Posted on Jul 3, 2015
Why is marriage legislated by the government in the first place? And why isn't anyone discussing it?
6.04K
40
31
13
13
0
Really, at the end of the day, I cannot think of one real benefit that outshines the fact that a person has to go to a county clerk and get "permission" from the government to get married.
Marriage should be between two individuals, and if they believe in God, then two individuals and God.
Government, be it state or any other level, has always discriminated against its citizens and have controlled who can get married, and who can't, using "tax benefits" as a carrot and stick. This seems hardly worth it.
All other benefits, health, life insurance, at least in the civilian world, you do not necessarily have to show a marriage license, just add the individual to your benefits, and pay. So "official certification" is hardly a reason to hand over your rights, as we have for GENERATIONS.
Lawsuits about discrimination would essentially disappear as churches could choose to marry whatever aligns with their beliefs, and other organizations who marry those of differing lifestyles could practice whatever they want as well. We could allow private organizations to marry whoever they want, and not every organization is forced one way or another. True freedom in every sense of the word, without government discrimination.
And if you think that your government-issued marriage certificate defines your marriage, or makes it "official" .... then you seriously need to get marriage counseling, because you might be defining the entire definition of marriage wrong.
The entire idea of government legislated marriage does not make any sense. Why aren't these activist groups, gay, straight or otherwise, banning together for this common cause of eliminating government out of the equation???
Marriage should be between two individuals, and if they believe in God, then two individuals and God.
Government, be it state or any other level, has always discriminated against its citizens and have controlled who can get married, and who can't, using "tax benefits" as a carrot and stick. This seems hardly worth it.
All other benefits, health, life insurance, at least in the civilian world, you do not necessarily have to show a marriage license, just add the individual to your benefits, and pay. So "official certification" is hardly a reason to hand over your rights, as we have for GENERATIONS.
Lawsuits about discrimination would essentially disappear as churches could choose to marry whatever aligns with their beliefs, and other organizations who marry those of differing lifestyles could practice whatever they want as well. We could allow private organizations to marry whoever they want, and not every organization is forced one way or another. True freedom in every sense of the word, without government discrimination.
And if you think that your government-issued marriage certificate defines your marriage, or makes it "official" .... then you seriously need to get marriage counseling, because you might be defining the entire definition of marriage wrong.
The entire idea of government legislated marriage does not make any sense. Why aren't these activist groups, gay, straight or otherwise, banning together for this common cause of eliminating government out of the equation???
Marriage
LGBTQ+
Christianity
Family
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 22
5
5
0
It involves the government because a married couple receives a benefit from the government. Want to get a married tax rate? Want to have dependents recognized by the government as a Soldier? I think there is an inherent desire for the government to encourage marriage and the "nuclear" family, so therefore they have to incentivize it for people to desire to do it through the government. It also protects married couples from each other in that there is a legal contract between the two and in the case of divorce the assets are (sometimes) equitably split and the person with the responsibility for the kids getting a court ordered set amount of monetary support from the non-custodial parent. A good example is the housewife who lets say gets a college degree, meets husband, gives up a career to stay home with the kids, husband finds younger version and splits, and she is stuck with the financial burden. Without a legally binding agreement between the two she would be stuck like chuck with no recourse. So in essence, the government gets involved with marriage to a. generate some small revenue (at the local level) b. have stable, legally obligated families as citizens c. protect the partners in the agreement in case one decides they don't desire having the responsibility of kids or spouse any more. Would it be better without the government in it? Probably, but there would still need to be some safeguards in place to ensure in the case of a split, both parties bear a burden financially for kids. As far as this whole craziness over gay marriage, I believe all couples should be able to engage in a legally binding agreement and all the benefits and problems that come with it. The benefits are from the government and states, everyone should entitled to the same access to them. If the church does not belong involved in the law/state/government, than there should be no moral quandary about whether gay couples should be allowed to marry. it is a legal agreement, not nessaraily a secular one.
(5)
(0)
2
2
0
So .. how do you get a divorce?
From your church? What if you don't go to church? What if the church doesn't like you?
Are you suggesting Sharia law!
From your church? What if you don't go to church? What if the church doesn't like you?
Are you suggesting Sharia law!
(2)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
LTC Yinon Weiss As I have stated before, the contract you would have to draw to cover the scope of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage would be the size of the LA / New York phone directory. The rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage have been codified in over 2,000 years of common law. All this for the ridiculous low cost of the License.
(1)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - The existence of a mass bureaucratic headache created by the government doesn't seem like a good justification for the existence of more government headaches. We don't need a government license to have children... why should the government determine which consenting adults can marry and which cannot? It doesn't seem like something we need the government for.
(0)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
OK .. one more time ... Marriage is a legal state .. the Government administers the Law. Or are you one of those opposed to the "rule of law" concept?
(1)
(0)
SGT Apollo Sharpe
LTC Yinon Weiss - Judging by a large bulk of the kids running around & the uselessness of many of the parents, people really should be required to obtain a license before having kids. In fact, 1 license per child.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Just to get more money out of our pocket. I will this with the on going unholy controversy......we Christians answer go God in our Marriage.....not to the courts....It may be illegally recognized by the SCOTUS.....certain marriages will not be honored by our God and Father in heaven
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google