How marriage and government SHOULD work

**MegadethFan** · Sep 05 2011, 03:16 AM

Marriage is a civil union and a contract like any other. There is no reaosn to give it some special place within society - some place of exclusivity or special standing. If you want to have a heterosexual marriage, fine. If you want to have a homosexual marriage, fine. If you want to have a polygamous marriage, that's also fine. Any and every arrangement is fine simply because it is a private contract. However because it is a contract, this means it has no religious significance by way of the law. As a traditionally contrived ideal, or as interpreted with a modern perception, or a religious one, the government should have no opinion what marriage is. All the government and the law should recognize is a civil union - another contract by certain parties.

For this reason, 'marriage' should not be recognized by the state, rather simply the civil union. Those involved may call it marriage or whatever they like - it should be of no concern to the state. Consequently all arrangements between consenting individuals should be recognized. Furthermore, no private organization, such as a religious group, can be forced to recognize all or any civil unions they do not wish to ordain. This is how any secular, managerial government should operate by way of marriage.

**SmokemoNSC** · Sep 07 2011, 11:30 PM

I agree with you.

It's sad that people with different opinions on what marriage is are so content to have the majority speak for them. As long as those who want marriage to be determined by government - they must then accept the opinion of the majority.

It'd be better if there were no civil unions or marriage licenses by the government - if you wanted to setup a will, inheritance, or hospital visit rights etc - simply sign a contract and be done with it

**MegadethFan** · Sep 07 2011, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by SmokemoNSC

I agree with you.

It's sad that people with different opinions on what marriage is are so content to have the majority speak for them. As long as those who want marriage to be determined by government - they must then accept the opinion of the majority.

It'd be better if there were no civil unions or marriage licenses by the government - if you wanted to setup a will, inheritance, or hospital visit rights etc - simply sign a contract and be done with it

Thanks for the comment - for a while I thought I wouldnt get one. And yes I agree with you also.

**Wolverine** · Sep 08 2011, 08:28 AM

I agree with the OP.

It should be civil unions for all or marriage for all. Reducing it to civil unions is an excellent idea.

**kshRox01** · Sep 21 2011, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Marriage is a civil union and a contract like any other. There is no reaosn to give it some special place within society - some place of exclusivity or special standing. If you want to have a heterosexual marriage, fine. If you want to have a homosexual marriage, fine. If you want to have a polygamous marriage, that's also fine. Any and every arrangement is fine simply because it is a private contract. However because it is a contract, this means it has no religious significance by way of the law. As a traditionally contrived ideal, or as interpreted with a modern perception, or a religious one, the government should have no opinion what marriage is. All the government and the law should recognize is a civil union - another contract by certain parties.

For this reason, 'marriage' should not be recognized by the state, rather simply the civil union. Those involved may call it marriage or whatever they like - it should be of no concern to the state. Consequently all arrangements between consenting individuals should be recognized. Furthermore, no private organization, such as a religious group, can be forced to recognize all or any civil unions they do not wish to ordain. This is how any secular, managerial government should operate by way of marriage.

Wouldn't that be nice?
Think of all the hostility and legal wrangling that would go away over night.

Our politicians might start getting nervous if we quit bickering so much amongst ourselves and started paying more attention to them.

**waltky** · Oct 04 2011, 08:58 PM

Uncle Ferd says dat's a good idea - if dey get too sassy on ya, just trade `em in an' get a new one like dem rich folks do cars every other year...

Mexico City Considers Two-Year Marriages
October 03, 2011 | Couples could choose the term of their marriage, with a minimum length of two years

Lovebirds unwilling to commit 'til death do they part will be able to sign short-term marriage contracts under a proposal being considered by Mexico City lawmakers. Couples will be able to choose the term of their marriage, with a minimum length of two years, and renew the contract if they stay happy, according to a reform put forward by the liberal Democratic Revolution Party (PRD).

The PRD, which holds the majority in the city government, says the initiative makes sense in a city where divorce rates are soaring. "We want to generate affectionate and harmonious relationships between spouses and, in the case that they don't want to stay together, enable them to separate without cumbersome proceedings that only harm families," the PRD's Lizbeth Rojas, who proposed the reform, said. But Mexico's Roman Catholic Church has labeled the proposal "absurd."

"It contradicts the nature of marriage," Father Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexico City Archdiocese, said. It is an "irresponsible and immoral" move by legislators who are "destroying the family and values" to appear fashionable, he added.

Lawmakers will vote on the new contracts -- which will include provisions for child custody and the separation of property -- by the end of the year. Mexico City is a liberal center in largely conservative Mexico. The city legalized gay marriage in 2010 and has the region's most lenient abortion laws.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/new...#ixzz1Zsd1ymOV

**SiliconMagician** · Oct 04 2011, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Marriage is a civil union and a contract like any other. There is no reaosn to give it some special place within society - some place of exclusivity or special standing. If you want to have a heterosexual marriage, fine. If you want to have a homosexual marriage, fine. If you want to have a polygamous marriage, that's also fine. Any and every arrangement is fine simply because it is a private contract. However because it is a contract, this means it has no religious significance by way of the law. As a traditionally contrived ideal, or as interpreted with a modern perception, or a religious one, the government should have no opinion what marriage is. All the government and the law should recognize is a civil union - another contract by certain parties.

For this reason, 'marriage' should not be recognized by the state, rather simply the civil union. Those involved may call it marriage or whatever they like - it should be of no concern to the state. Consequently all arrangements between consenting individuals should be recognized. Furthermore, no private organization, such as a religious group, can be forced to recognize all or any civil unions they do not wish to ordain. This is how any secular, managerial government should operate by way of marriage.

What about negative externalities that come from private arrangements? Like exploitation of daughters and wives in polygamist sects?

It is pretty hillarious when the Police raided those mormons out west of the Warren Jeffs sect/cult.

They are standing in a room full of pregnant teenage girls but not a single teenage boy in the entire community is to be found?

You don't find anything sick about that? That's freedom to you? Exploitation of young women by much older men through religious and social force? That is why there are anti-polygamy laws, to protect women from exploitation.

**prometeus** · Oct 05 2011, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

What about negative externalities that come from private arrangements? Like exploitation of daughters and wives in polygamist sects?

Is ti the numbers you are objecting to or the concept in general? Either way it is illegal even when a single young girl is forced into any relationship with a man.