Thread: Government's Role In Marriage

In the same-sex marriage debate, there are two, polarized opinions. But there's also a third which argues that the government should play no role in legitimizing "marriage" at all. The libertarian perspective is that the government should recognize civil unions as a contractual agreement between two consenting adults and marriage should only be recognized by religious organizations at their own discretion.

I'm of the same opinion: the government should play a much more secular role by only recognizing civil unions. I also believe that the government shouldn't limit these contractual agreements (whether they be civil unions or marriages) to people of a specific sexual orientation. From my perspective, the obvious benefits of this are equal treatment by the federal government without infringing upon the rights of religious organizations, which should retain the right to define marriage however they wish.

Thoughts?

It's fairly simple for me. Remove any and all rights, privileges, and responsibilities associated with marriage. Civil Unions for everybody, and if they want to get married, fine with me, but it would only be a title and ceremony, and nothing more.

Originally Posted by Chase

In the same-sex marriage debate, there are two, polarized opinions. But there's also a third which argues that the government should play no role in legitimizing "marriage" at all. The libertarian perspective is that the government should recognize civil unions as a contractual agreement between two consenting adults and marriage should only be recognized by religious organizations at their own discretion.

Thoughts?

Remove the word "two" and we are good to go.

The inherent problem becomes a grandfathering in of all current "marriages" into civil unions. Past that it seems to be the most logical step, therefore will never happen.

Originally Posted by Chase

In the same-sex marriage debate, there are two, polarized opinions. But there's also a third which argues that the government should play no role in legitimizing "marriage" at all. The libertarian perspective is that the government should recognize civil unions as a contractual agreement between two consenting adults and marriage should only be recognized by religious organizations at their own discretion.

I'm of the same opinion: the government should play a much more secular role by only recognizing civil unions. I also believe that the government shouldn't limit these contractual agreements (whether they be civil unions or marriages) to people of a specific sexual orientation. From my perspective, the obvious benefits of this are equal treatment by the federal government without infringing upon the rights of religious organizations, which should retain the right to define marriage however they wish.

Thoughts?

As a major supporter of separation of church and state I agree. The only thing that concerns me is that spousal rights need to be included. As an insurance salesman for nine years I saw many times when putting a same sex spouse on medical coverage or death benefits or in some cases being admitted into the ICU.

The libertarian perspective is that the government should recognize civil unions as a contractual agreement between two consenting adults and marriage should only be recognized by religious organizations at their own discretion.

This sums up my views on marriage as well.

I see marriage as a legally binding contract and if a couple would like to have a church service to 'confirm' their contract.. then they should be able to - at their discretion.

Any legally binding contract, whether civil union or a marriage would have to have some level of government involvement - only due to the legal ramifications of writing up that contract or dissolving it. Now at what level... that is the question. Perhaps a marriage or civil union contract should be left up to the states to decide upon - leaving the feds out of it.

Originally Posted by TheGirlNextDoor

This sums up my views on marriage as well.

I see marriage as a legally binding contract and if a couple would like to have a church service to 'confirm' their contract.. then they should be able to - at their discretion.

Any legally binding contract, whether civil union or a marriage would have to have some level of government involvement - only due to the legal ramifications of writing up that contract or dissolving it. Now at what level... that is the question. Perhaps a marriage or civil union contract should be left up to the states to decide upon - leaving the feds out of it.

The only problem with the states issue is that if a couple married in a state that allowed same sex marriage moved to a state that did not what happens then? If we went strictly by the Constitution the second state would have to recognize their marriage. The rights of the individual is paramount.

Originally Posted by Feetie

The only problem with the states issue is that if a couple married in a state that allowed same sex marriage moved to a state that did not what happens then? If we went strictly by the Constitution the second state would have to recognize their marriage. The rights of the individual is paramount.

Good point. The only thing I would be able to offer up on that point of view, is that legally binding contracts once approved by one state, would at least have to be recognized by other states.

Example:

I have a will drawn up in Texas and then 5 years later move to Nevada. That will should be recognized in Nevada if I pass in that state and my executor carries out my wishes according to that legal documentation.

I would think the same could work in this civil union/marriage instance, providing it's kept a strictly legal (contractual) agreement and the issue of 'religion' is not brought into play.

Originally Posted by Agent Zero

It's fairly simple for me. Remove any and all rights, privileges, and responsibilities associated with marriage. Civil Unions for everybody, and if they want to get married, fine with me, but it would only be a title and ceremony, and nothing more.

^^^^ this.

Why can't those in civil unions use the "M" word to describe their union?