How marriage and government SHOULD work

Its the dictates of the biology of procreation. Only a man can make a woman a mother.

 

Marriage is religious institution, so in my mind, the OP has the perfect solution, everyone enters a civil union and if you want a marriage certificate then you go to a religious institution and get it... no mess, no fuss, and we keep the separation of church and state.

 

It is now 2015 and the U.S. Supreme Court has declared Same-Sex Marriage to be the law of the land.

 

My Barron's Law dictionary still states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage has been around long before this country started but has only been licensed by states since the 1840's when Democrats in Maryland wanted to prevent free Blacks from marrying White women.

The Constitution has theoretically allowed for each state to legislate their own marriage licensing laws. Domestic law has always been a state issue! That is why Obergefell is such a joke as there was no legal framework for judges to disenfranchise the legislative representation of millions of voters.

Government stuck its ugly nose into religion/marriage and not the other way around.

 

That has nothing to do with civil contracting.

 

I agree with the OP. The government should not be involved at all with marriage. If you want a government sanctioned contract allowing two people to share property, benefits, insurance, etc. then you would get a civil union document. Any two people could apply for one. It doesn't have to be people who are romantically involved. But the catch is that you can only be party to one civil union at a time (to prevent fraud). Everyone wins here. The gay marriage controversy would be moot. Those seeking a Biblical marriage in a church would not have to sign a government document to be married. Win-Win.

 

First off I would say that there is a bit of a conceptual error and it is quite a common one. Civil marriage is not a contract between two private individuals. If it is so, then please show me your contract (pre-nups don't count). I certainly never had a contract drawn up prior to my legal marriage, either of them really.

Now many marriages of the past have been done via contracts, most of the arranged variety. But nowadays, pre-nups are as close as we get, at least in the US.

Original intent aside, modern civil marriages serve only one purpose. To establish a set legal relationship between two adult individuals that did not previously exist, and confirm rights, privileges ad responsibilities that go along with this specific relationship. As such, I do agree that a civil marriage should only be limited to consenting adults.

As far as the use of the word "marriage" goes, I see no real issue with the use of the word to describe the legal state of matrimony, as opposed to the religious or even social state of matrimony. A single word can have many meanings, and can even be applied to different yet similar things. Religion does not own the word and many non-religious marriages have occurred around the world and throughout history.

 

The law wil not compel the straight lover of a parent to do anything either. Additionally, if the child is adopted by the husband of the mother, then the father no longer has any legal obligations towards the child, nor any legal rights.

 

Why what about group marriages, a woman wanting a few husbands, a woman with a man and a woman and any other combinations of adult relationships.

 

And it should.

Laws can be changed.

 

A state marriage license in the US is a binding contract between three actual parties: Spouse 1, Spouse 2 and the State.

Such an agreement renders each of three parties to both obligation and liberties. The State agrees to fulfill the distribution of assets in the event of a death of both spouses, to render hearing and litigation in a civil marriage dispute or custody dispute, and to recognize under local law any medical decisions be given to the cognizant spouse. There is a reason that a marriage license is signed by a Justice of the Peace (representing the State) who acts on behalf of the State in recognizing the marriage and contractually binds the State to protect any assets, disputes, or medical decisions between/by the two applying for a marriage license. The State and its' citizens absorb a large portion of the cost to absolve or resolve anything that has to do with litigation or paperwork.

The only other signature on a marriage license is that of a witness (or witnesses). It is not required but often the witness signature is that of the pastor or minister who performed the marriage ceremony who are only recognized as a witness. There is NO bearing of religious affiliation on any marriage license with legal boundaries or restraints. It is a legal document with local lawful parameters.

Apparently today there are three topics of concern:

1) Where are the Constitutional boundaries for the Church to recognize marriage?
2) What civil rights prevent same-sex couples from legally getting married?
3) Why is there still such a societal opposition to accepting gay marriage?

We can look into each with fervent direction and well intentions:

(1) There are no Constitutional boundaries for Churches to recognize the separation of, or participate in sacrimony of core religious beliefs. The separation of Church and State is defined for such purposes. They are incongruous.
(2) There are no civil rights prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying other than what the State is currently obligated to adhere to lawfully (contractual).
(3) The term "marriage" may seem ambiguous or interpretive but it is the definition stand-point for those with strong religious beliefs or even a grey area that others deem precipitous.

In my opinion, those wishing to have same-sex marriage recognized by the State, would stand less opposition if their definitions of acceptance did NOT include the Church but rather that of the State only. Any State could define such obligations and contractual bindings under a "civil union" and, both, satisfy the separation of the Church from State and give legal guardianship of spouse, property, and assets to the couple while still satisfying the same parameters of any document involving the union of any couple, both gay or straight.

Let's face it: If you want anything more than legal documentation and the equal municipal rights in same-sex marriage, then you are asking for social acceptance and/or religious adherence to a definition or lifestyle that is not practiced or recognized by all. There is no minority or majority balances here. Civil definitions are not outweighed by an apparent dissenting group nor do laws accommodate those that wish to add exception to it.

If you wish to add gay marriage to the law then make a non-abrasive proposition for it. Simply, by adding religious tones or opposing the common definition of marriage, you are pushing more dirt than the tractor can handle.

"Civil Union" is a good place to start.

 

Procreation has nothing to do with marriage, nor should it.

 

Good for them but I think that's a bad set up. The law should not dictate what is and isnt an acceptable civil union beyond basic contractual partnerships. Unfortunately the US constitution has allows for an alternative route of law.

 

You have mistaken my discussion of the what the law on marriage SHOULD be for a discussion of the law (specifically US law) on marriage IS. I was discussing the former topic.

 

I understand that, but you did start out with an incorrect premise on what marriage was.

So I started with countering that incorrect premise. I did note what was, for reference, in the second paragraph, but noted again, that such was not the current situation.

Then I went into what the current purpose of a civil/legal marriage, and I think that you would probably agree with me on that, name issue aside.

Finally I noted that the name really isn't an issue as long as one remembers that a given word can have multiple meanings, even if some are very similar but still not the same. That is another incorrect premise of your initial statement that I countered. Basically what civil marriage should be is its own independent usage of the word, separate from the religious usage, and available to all consenting adults. Beyond that what else should a legal marriage be, beyond what it already is?

 

Exactly, I have been saying basically the same thing for years. Other words for sure, like government shouldn't have a say in who can or can't get married, let love decide.

 

No, I did not. I accept that legal definitions of a contract vary, but in the most simplest form EVERY marriage is a contract. You have the most basic ingredients:
- an offer and acceptance (to enter into a union of shared living, often centred on monogamous sexual relations),
- for consideration (the conditions of shared living, like the restricted sex just mentioned),
- with certain terms (eg that the union remains in perpetuity until death or where there is a breach of terms such as in the case of a cheating spouse for example).

Just because this contract is unenforceable in court does not make it any less a contract, prenups aside.

Generally, yes, though see above.

Because despite your semantic linguistic argument, which I completely agree with, the practical reality is that the word "marriage" itself appears to be a root cause of extending the right of individuals to have a civil union recognized under law.
In sum, the premise in your argument here is flawed - that "the name really isn't an issue as long as one remembers." My point is that most people cannot think this far. I should have perhaps written this explicitly, but it is heavily implied in my OP nevertheless.

That is in fact what I am advocating though, I would contend, with greater practical efficiency.

 

Marriage recognized by the state allows use of benefits and courts designed to protect offspring. A state marriage is a contract between the parties and the state and is never over even after divorce.

 

Again, i must repeat, this thread is not a discussion of what the law IS but what the law SHOULD be.

 

So, how do you protect children if the State is not involved. Either by law, which is the State, or not at all.

 

Introduce laws relating to the gaurdianship of children. This is irrelevant to marriage, or rather a civil union. A civil union or marriage is not a requirement to be a guardian of children, nor does the reverse apply.

 

That is exactly what State recognized marriage is and does.

 

Actually it doesnt, but thats beside the point because whether it does or doesnt, it shouldnt.
There should be law regarding civil unions and separate law regarding children. There is no need or sense in integration of the two.

 

Then how would the state recognize a contract with the state for such legalities without a contract with the state?

 

No contract with the government is required for a civil union - only a contract between the parties consenting to be part of the union. You cant enter into marriage with the government.