Why is government in the marriage business?

So Glenn Beck has inquired, obviously under the retarded impression, like many of the libertarian bent, that the question cannot reasonably considered anything but rhetorical, and that divesting government of any authority WRT marriage is an easy resolution to the "gay marriage" controversy. Since I am not so handicapped, it is my good pleasure to cite a purpose of government involvement in marriage that is not reasonably disputable: providing for the welfare of children when a marriage falls apart.

With that as a given, I invite those of you who agree with Beck on this point to say whether you're OK with parents settling custody disputes with, say, pistols at dawn, since no government involvement means no marriage contract is legally enforceable.

For those of you who are not willing to go quite that far, and think that marriage contracts should remain legally enforceable, but that government should provide no "default contract", do you think resolution of disputes based on "custom fit" contracts will not slow down the adjudication process, and provide opposing counsels with many more opportunities to raise objections, not to mention the value of their investment portfolios? And if the contract is written with no consideration for the welfare of the children, is the judge supposed to figuratively "cut the baby in half" if that's what the contract dictates?

 

The only reason this problem even exists is because marriage is now state-recognized, even though it is a religious tradition and as such should not be.

 

Marriage is a social contract. The American Taliban believes we all have a right to an AK-47, but not the right to marry someone we love.

 

What problem?

That may be the case according to Canadian law, but according to US law it is not; and while I am not much inclined to educate foreigners about church/state separation under the US Constitution, I am even less inclined to do so in this thread, where such discussion is off topic.

 

No no no I don't mean now, I mean historically marriage was a tradition started by religions. As such, it should, by all rights, fall under their jurisdiction: they can perform it on anyone they want to and can refuse to perform it on anyone they want to, because it's their religion and they can do what they want. Why the governments of the world decided to make a religious ceremony into common law is beyond me.

 

So you'd be OK with a church enforcing marriage contracts of its own design, consummated under its auspices. Right?

It appears that you did not comprehend the OP, and that you haven't a clue about the nature and purpose of marriage.

 

What? Of course I do. I'm saying that since it's a religious thing, it should be entirely religious. Civil unions? If you want to have some kind of government recognition of couples so you can give them benefits, go ahead. But marriage proper is religious - it should be handled entirely by a religion and should have no government benefits attached to it.

 

Then you're OK with churches enforcing alimony/child support judgments, which of course would be handed down by the church. How about the death penalty for adultery?

This thread is about marriage.

 

I come more from the position that because it is religious the government, as part of separation of church and state, should not be actively sanctioning it, rather than a "let the religious people do whatever they want" kind of thing. Have you read the Bible or Quran? Letting religions do whatever they want is the last thing I want.

 

So when you said you'd be OK with churches enforcing marriage contracts, you didn't mean it. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

I meant that it means nothing outside your religion. Churches can enforce marriage contracts - if in the end you don't want the marriage then either the church has to relent or you leave the church. Such is the way religion works.

With regards to children: most people would be sensible enough to, if marriage had no legal meaning, to get a civil union as well, so divorce and child custody cases would function much as they do now. If, for some reason, you had a religious marriage but no civil union, then you'd treat a child custody case as you would if the parents were unmarried under current law.

 

What in Hell does that have to do with churches being able to enforce marriage contracts?

So it can enforce the contract unless those who agreed to it say they can't - which means the church has no enforcement authority, which means it can't enforce marriage contracts.

Which is plenty bad enough even without considering the possibility of only one spouse leaving the church.

It is not, however, the way a marriage contract works, since that is a lifetime commitment.

 

What's the problem exactly? People should know what they're getting themselves into if it's part of their religion.

 

The word "marriage" should be removed from the law books. Any two consenting adults should be able to join in a civil union. If they want a church to recognize their pairing, that's their business.

 

The problem is that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say a church can enforce a lifetime contract and then turn around and say the parties to that contract can get out of it just by leaving the church.

 

There's a difference between performing a wedding ceremony and enforcing a legally binding contract.

God, why is this forum full of such retards?

 

It can't enforce anything - since it would be a purely religious matter, the couple would partake in it because they want to. It would not be any kind of legal contract, if anything it would just be a personal one with each other. Their church would likely be opposed to any kind of divorce, but ultimately they can't stop them from deciding not to live together if they want one. I suppose they could kick them out of their church, but they can't force them to be together.

All the legal crap associated with marriage would apply to civil unions, which the government could still give out. "Marriage", however, would not be, because it's religious - it would be separate.

Still not seeing the problem. It's just a redefinition of terms to separate church and state.

 

So marriage is all about providing stability for children once the marriage has fallen apart? What then of gay couples who cannot have children or of other couples who choose not to have children? Saying that marriage has anything to do with providing for the welfare of children is stupid. You could say that a marriage helps provide stability for children, but in this day and age more people divorce than stay married.

Simply put, people should take ownership of their offspring. Marriage has nothing to do with this.

 

And what about couples with children that never married, they get nothing from your authoritarian nanny state when they separate? they sort out their differences with pistols at dawn?

Prenuptial agreements can sort all these issues out, allowing people to make their own agreements.... like the big kids they are.

 

Then do me a big favor and get lost.

See above.

The question is better directed at someone who advocates no government involvement in marriage, don't you think?

If the government is out of the marriage business, why shouldn't they, if that's how they roll?

To be sure. What's that got to do with the OP?

 

Enforcement of legally binding contracts is a valid function of government. That's why government is in the marriage business.

Churches don't enforce law.

 

My wife and I were married by a judge. My sister & brother in law were married by a JP. Explain, in detail, EXACTLY how said marriages are "religious" in any way. Be specific.

 

Marriage is important to the Government because they want everything that you have and it is a perfect way to consolidate the wealth of two families and make it easier for them to collect it! LOL!

 

Thanks for nothing.

 

Well... you are all wrong.

It doesn't take a marriage to make a baby.
Religion is close, in that religion and law have long been intertwined.

The reason the government is involved, is because at its heart, it is a contract for the transfer of property. This is why the father "gives away" the bride, and why the bride vows to "obey" her husband. It is a legal contract for the transfer of chattel. A transfer of a ward... to a new master. This is why they came with dowry, because you must feed and care for them now etc ad naus. For all of the uproar about slavery, women were not recognized as people in this country long after abolition.

Government has no business in our personal relationships and its precedent in marriage is abhorrent. It's continued involvement is nothing more than taxes and power of information.

Get government out of marriage. The uninformed can still pretend the ceremony is romantic... I don't care.