Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The recent approval by three (3) states voters - California, Arizona and Florida - of Constitutional measures, defining marriage as between One Man and One Woman, has certainly elicited much discussion - and, IMO, this is a healthy thing.
The question I posed with the title of this thread is - should the "State" be involved at all?
Think about it - the "State" limits now who you can marry based on issues such as age, blood relationships (son and mother, brother and sister etc). The "State" (all states) currently limit how many marital partners one may have, at any one time, to one (1) - should the "State" not limit the number of marital partners?
Yet many have commented over the last day or so that there is no reason why the State should tell someone / somebody who they can and cannot marry - as in the discussion with same sex marriages.
Does the State have a vested interest in creating the qualifications for two people to get married?
I would be interested in a discussion about this area of law - of the Right of the State to control marriages. I would hope that the discussion will not simply be involving same sex marriages though -
Marriage has and always been a public institution. The whole purpose of marriage is to make the union "official" and to announce the couple to the whole world. If marriage were a private matter, people wouldn't be going to the city hall for a certificate.
Under same-sex marraiges, there should not be a question, it should be covered under the 9th Amendment. The state has no right to interfere.
Marraige with more than one partner should be legal.
However, for age of consent should be at 18. I think that this is in keeping with the majority of the rights that are afforded as adults, accepting all the various state requirements that said legal guardian must sign here, here and here.
The state has the authority and obligation to promote activities which are beneficial to society. It also has an obligation to discourage those activities which are harmful to society.
The first is accomplished through advantageous tax laws and legal benefits, the second is accomplished through criminal and civil liability.
I think the only restriction should be that no one under the age of 18 should be able to marry. If they're not old enough to sign a contract, surely they're not old enough to consent to lifelong marriage.
I think the only restriction should be that no one under the age of 18 should be able to marry. .
I would like to make sure I completely understand your statement above: The only restriction you approve of is age. You do not believe that the "State" should limit marriage in any other way including the marriage between parents and their children? Or, between brothers and sisters?
I would like to make sure I completely understand your statement above: The only restriction you approve of is age. You do not believe that the "State" should limit marriage in any other way including the marriage between parents and their children? Or, between brothers and sisters?
Is this correct?
Or people and their pets? And no, I am not one of that crowd who oppose gay marriage on that whole slippery-slope basis. I support gay marriage -- but gay marriage should be legalized by legislation, not through courts. Marriage, more than anything else, has always been a matter of social consensus; so the list of categories of people that the state can marry represents the categories of people that the society as a whole is prepared to recognize as married. Marriage is unique in that it is a process in which we ask the public to validate an intimate relationship -- and I believe there can be no enforceable right to that (anti-miscegenation laws, as part of the larger system of segregation, being an exception). You really can't demand that the state stay out of the very relationship you are asking it to validate.
Yes, I believe the state should be able to prohibit marraiges between parent/child or between siblings.
Why draw the line there? The only justifications are moral ones.
How about if they are rendered infertile first so they need to adopt like gay couples? Certainly its no worse for a child to be raised by siblings that love each other than a same sex couple, in honesty its probably a better situation. The child need not know they are siblings but they WILL know they have two dads or moms.
So, if siblings love each other & want to get married, how on earth is that worse than two men or women?
In my mind neither is acceptable, but certainly if one is then so is the other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
