Is marriage relevant?

[Accountable]

If the Federal Government recognizes something for one subset of citizens, like marriage in the area of taxation, then it needs to be recognized for all... according to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It's a pretty simple concept. If the Federal Government didn't recognize marriage in any area, then the EPC would be irrelevant... and so would marriage for that matter.

Really? Legality is the only thing that makes marriage relevant? Now THAT's a good thread, there.

 

[MoonOwl]

*backs out of thread until I have a thought *

 

[Dana]

I don't believe a couple need to be married to have a long lasting commitment for life. It's just a bunch of paperwork and hassle if the relationship goes south. People are getting married nowadays for the wrong reasons and divorce seems to be skyrocketing.

 

[BornReady]

I don't think the government should be in the marriage business. Marriage would still have religious or social significance to some and that's fine. A person's church can give them a marriage certificate and the state can give them a civil union.

 

[Accountable]

*backs out of thread until I have a thought *

Coward.

I don't believe a couple need to be married to have a long lasting commitment for life. It's just a bunch of paperwork and hassle if the relationship goes south. People are getting married nowadays for the wrong reasons and divorce seems to be skyrocketing.

I don't think the government should be in the marriage business. Marriage would still have religious or social significance to some and that's fine. A person's church can give them a marriage certificate and the state can give them a civil union.

I agree. It would relieve a lot of stress if the gov't dropped any involvement in marriage at all. It would increase tax revenue. People could name anyone they want to be a next of kin or to be considered as family in the case of hospitalization.

 

[Kyle B]

Coward.


I agree. It would relieve a lot of stress if the gov't dropped any involvement in marriage at all. It would increase tax revenue. People could name anyone they want to be a next of kin or to be considered as family in the case of hospitalization.

What would happen in the situation where parents feud over assets and kids? The government would need to step in at that point.

 

[Accountable]

What would happen in the situation where parents feud over assets and kids? The government would need to step in at that point.

Just as they would in any property dispute, such as with business partners. That happens now with common-law marriages, doesn't it?

 

[Kyle B]

Just as they would in any property dispute, such as with business partners. That happens now with common-law marriages, doesn't it?

I thought about that right after I posted but decided to just see how you'd answer instead of deleting the post.

It seems to me that either way, the government would be involved, maybe slightly less or in a different way, but still involved.

 

[Tim]

Coward.


I agree. It would relieve a lot of stress if the gov't dropped any involvement in marriage at all. It would increase tax revenue. People could name anyone they want to be a next of kin or to be considered as family in the case of hospitalization.

Does that you wouldn't even want the government involved with civil unions?

 

[Accountable]

Does that you wouldn't even want the government involved with civil unions?

What would be the point?

 

[Leananshee]

Starting to sound like an anarchist....

If nothing else, documentation. Birth, death and marriage records have for many been the only thing to document that they were there. Ask any genealogist or historian how relevant those records are. Not to mention it ain't bad to have the option of going to the justice of the peace if you're not the churchgoing type.

Beyond that, really I don't think the government should define WHO can get married. The EPC does apply, though not directly, since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage it's defined by the states or the people where the states don't, arguably it can still regulate the manner in which it's defined.

As far as relevance, though, only the couple involved can ultimately determine that. Marriage has been trivialized by more and more people being raised in the thinking of the Me-First-Fuck-You generation. Can't have a marriage when all you give a shit about is you.

 

[Accountable]

Starting to sound like an anarchist....

If nothing else, documentation. Birth, death and marriage records have for many been the only thing to document that they were there. Ask any genealogist or historian how relevant those records are. Not to mention it ain't bad to have the option of going to the justice of the peace if you're not the churchgoing type.

In addition to birth, death, and marriage records we have tax records, bills, and property deeds. Marriage records are useful but not necessary documentation. Your last sentence here confuses me.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Leananshee]

The last post is about having a judge or magistrate marry a couple. There are many who would prefer not to be married in a church by a minister/priest/whatever. Having the former option, in my opinion, is a good one. With regard to records, though you may not consider them necessary, tradition and history weigh against you and historians would disagree.

 

[pjbleek]

I don't believe a couple need to be married to have a long lasting commitment for life. It's just a bunch of paperwork and hassle if the relationship goes south. People are getting married nowadays for the wrong reasons and divorce seems to be skyrocketing.

what are these "wrong reasons"?

 

[BornReady]

What would be the point?

For example, you would need a civil union so you could add your wife to your health insurance at work. Also, you would need a civil union so your wife could receive your social security benefits after you died. She might not have much social security if you were the primary bread winner.

 

[Accountable]

For example, you would need a civil union so you could add your wife to your health insurance at work. Also, you would need a civil union so your wife could receive your social security benefits after you died. She might not have much social security if you were the primary bread winner.

That last is valid, so long as Social Security is around. As for insurance, many employers allow employees to add their same-sex partner to their insurance. I see no reason why they couldn't then add any partner.