Why should the government define marriage?

[The Free North]

Another case of trying to fit a round peg into a square hole by our glorious leaders.

We are a diverse nation of 300+ million people of countless faiths and beliefs. Why do we have to have 1 definition of what marriage is in this country? Why does our government have to tell the rest of us who (or what) we can or cannot mary? What I find intriguing about the gay marriage debate is that it still sets a single definition of what marriage is, although more open than the conservative definition, it is sill restrictive.

As a Catholic, I believe that marriage is not simply a bond between two people, but a holy sacrament before God. As a result, any marriage outside the church is not an 'official' marriage to me. So what gives it meaning then? The government. Laws about inheritance, hospital visits, etc unfortunately define 2 peoples relationship. This should all be done away with. Marriage should be able to mean different things to different people. Again, to me, a catholic marriage is a union before God, everything else is simply an earthly bond, and thats perfectly fine.

If a guy wants to go out and 'marry' his dog, he should be able to, so long as he's happy. What is the problem with removing the influence of government from marriage? Once we stop trying to define who can marry who (both sides are at fault), we can finally have a free society in terms of marriage.

[bedstuy]

People have a practice of living together as couples.  This is a long-standing practice.  Thus, society has developed laws for dealing with this social relationship.  These include tax laws, contract laws, employment and benefits laws, family law, trusts and estate laws, etc.   And we're going to have conflicts over breakups, pooling assets, children, pensions, etc.  This is why the government must be involved in marriage legally.  It's to officiate and negotiate these social conflicts that arise over intimate and family relationships. 

And I suppose, yes, it's theoretically possible to function without these laws.  But, we as a society deem them useful and beneficial.  So, as long as we have them, why discriminate against gay people?  And why is this suddenly an issue?  Did gay people get their gay cooties on your sacred institution?

As a Catholic, I believe that marriage is not simply a bond between two people, but a holy sacrament before God. As a result, any marriage outside the church is not an 'official' marriage to me.

What does it mean for something to be "official to you?"  That's an oxymoron.  The whole point of something being "official" is that there's one decision-maker that puts their stamp of approval on it. 

And, you seriously oppose marriage for Jewish people?  Seriously?

[traininthedistance]

I've seen this "get government out of marriage entirely" line increasingly often over the last year or two, in various fora.  And I had never seen it before then (i.e. back before general opinion turned decisively in favor of equality).  And... just about everyone who has argued this point has been a religious conservative who prefers to brand themselves as "libertarian".

I have to say, it smacks of nothing so much as sour grapes.  "Wah!  If the government has to abide by equal protection and provide recognition to everyone instead of privileging our particular viewpoint, then we'd rather it provide recognition to no one!  You can't say we're being unfair that way!  Gimme my ball, I'm going home."

[Blue3]

I feel like I just responded to your clone on Facebook


It's just a legal contract according to the US government right now. I know some people would like to get government out of marriage completely.

But... in the meantime, as long as the government does recognize marriages, shouldn't same-sex couples be able to apply for the same benefits as opposite-sex couples? That's what the Supreme Court decided on (and only halfway at that).

To get rid of government-recognized marriage entirely depends on Congress and the state legislatures. And that could also hurt married couples, since those contracts are where things like hospital visitation rights, making medical decisions, rights of inheritance, come from.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course the government should define marriage. What a stupid question. Public policy in a myriad of domains would be a complete mess if there was no possibility to target conjugal unions for specific treatment.

[TNF]

Perhaps government should just stop sanctioning an institution with a 50% failure rate by removing the tax incentives/benefits that come with getting married in the first place and allowing those benefits to be assigned to individuals instead?

[Blue3]

Government gives benefits to married people. That's why they define/recognize it.

Of course, right now you can get married to whoever and how many people you want, but government doesn't always recognize it.

[Link]

We are a diverse nation of 300+ million people of countless faiths and beliefs. Why do we have to have 1 definition of what marriage is in this country?

You answered your own question.  We have one country with 300+ million people with 300+ million ideas.  The only way you can have one country is by having some standards and protocols we all adhere to.  That doesn't mean those standards are immutable but I do think it is wise to proceed slowly and carefully.  Not every rule that's been around for thousands of years is a bad idea.  Those rules were put in place for a reason.  Some of them turn out to be pretty good ideas.  Some of them simply aren't compatible with the modern world.  But everyone waking up and deciding this is what I want to do is anarchy.

[Link]

Perhaps government should just stop sanctioning an institution with a 50% failure rate by removing the tax incentives/benefits that come with getting married in the first place and allowing those benefits to be assigned to individuals instead?

Oh for a minute there I thought you were talking about Wall St.  I was getting excited.  Then I realized you were just discussing marriage while Rome burns in the background.

[DC Al Fine]

Perhaps government should just stop sanctioning an institution with a 50% failure rate by removing the tax incentives/benefits that come with getting married in the first place and allowing those benefits to be assigned to individuals instead?

The 50% failure rate is an example of why the government should not be defining marriage. No-fault divorce was a state idea, not the church's.

[Dr. Cynic]

Perhaps government should just stop sanctioning an institution with a 50% failure rate by removing the tax incentives/benefits that come with getting married in the first place and allowing those benefits to be assigned to individuals instead?

The 50% failure rate is an example of why the government should not be defining marriage. No-fault divorce was a state idea, not the church's.

The state cannot and should not be bound by the whims of a church. I find it funny that we still consider marriage as a religious co-habitation rather than what it really is, a legal contract of partnership. If the partnership breaks, then you should be able to get out of the contract. It's that simple.

[Hatman 🍁]

Perhaps government should just stop sanctioning an institution with a 50% failure rate by removing the tax incentives/benefits that come with getting married in the first place and allowing those benefits to be assigned to individuals instead?

The 50% failure rate is an example of why the government should not be defining marriage. No-fault divorce was a state idea, not the church's.

FTR, the divorce rate is much better in Canada

[PJ]

Perhaps government should just stop sanctioning an institution with a 50% failure rate by removing the tax incentives/benefits that come with getting married in the first place and allowing those benefits to be assigned to individuals instead?

Why do u have to have a glass half empty perspective?