Should government be involved in marriage at all?
Posted April 15th, 2008 by matthew13l
output
I've been wondering... Since marriage has traditionally been a religious ceremony, why does the government issue marriage certificates and such? Two people who are not religious at all can get a marriage certificate from their government, thereby removing any religious context of the term "marriage" and making it a meaningless ceremony. Basically, non-religious people get married so that the government can tell them that they are committed to each other. What's the purpose in that???
What are your thoughts on this? What would the consequences be if the government resigned all authority to govern marriage?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The practice began in the twenties
but it only applied to mixed-race couples.
http://www.nytimes.com/20...
I think the eugenics movement was roaring at about the same time.
"To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
Nope. Not in any way
Nope. Not in any way whatsoever. They weren’t back when America was still a great country, and there is no reason for them to be now.
Why government got involved in marriage in the first place!
As I understand it, the "State Marriage License" began sometime after the civil war. No Church in those days would marry a white person to a black person. The only option was for the mixed couple to live together, which made all their children bastards, according to the church. And a bastard child had no hope for a future in those days.
One by one, each State made a way for these mixed couples to legally marry outside of the church (marriage certificiates), through a document called a state "Marriage License".
All mainstream churches now require a State Marriage License before they will even marry anyone in their churches, because they given up their free right to exist as a church, for being a 501(3) (c) corporation. And as you know, the government sets the rules for being incorporated. It's the churches who failed the people here, not the government.
Shame on the God fearing people of this land, for letting this happen!
hjschaapman
Why government got involved in marriage in the first place!
As I understand it, the "State Marriage License" began sometime after the civil war. No Church in those days would marry a white person to a black person. The only option was for the mixed couple to live together, which made all their children bastards, according to the church. And a bastard child had no hope for a future in those days.
One by one, each State made a way for these mixed couples to legally marry outside of the church (marriage certificiates), through a document called a state "Marriage License".
All mainstream churches now require a State Marriage License before they will even marry anyone in their churches, because they given up their free right to exist as a church, for being a 501(3) (c) corporation. And as you know, the government sets the rules for being incorporated. It's the churches who failed the people here, not the government.
Shame on the God fearing people of this land, for letting this happen!
hjschaapman
Why government got involved in marriage in the first place!
As I understand it, the "State Marriage License" began sometime after the civil war. No Church in those days would marry a white person to a black person. The only option was for the mixed couple to live together, which made all their children bastards, according to the church. And a bastard child had no hope for a future in those days.
One by one, each State made a way for these mixed couples to legally marry outside of the church (marriage certificiates), through a document called a state "Marriage License".
All mainstream churches now require a State Marriage License before they will even marry anyone in their churches, because they given up their free right to exist as a church, for being a 501(3) (c) corporation. And as you know, the government sets the rules for being incorporated. It's the churches who failed the people here, not the government.
Shame on the God fearing people of this land, for letting this happen!
hjschaapman
Only as far as enforcing contracts.
Any other involvement in "marriage" is not the business of the Federal government and likely outside the bounds of the constitutions of most States.
Control
You need a licence so that they know what tax bracket to put you in, is all... it's easier on the paperwork for the banks as well. Why do you think the government awards you for getting a marriage licence? They like to know what the peole they own are doing... makes it easier to tax you accordingly.
Yes
Because marrying the right person is so important, not only for the happiness of the married couple but for their children and for society as a whole, all marriages should be arranged by government. The divorce rate proves that people are incapable of choosing their own marriage partners, so it is clear that only government is qualified to decide who would make a stable married couple.
There could be a government agency that studies compatibility and develops a computer program to select good mates. It would be a purely rational process, devoid of all the obscuring clouds of emotions. Also, the discrimination based on race, religion, culture, disability, appearance, intelligence, gender, odor and species that is so rampant in the privatized selection of marriage partners, could be eliminated. All would be treated equally. All would have an equal chance of finding marital bliss.
When you reach the age of 18 you would register with the marriage selective services and after a seemingly interminable wait (during which time you would be required to remain chaste) they would send you a letter with the name, address, and telephone number of your spouse-to-be. You would have 90 days in which to be married or face fines, flogging and prison. So you see it would be a voluntary system.
The Constitution gives the government broad authority to promote the general welfare. What could be more important to the general welfare than sensible marriage control? So do your part and sign up today!
Take two smart pills and call me in the morning, statist!
Marriage is between two (or more) people and their god, not the state.
The state, with its long and nosy tentacles, is not interested in the happiness of a couple or their family. They are interested in exactly three things: your money, maintaining their power, and extending their power. That includes stealing your kids, too!
Government deciding who would make a stable married couple? The same government that can't fix your potholes, synchronize your traffic lights, or solve your gang problems? HAH! Sorry, but privately-prearranged marriages were bad enough. You're advocating it be done on the taxpayer's dime? That's social engineering gone totally berserk!
A government agency to do this? More government? Are you a Paul supporter or not? Repeat after me: MORE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER! Now repeat it 20X. Then 20X more. Eventually it will sink in.
"Marriage Selective Services"? So if you want to stay single you become a draft dodger, too? Marry in 90 days? Most weddings take that long to figure out the guest list! Sorry, but if I took this approach in getting my wife I'd have been in a lousy marriage.
What a clusterf*** of a post this Acala has made!
Amen
Considering what Public education has done to our children-it's insane to even consider government arranged marriages-They would never pair any religious people...can't have that!
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
It will be voluntary
Don't worry Tannim, it will be voluntary! You can choose to be flogged rather than participate.
Flog you!
They can try, but they will fail.
My mother tried that when I was a kid. I took the yardstick from her hand, broke it into four pieces over my knee, and threw the pieces into the fireplace. She never tried that again.
"You shouldn't hit me, Johnny. My mother hit me once. Once."
Obviously Acala came back for seconds, and thirds, and all those blows to the rear gave him some pretty bad brain damage!
LOL!
I love it.
Can I vote for you for president?
And will you also institute fertility licensing? Because I think the government should also have a say in when we should be allowed to have children, and how many.
Thanks, Acala, for helping promote the general welfare of our homeland.
Yes
I will serve if elected.
I agree with what you say about fertility licensing. I have thought long and hard about it and think that the best way to achieve full compliance would be to implant contraceptive devices in all women at puberty when they get their adult RFID. When the local population authority determines that a particular couple is ready to reproduce, and they have filled out the proper forms, paid the fee, and been fully tested, then the contraceptive device can be temporarily disabled to allow conception (and be enabled again at delivery of the baby to the educational authority).
An alternative would be to allow only party officials to reproduce with partners chosen from the population. Of course the program would be voluntary, with the chosen partners facing fines, whippings and prison for choosing not to participate.
Just to be certain...
...you will allow those of us who wish to climb the party leadership ladder to reproduce genetically-engineered female children whom we can then later trade into the Party Breeding Agency for positions of authority? Right?
Cause if not, I'm outta here and will start my own Motherland, which will of course crush yours.
LOL
Ahahahahaha! It's on!!!!!
:)
Your Motherland are belong to us!
I was just waiting for a remark like that...
...and the nerd that I am found it just as funny as ever.
With posts like these...
Your fertility license should be revoked.
And people wonder why I say 95% of people are political idiots, and the other 5% either try to reform the system or exploit it...Acala is definitely in the 95%, and has overdosed on Orwell.
Sacrasm
You do realize that Acala and I have been enjoying a bit of banter through sarcasm and role playing, right?
That's not funny,
Not at all.
I got a chuckle out of it
I got a chuckle out of it AND thought it was kind of clever ;-) Then again, maybe I just have a warped sense of humor ;-)
Acala, she's approved
Issue her a spouse and a fertility license, pronto!
It is with great honor that
It is with great honor that I receive your approval. It has always been my life's ambition as a female to become a breeder for the state. Awesome!!
Congratulations!
There is no greater service to the Motherland! We will be coming by your home shortly to . . . ahem . . . induct you into the program.
I knew you'd be pleased!
I knew you'd be pleased because I've been monitoring your email and your phone conversations, and there was that letter you wrote to your best friend, too. Based on this gathered intelligence, we thought you'd be particularly useful to the State.
Congratulations!!!!
ZOMG
Now I can tell my comrades that I have actually witnessed a female unit become licenced into the breeding program on a government approved communications medium! This will be THE story to share between work schedules, let me tell you...
~wipes tear from eye~
We've already told your comrades!
We've already told your comrades! I knew those phone numbers I've been collecting by tapping into your caller ID would come in useful!
Now tell me, "Thank You Big Brother for Making My Life More Convenient!"
You're welcome!
Oh, stop ... you make me
Oh, stop ... you make me want to cry when you wax sentimental like that!
I thought
I thought when I mentioned eliminating discrimination in marriage based on species it would have been clear, but Tennim was probably so steamed by then that they missed it. Makes me proud! Got to log off though. . .
No, I was trying to figure out what species you are.
Obviously it's one that flunked grammar, spelling, and history.
Your sarcasm is not only not funny, it's damned scary.
Apology
Please accept my apology. I can understand how someone would be angry if they thought I was serious. I did not intend to offend.
But not far off from current reality
It's only an issue of magnitude of control. Look how far we've descended into totalitarian statism so quickly. Who's to say 50 years from now our children and grandchildren won't be living in the sort of world where the government arranges your marriage and child bearing, all in the interest of preserving the State? I agree, it is a scary, chilling thought.
Methinks you understand now.
Thats the point. To scare you. Seems silly to many of us, but YOU thought it was believeable that someone could think that way. AND THEY DO!
You're right. It is scary! That's why we gather here.
What's scarier (or funny) is that you didn't see it.
I think they missed it
I, on the other hand, have been having a blast following along... keep it up for Amerika!!!!
Too Late!
I have already reproduced and I am teaching my spawn that happiness in life comes through complete submission to the authority of the Glorious State! And if they are obedient, they can become part of the Glorious State and demand obedience from others. Of course obedience will be voluntary. Anyone is free to choose fines, flogging and imprisonment as an alternative to complete and total submission.
HaY!
You forgot waterboarding... since it isn't technically physical abuse, that's what we're planning for our spawn....hehe.
Good idea!
My GF is a third grade teacher. She should be able to use waterboarding on her students! If the parents complain, she can just cite the higher moral authority of the Bush administration.
If you live in Texas
You could probably get away with kidnapping those 3rd graders, if you first notified the state that you would be bringing them a fresh batch of children to terrorize, as I am sure they will soon tire of the ones in custody now.
All you'd have to do...
is be certain that the children you are kidnapping are not on ~voluntary~ school-regulated drugs. These poor ~psychosis-challenged~ children are not much of a benefit to the Motherland... they are far too inquisitive. They may grow up to have minds of thier own! ~shocked look~.
So just trade em for some ridlin or prozac poster children.. and they'll thank you for it. You may even be invited into the Party!
Free the FLDS: Online Petition to the Governor of Texas
http://www.thepetitionsit...
We, the undersigned, urge Texan authorities to free the innocent women, children, and other members of the Fundamentalist LDS Church who are currently being detained. We demand that the Constitutional rights of the innocent be preserved, and that due process be served. As individuals are innocent until proven guilty, we call upon the Texas Governor to intervene in this matter and allow the women and children to return to their homes peacefully. We also demand an apology, most especially from the Texas CPS, for the heinous acts of aggression displayed in these recent events.
PLEASE SIGN AND PASS IT ALONG.
No they should not as Ron Paul has said
In the old days a marriage was a religious ceremony it had nothing to do with he government. A note memorizing the marriage was usually made in the inside the front cover of the bible. Now if you get married with the blessing of your government the government owns the marriage and rules over it.
It was never meant to be that way. As for the atheist why does he believe in marriage at all since it is a religious institution?
No
As an atheist I have no interest in the religious aspect of the ceremony, and as an opponent of big government I have no intention of asking bureaucrats to rubber-stamp my interpersonal relationships.
Moreover, I find it highly offensive that married couples get a tax break. Government has no business attempting to influence morality.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
NO
My liberty-minded home base of thought:
www.ponderthis.net
What counts as government involvement?
I will tell ya from a legal standpoint - the original reasons for government interference were rather benign(except on racial issues) . For one, government regulators made people take a physical before getting a marriage license. This prevented people, in a more distant time, from passing certain diseases to one another or to their (future) offspring. I think polio and a few others come to mind on this point. Of course now, those diseases are for the most part completely under control. Although, i guess an argument could be made that testing people for AIDS or something might make sense, although the argument is much weaker compared to when polio was crippling kids all over the country as the incidence of heterosexual aids transmisison are much lower than polio outbreaks 80 yrs ago.
Second, there are criminal statutes that apply outlawing incest, and minors from getting married. I assume the government has an interest in preventing both of those things and most people do not mind that there is a law preventing incest or child-marriage. But is passing a law outlawing certain types of marriage the same thing as regulation of marriage? In a sense, the answer is yes.
At the same time, two adults who want to get married should be completely free to do so without getting permission from the state. So this question is tricky. Some governmental interference is needed to prevent the more criminal acts, governmental interference is not needed for consenting adults. Unfortuanately, the latter category gets all the attention and the others are so rare that it barely pops up (except for the polygamy sect in Texas which is all over the news lately).
POLIO???!
Polio is not a genetic or sexually transmitted disease! Blood tests were required by some states to check for gonorrhea and syphilus which were sexually transmitted diseases that could not be controlled until antibiotics came into use.
And even if....
...we are talking about sexually transmitted infections, these tests are pretty much useless today because most people do not wait until they get a marriage license to have sex.
Age of consent and level of consanguinity
Those are the two big areas that can be justified as legislatable, I believe. But don't our current age of consent and incest laws already cover that? Why special rules for marriage?
Most jurisdictions now, as I understand it, do not require blood tests or physicals. Those are pretty much antiquated and are based on the premise that only people who are legally married will procreate. Given that physicals and blood tests are not requisite to procreation by unmarried persons, these laws are relics of a previous age.
Agreed
Yes, I may have been wrong with regards to Polio - i dont practice family law and havent read the books in a long time. Suffice it to say the government used as an excuse the possible transmission of diseases as the reason to require physicals. As we all know, whatever disease it was is no longer a pressing issue so the physical is rather worthless.
As for age of consent, etc... Yes, it is already illegal (statutory rape) to have sex with minors. However, there are separate laws makign it illegal to marry a minor. Or to marry more than one spouse. Or to marry your sister. Or, in some cases, to intentionally leave the State with the intent to consumate a marriage in another State that would be illegal in the State you are leaving, etc...These are all governmental regulations of marriage and they are all State laws.
The federal government has no role whatsoever in marriage - as it is a traditional State/church function. But dont tell the current Republican party. They wont have any of that state's rights nonsense anymore. They have abandoned the 10th amendment to their everlasting shame.