well as the consumer base...

It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the perpetuation of both the workers and the consumers. Marriage (which almost always results in children) between a man and a woman, contributes to this...and THIS is why it is treated as it is...

Now, one could argue, (and I'd agree), that a same sex couple who adopts, should be entitled to same said benefits, for they too are contributing to society, by taking on the burden of raising this worker/consumer....but unfortunately, civil law hasn't quite caught up to modern situations....



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
You need religion to be married??

My sister was married on a boat by a boat captain in the middle of a lake in new hampshire...there were no priests present and none were needed.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
If i may tell everyone, the legal definition of a:

"marriage license - A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry..." (1)

"intermarry - see miscegenation" (2)

"miscegenation - mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of different races. Statues prohibiting marriage between persons of different races have been held to be invalid..." (3)

Do you need permission from the State to be married?

(1) Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990)
Page 973
(2) Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990)
Page 815
(3) Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990)
Page 999



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem

Do you need permission from the State to be married?


Well, if I don't meet any of your 3 criteria, how would I go about validating my relationship and get benefits. Being a white heterosexual couple of legal years and all???




posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
The constitution does guarantee equal rights to all citizens.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreamrebel
The constitution does guarantee equal rights to all citizens.


You got it and this new addition that Bush is pushing for will change that. It is a VERY slippery slope. Those opposed give the excuse if Gays can marry then so can anyone (brothers/sisters man/dog you name it).

The bigger problem is once you set a standard in the constitution that denies rights to a certain group of citizens it makes it that much easier to deny rights for other reasons. Our law is based in large part on precidence, complying with what has been done in the past. That is the big fear I have, once this passes what other parts of our lives can be affected?

[Edited on 2/25/2004 by nativeokie]



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Why is it that people against gay marriage always say that if it's alowed and a church will not marry them that the gay people will start sueing the churches? Non-catholics don't go around sueing the catholic church for not marrying them do they?



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
It's a political divide-and-conquer scheme devised by Karl Rove for the 2004 elections. Remember when Schwarzenegger was campaigning for California governor on a fiscal-conservative / social-liberal platform? He championed gay rights at the time. Now that he's in office he's singing a different tune. Besides creating an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to make gay marriage illegal he's also hellbent on increasing the state's debt to his banker buddies Lord Rothschild (JPMorgan and Chase) and Warren Buffet (Wells Fargo). Fortunately voter's brains have all been eaten away from mad cow disease so that they no longer have any long-term memory. That's what makes it all possible.


[Edited on 25-2-2004 by Condorcet]



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dreamrebel

The constitution does guarantee equal rights to all citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote by Nativeokie:
You got it and this new addition that Bush is pushing for will change that. It is a VERY slippery slope. Those opposed give the excuse if Gays can marry then so can anyone (brothers/sisters man/dog you name it).

The bigger problem is once you set a standard in the constitution that denies rights to a certain group of citizens it makes it that much easier to deny rights for other reasons. Our law is based in large part on precidence, complying with what has been done in the past. That is the big fear I have, once this passes what other parts of our lives can be affected?
________________________________

I doubt the consitutional amendment will go through saying all citizens are not equal. I mean I dont think it will pass the House and Senate. Supreme court will also have a say.


[Edited on 25-2-2004 by dreamrebel]



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Hey you fruits and nuts! If we set a trap for you, will you walk right into it? YAH VE KNEW YOU VOUD!

Hasta la vista 2004 California electoral votes!





posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem

Do you need permission from the State to be married?


Of course you do. You can't marry just anyone. You can't marry someone who is too close to you in terms of genetic relationship (mother, brother,etc.). You can't marry someone of an age deemed to be inapproriate (varies but about 16). You can't marry someone who is already married. And sometime there are restrictions about marrying someone who is subject to another juridiction (like a foreigner). What are the arguments about these restrictions? There aren't many, and if there are any it usually about degree (what age? what genetic relationship, what waiting period for foreigners?) rather than if there should be any restrictions at all along these lines.

But the above restrictions deal with issues that the law (society) feels is important to the bearing of children. You don't want people too close genetically both because of potential health issues and the notion that relations with those close of kin is improper. Kids are too young to engage in sex and bear children, and the law deems them not yet capable to being able to support the rearing of children. You can't married someone who is already married because then there is a confusion of parental duties and inheritance, and possibly the fact that society may deem a multi-spouse family harmful to the upbringing of children. Any restrictions on marrying foreigners deals with using marriage as a back door into gaining citizenship or rights, which attemts to protect the institution of marriage.

There still no mention of religion in my post. For same-sex marriage, it would not be inconsistent for the law (society) to deem it as an inappropriate situation for children to be raised in (right or wrong). It doen't have to be a religious argument.

I think a good question to ask would be, why do any two people get married (hetero or homo)? Why have people in the past gotten married (in various times and nations), and why do they now? This gives us a better view of what is driving the push for gay marriage, and steers to from the smokescreen that it is about some religious issue.







 
0

log in

join