Is there any real reason why government needs to be involved in marriage?

1. 51

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   Is there any real reason why government needs to be involved in marriage?
   
   There is no constitutional right to marriage based on the constitution.
   Marriage until recently was the domain of the states and they set the requirement for licensing marriage.
   Then the federal government took over and told the states to do as they were told.
   The federal government is responsible for any problems arising out of marriage, as they are the ones that used marriage to discriminate in their income tax, and giving benefits that don't exist outside of marriage.
   The feds are the one that demand status, color, marital, gender etc.
   Marriage doesn't resolve the issues of discrimination,
   
   

   report
2. 91

   lisavollrathposted 8 years ago

   There is no constitutional right to marriage in the Constitution, but there is a right to equal treatment under the law in the Fourteenth Amendment. The equal protection clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
   
   This extends to laws covering marriage, which is a civil contract. The problem with leaving it to the states to decide who can and can't get married is that a marriage could be performed and recognized in one state, and invalid in another, essentially revoking the couple's legal rights and privileges. So, a gay couple who is married in New York could travel to Texas, have a car accident, and not have the legal right as spouses to make medical decisions for their partner, even though they're legally married in another state. The Supreme Court decision put an end to that.

   report
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Basically you didn't answer the question, and the 14th amendment didn't give black men, or women the right to vote, and voting is part of the constitution. The SC didn't resolve any issues, it just decided a legal question.

      report
3. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 8 years ago

   
   
   Neither the federal or state government should be involved in telling two consenting adults who they can marry.
   Laws can only make it criminal to discriminate. It's time after the laws are passed that cause many people to become more tolerant.
   Our own declaration of independence states the following:
   "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are {created equal}, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"
   If it weren't for the federal government there are some states that would still have slavery. There are instances where the federal government acts on the behalf of the (United States) and the Supreme Court supersedes state courts. If we are not going to allow the federal government to intervene we may as well have 50 different countries.
   Ultimately the states have agreed to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. A citizen of a state is still a citizen of the nation.
   I'm not sure why anyone would care who their neighbor loves or marries. These people were already couples and oftentimes cohabitating. Why this such an hot button issue I will never understand. It's as though people feel by having marriage equality it affects their own marital choices. 
   Historically in the U.S. various groups (minorities, women, and LGBT people) have had to fight, protest, and in some instances die just to have the same rights guaranteed to others.
   If it were not for the federal government we'd still have Jim Crow laws in the south, women would not be allowed to vote, interracial couples would not be allowed to marry, there would be no FDA standards, no FICA to insure checking and savings accounts, National Institutes of Health and so on.
   Having marriage equality laws actually takes the government out of marriage, People who couldn't get married can now do so!
   The government is not forcing anyone to get married they're just trying to make sure those who want to get married have the same rights.
   By law the fact that a "marriage license" is required means all marriages are government sanctioned. It would be unfair to have one's marriage recognized as legal in one state but illegal if they relocate to another state.
   There will always be some federal laws that some folks in various states will disagree with. In some instances they'll scream for secession. In other instances they will cheer when the feds agree with them. If the SC had gone against marriage equality the upset people would be claiming the federal government has the final say.

   report
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The FDA, and FICA have failed us many times. The FDA has not really protected the people, and they have no test facilities they just review documentation. The Feds didn't protect us from 2008. But the ? is why do we need govt involvement for marriage

      report
4. 73

   aliasisposted 8 years ago

   Human rights should NEVER be left to the states. The Supreme Court absolutely needs to be the one to make these decisions - I guarantee that we'd still have a few states today that would have continued to outlaw interracial marriage if the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in for the sake of human rights in 1967. Are you saying no one should have stepped in for the sake of interracial marriage? I should hope not.
   
   Yes, there is a reason why the government needs to be involved in marriage, and that is because marriage is a LEGAL institution. It is insane to suggest that the government should not be involved in an institution which they control and assign legal rights and protections to.
   
   "The right to marriage" is another thing you're wrong about. The Supreme Court ruled last June that same sex marriage is a fundamental constitutional right under the 14th amendment. If you don't understand the Constitution, the thing about it is that we "amend" it with Supreme Court decisions. It's ever-evolving and newly interpreted in light of new cases. So yes, marriage is a right, including same-sex marriage. A quick google would give you the specifics of the ruling if you are interested.

   report
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Again, the SC doesn't resolve anything they just make a legal decision. Abortion is still not resolved. And the 14 amendment didn't give black men,or women the right to vote. It is the legislature that it tasked with making the laws, not the SC.

      report