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.
To free people, none of that matters.
Government should not be in the marriage business period.
It is just another way to single out a group, to see if they are going to be a winner or a loser where government intervention is involved.
No, it's a way to establish and recognize legal rights and responsibilities. Just like adoption.
True, we could live without it, but it's easier for all concerned if there is a standard contract that everyone can understand.
Neither marriage nor adoption is going away. For some peculiar reason, most people *want* their societies to recognize their most intimate ties. Family members just do have legal and moral obligations to each other that next-door neighbors, for instance, don't have.
Be careful what you wish for. Saying that the government should butt out of recognizing family ties may not, in fact, be such a good idea.
Marriage is contract law. It legally combines them into a family, giving them family rights such as ICU visits and estate inheritance (among other things). It's not government intrusion, it's just government recognizing that you are choosing this person as somebody who is of a certain importance in your life.
You need a license to be a party to a contract?
A marriage license is an excuse for government intrusion.
I don't get it. Why does a person need a license to get married? It seems retarded to me. I think the whole license thing is just some Big.Gov intrusion into people's lives. Is it some national security thing? Just dump the whole thing and let people marry their boyfriend/girlfriend/martian/cousin/sister/whatever in any way shape or form.
there are marriage licenses so government can get their share of money when people getting married. my last marriage did not have any permits or licenses involved and therefore was not sanctioned by the state, but was ok with the church i went to.
there is no reason at all for the government to be involved with marriages at all except for the fact that they want more of your money.
Not true at all. It is government intrusion. Otherwise, I could marry whoever I choose and however many I choose.
We don't need government control of our marriages. We do need contracts that specify relationship rights.
It's government intrusion to recognize that you are choosing this person as somebody to have ICU and inheritance rights? I could've sworn all this does it give the government the power to protect your rights as married people, as family members. And to recognize you as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Both of those legally done without being "married"
Medical power of attorney, and a last will and testament.
Do you know how complicated things are going to get if you abolish marriage and force married couples to apply for each of the rights that are guaranteed by government through marriage? As somebody said, there are over 1,000 things that come with that contract. It's also retroactive in the event something needs to be added or taken away from that contract by law.
A marriage license is an excuse for government intrusion.
Yes, there are qualifications to marriage. Such as age. This entire debate is about striking one of those qualifications off of that list. You should be happy about it if you're not for government intrusion I would think.
It's government intrusion to recognize that you are choosing this person as somebody to have ICU and inheritance rights? I could've sworn all this does it give the government the power to protect your rights as married people, as family members. And to recognize you as such.
Do you know how complicated things are going to get if you abolish marriage and force married couples to apply for each of the rights that are guaranteed by government through marriage? As somebody said, there are over 1,000 things that come with that contract. It's also retroactive in the event something needs to be added or taken away from that contract by law.
marriage would not be abolished, it would just be put in the hands of religion where it belongs and out of the hands of government.
marriage would not be abolished, it would just be put in the hands of religion where it belongs and out of the hands of government.
If you're upset about the word "marriage" then fine. Let's just call it a civil union and be done for the day. But heterosexual couples don't get their marriages recognized by government because marriage is church law.
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.
