Why is marriage legislated by the government in the first place? And why isn't anyone discussing it?

SFC Nikhil Kumra — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:01:35 -0400

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???

Response by SGT Forrest Stewart made Jul 3 at 2015 8:05 AM

SGT Forrest Stewart — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:05:43 -0400

Hmmmm. Seems to make sense....

Response by CPL Hayward Johnson made Jul 3 at 2015 8:22 AM

CPL Hayward Johnson — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:22:16 -0400

Kind of takes land of the free right out the front door when you put it in this perspective.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 3 at 2015 8:29 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:29:30 -0400

This has been discussed .. to death.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 8:37 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:37:31 -0400

With you in principle, SFC Nikhil Kumra, and I've had this discussion many times with many people. The answer I usually get, and usually from fairly conservative people, is that the state has a vested interest in encouraging certain social structures, the nuclear family being one of them. In any state with a growing economy and/or a welfare system, a growing (or at very least stable) population is a desirable trait, so we give tax breaks to people who have children. Until recently in U.S. history, most children were the product of marriage, and most marriages produced children, so tax breaks for marriage as well. You can make a similar argument that children raised in homes with married parents enjoy a huge number of statistical advantages over those children who are not, and that those advantages contribute directly to lower crime rates, higher income, etc. -- all things that the government wants and therefore subsidizes. And because the government subsidizes it, the government gets to control it.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 3 at 2015 9:04 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:04:20 -0400

Believe it or not, there are several people and organizations that do talk about it. I've made reference to it several times in various posts, as have others.

But one of the main issues, is "rooting out the cancer." Once it got into the books, it got so deep and so involved in our code that it is nearly impossible to remove at this point. Think about it like "unbuilding a car." It's almost as tedious and time-consuming to do that as it is to build it in the first place.

Response by CWO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 9:05 AM

CWO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:05:02 -0400

Marriage licenses were created as a means of revenue generation. Marriage before the United States was formed was merely a contract between families, regardless of how the marriage was founded (ie: love vs arranged).
Marriage is a religious ceremony. All 50 states require that a marriage ceremony be performed by a member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.). A judge, a court clerk, or justices of the peace can also perform a marriage ceremony in most states. Regardless of what online church you were ordained by (free and easy to do here...http://www.themonastery.org/ordination), the simple fact is that you are required to be a religious figure in order to perform a marriage, therefore the beliefs of the religion of the officiant of the marriage should be upheld as to who they feel can get married.
A person who is Catholic has to ask permission from their bishop in order to marry outside of the faith, and if the bishop / priest does not agree to the union based on their faith, they can refuse to do the wedding.
In true seperation of church and state, I agree that the U.S. Government should abstain from mettling in individuals religious preferences, for worship or for marriage.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Jul 3 at 2015 11:15 AM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 11:15:59 -0400

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

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 3 at 2015 11:50 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 11:50:21 -0400

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!

Response by 1SG Robert B. made Jul 3 at 2015 12:58 PM

1SG Robert B. — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 12:58:02 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Jul 3 at 2015 2:39 PM

SGT Craig Northacker — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:39:03 -0400

The government (federal) simply (?) ruled on the constitutionality of marriage. There are a great many legal components associated with marriage for the protection of the entire family, both in life and death. Not having these legal delineations and priorities would create havoc in the courts and remove the ability to maintain some semblance of something or other. How the governments pervert it is another story.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Jul 3 at 2015 4:09 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 16:09:51 -0400

An excellent point.

Marriage is a special covenant of love, trust, and mutual dependency between a man and a woman, before God, for life.
There is no government in this definition, nor is there a church in this definition.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 3:53 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 15:53:14 -0400

Libertarians have been discussing this for years, Reason Magazine has brought it up multiple times throughout the decades.

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Jul 21 at 2015 3:06 PM

SPC Margaret Higgins — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:06:18 -0400

I am a Christian. I am an Episcopalian. I would never get married; anywhere but in a church of my faith. (Prayerfully my church).

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Sep 2 at 2015 5:55 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 17:55:31 -0400

I discuss it whenever I can. You shouldn't need 3rd party consent for relationships among adults. It's just the state trying to own you.

Response by SGT Apollo Sharpe made Sep 3 at 2015 5:47 PM

SGT Apollo Sharpe — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:47:58 -0400

Probably because marriage is older than religion & has it's roots in the legal process, since wives were once considered as property & marriage certificates were once little more than hand-receipts. You basically bought your wife with cattle back in those days. The Abrahamic religions aren't very old.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Sep 3 at 2015 6:34 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 18:34:14 -0400

Personally I think that the government should get totally out of marriage and that all financial benefits for marriage should be abolished. The current plan just forces single people to help pay for other people's kids. You had them, you support the. (Yes I do have one).

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 4 at 2015 9:35 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 09:35:38 -0400

Primarily because of the implications across state lines and the benefit criteria offered, or not, by the marriage being official.

Response by LTC David Brown made Dec 2 at 2015 8:39 AM

LTC David Brown — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 08:39:42 -0500

If you think government involved in the act of marriage is "fun" get a divorce!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2015 3:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 15:00:55 -0500

SFC Nikhil Kumra - I concur with you my friend.

Response by SSgt Thomas L. made Dec 3 at 2015 8:59 AM

SSgt Thomas L. — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 08:59:28 -0500

I've been saying this for a long time. The government should not be involved in your vow in your house of worship during your religious ritual. A religious figure should not be the officiator of a legal contract. A religious ritual should not be the same as the contract that bestows legal benefits to a domestic partner.

Response by MSG Roy Cheever made Mar 18 at 2022 6:49 PM

MSG Roy Cheever — Fri, 18 Mar 2022 18:49:04 -0400

Because it is the government that historically keeps records and has done so for centuries. How would we know that Jesus was born from the line of King David. I have a friend I met in the military. We were NCO’s that worked together for years and have been friends for almost thirty years. He always believed his families history was Puerto Rican. And most of them lived in New York for Generations. His Maternal Grandmother wanted him to take care of her legacy (for the rest of the families benefit) before she passed. He found through government documentation of the countries of Hungary, Spain and the U S. That in fact she and her husband were 1st cousins, had moved to Spain changed their names to DeJesus and immigrated to New York. So when all was finished he found he was not all Hispanic but was also a Hungarian Jew.
Now, isn’t tht a good enough reason for government to keep records?

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 18 at 2022 9:05 PM

Maj John Bell — Fri, 18 Mar 2022 21:05:09 -0400

There is no granting or withholding of permission at the county clerk, unless someone is already married.

A couple is free to marry in a religious ceremony. But marriage has civil ramifications as well as spiritual ramifications. All those civil ramifications can be met through other legal documents with the aid of an attorney at great expense, or a small fee at the county courthouse.