Why does the government get to determine who is allowed to marry?

1. 93

   peeplesposted 12 years ago

   Why does the government get to determine who is allowed to marry?
   
   Since all of the reasons why two gay people shouldn't marry are Religion related shouldn't the government not be allowed in that process?

   replyreport
2. 58

   WD Curry 111posted 12 years ago

   I think it might go beyond religion. This is an interesting time. This is not a modern issue. Practices existed as the norm in ancient times . . . sometimes , even figured into religion that became unacceptable as society changed.
   
   http://youtu.be/h3AvnWDYMpANow
   
   Some people want to go back.

   replyreport
3. 95

   SmartAndFunposted 12 years ago

   In my opinion the government should not be allowed to determine this. I believe it is a civil rights issue, and that eventually gays will be allowed to marry. The people of that time in the future will look back in astonishment that there was ever a time when gays were not allowed to marry, just like I look back now on the fact that at one point women were not allowed to vote and slavery was legal.
   
   If a church does not want to recognize gay marriage, or inter-religion marriage or marriage between divorcees for that matter, that is the right of the church to do so. I believe religions have the right to set their own rules. However, when it comes to marriage outside of a church, the government must offer the same benefits to all regardless of gender, sexual orientation, skin color, etc.

   replyreport
4. 81

   cyoung35posted 12 years ago

   It is all political as many companies that employ gay people that want to get married would have to pick up the bill for the family benefits. many companies are campaigning against same sex marriage and where there's money the government will follow.

   replyreport
5. 89

   Doc Snowposted 12 years ago

   No.  Modern marriage:
   
   1)  need not be religious.  (For example, my wife and I were married in a civil ceremony by a judge.)
   
   2)  carries legal consequences that can have intensely personal consequences--for example, child custody and care issues, hospital visitation, health care and insurance beneficiary rights, and end of  life decisions can all be affected by marital status.  These are matters of civil rights that need to be accommodated.
   
   Of course, no religion should be forced to marry same-sex couples if that violates the religion's precepts.  But correspondingly, the religion should not be able to impose those precepts upon fellow citizens who do not share them.

   replyreport
6. 78

   rafkenposted 12 years ago

   I do not think it is a question of whether or not they determine who marries who, so much as a question of which marriages they recognize. They must determine which marriages are to be recognized for principles of government allowances, rebates or pension benefits. With many religions in the world, many different people could claim to be "married" for many different reasons. A government that is one of a country of a stated religion, would normally apply that religions rules as being legal in that country. When a country proclaims to be of no set religion, then either guidelines have to be drawn up or everything excepted. Obviously the later could become overbearing, so the first is used. No one should be able to tell you who you want to spend your life with but if your choice does not compliment the good of the country, then perhaps you should not expect allowances from the government. You can always do what you want but you can never expect everybody to always be pleased with your choices, so equally you should not try to impose your preferences on others.

   replyreport
7. 0

   gogogoposted 12 years ago

   I believe it is more of an economical question, as it involves giving the other person certain benefits provided by the government to married couples, such as insurance benefits.

   replyreport
8. 59

   Jay L Kellyposted 12 years ago

   A lot of the time it is a question of whether the Governement is trying to impose their morality onto the legal system. Big example:
   
   R v Wilson - Heterosexual married couple. Husband brands his initials onto his
                       backside. They split up, she takes him to court claiming she didn't
                       give consent for this at the time. She needs medical attention. Court
                       holds that the husband has done nothing wrong.
   
   R v Brown - I group of consenting heterosexual men, caught performing s&m
                      sex acts on each other (e.g. whipping etc.) taken to court by the state
                      and, even though none of the men involved required any medical
                      attention, all held guilty for GBH.
   
   People working within the Governement are described as middle-minded for a reason. There is no cross-section and I think it's fair to say that those working to lead are country, in reality, know and understand very little to nothing about us, and yet it's their views and their reasoning the we must follow? Not fair! Plus, not allowing two people to do something because of their sexual orientation is the exact kind of discrimination that Governments are supposedly 'working against'.
   
   The Government should stay out of gay marriages as much as they stay out of everyone elses.

   replyreport
9. 60

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   This is what happens when something that is between the individuals concerned and God, only recognizing those unions "legitimized" by man...taking the divine right out of the picture.

   replyreport