Marriage should be enforced by the government as it is in essence a legally binding contract. Without marriage there would be no protection if one spouse dies without leaving a will or for alimony or monetary support if breakdown of relationship occurred. Marriage is a formal legal relationship which both spouses enter into willingly and they should have full knowledge of all the consequences that derive from such a large commitment. Too many people in today's culture see marriage as a celebration, a party, something they can enter into lightly as it is "easy to get divorced" therefore I think the government should be enforcing the legal contract of marriage as it protects both parties and children involved. Similarly if they didn't enforce it then in essence what would be the point of marriage? Yes I understand people get married because they are in love, or want to start a family or for religious reasons but it all comes down to the fact that if it wasn't a legal contract then marriage itself would just be a celebration of relationship without any consequences.
If marriage was a legal contract enforced by the government, people would think harder about getting married in the first place. I think with the divorce rate being so high, that we need this type of change to restore marriage to it's original meaning and purpose of a stable family and lasting relationship.
Marriage is a bonding between two hearts and souls. Nowadays, the marriage break-up numbers have increased to a larger extent. If marriage becomes a legal contract, it will provide more security, particularly for woman. It will be helpful for the wives to get appropriate money from their husbands for their living in case of break ups.
Marriage is first and foremost a social institution to create a stable, two-parent family for the making and raising of children. Every major civilization has held that marriage is between a man and a woman (sometimes more than 1 woman). Children are helpless without their parents. Even step-families and the care of one parent is inferior. The greatest risk factor by 3 (if not more) for teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, going to jail, committing suicide and mental illness is lack of the biological father in the house. If the risk of a bad outcome goes from 1-3% to 5-30%, why take the risk that there will be fewer intact families? If children do so much worse when raised by only a mother, why should we withhold society's full legal and criminal resources from seeking to protect that institution that produces the best outcome for the children? We must have marriage protected and enforced by the government; it literally is for the children.
In early Australia, divorce was never a way of living, everyone's worldviews and attitudes towards relationships is that it was a binding contract and determined by love, not the law. Today's views by especially the younger generations are extreme and absurd, especially gay marriage. Its not right. God married Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Yes, it should be a contract, but the government is dictating some pretty horrendous terms these days by virtue of family laws and no-fault divorce.
First off - EVERY divorce should require very real fault to move forward, and "boredom", or "I saw a hotter (or richer) person" shouldn't be one of them.
Second - Breach of your vows should mean you are not entitled to any part of the other party's assets, regardless of gender.
Third, AND MOST IMPORTANT - Child custody should be awarded to the person who is NOT at fault in the divorce. They demonstrated better character by NOT being the abuser/cheater/philanderer/drug addict. As soon as one person is determined to be "at fault", the other person should receive the children.
A non contractual marriage is one where State do not interfere. Now state interfere in every aspect of marriage, and such interferences are largely anti-men. Every marriage is different as people are different with different expectation and aspirations. State authorities interfere in marriage based on their political leanings, vote calculations and whims- it is far more better to have a marriage contract which state will interfere based on will of the parties based on written contract, rather than whimsical interference of the state. As state interference in inevitable, it is better that such interference is based on contractual will of the parties.
The ease of obtaining an divorce leaves little for people to think about before they marry. There is a very easy "opt-out" if something goes wrong. Not that divorce should never be an option if the parties want it, but enforcement of marriage as a contract gives couples who are already married the incentive to work to save their union before seeking a divorce. Married couples are a desirable unit within our society.
Marriage is a very sanctified relation erected on the edifice of mutual love, respect, understanding, and desire for commitment. Marriage should be a well-thought and well-organized agreement between the husband and wife where both agree to abide by each other's wishes and desires as well as the wishes of their respective families. It creates a greater sense of security and confidence for both the husband and wife. Both develop the confidence that as per the agreement, his or her partner will always be there with him or her, in all situations.
Only those that have been divorced and it did not end well are the ones that are stating it should not be a "contract." When in fact, the marriage contract is not only for you and your spouse, but for your combination of health insurance, children, changing your name, sharing in assets, etc.
I just wish there were contracts that had to be signed when you had a child, including parenting classes mandatory as such there is for marriage.
To have children, you should have to have a legal marriage contract enforced by the government, otherwise you end up with a bunch of almost irresolvable conflicts. If you just want to "partner up" and claim "marriage" when you're not going to raise children, you don't really have any business trying to claim that you're "married".
If marriage should not be considered a legal contract, then the benefits that come a long with marriage (i.e. tax breaks, the ability to file joint taxes, etc) should be dissolved, and everyone should be treated as a single person. Tax breaks are nothing more than the government "enforcing" a marriage and awarding befits to couples that chose to be married. If the government is allowed to award benefits to married couples then the government prime facia becomes a party to the contract and has every right to enforce that contract, just as a party to a private sales contract.
If people got married without writing an official contract, it would be very difficult to decide what happens in the event of a divorce. Current rules provide compensation for spouses who sacrificed their careers in service of the marriage or to raise children. But, these people would be unfairly penalized if the government did not enforce an equitable distribution of property and wealth.
As unromantic as the notion may seem, marriage in our modern society is far more about contractual obligations, tax incentives, and custodial issues (involving the parenting of children and power of attorney decisions) than it is about "love". There is nothing that stops two people who are in love from simply co-habitating together in this day and age. People primarily get married to enjoy the government-backed benefits that it provides. Thus, any disputes that occur (such as in divorce) must be considered covered by contractual law. As an extension of this, I believe it would further be illegal to prevent any two consenting adults from being married, much as it's illegal to prevent two consenting adults from entering into any sort of contract together.
Marriage is no more than a contract that two people of legal age sign. It should be considered by the government as a legal contract, and should be held to the same standards as any other contract. The signatures of two adults committing to form a marriage partnership is no different than two business people making a deal and signing an agreement.
If two people want to form a contract and call it a marriage contract, then yes, of course it should carry the full weight of any laws that apply. I do not think that the government should be able to determine who can and cannot enter into such a contract, but I do not see why a marriage contract should be any different than any other.
People could argue that the bible also tells you to follow your government, but it also says follow your government unto God. Read here http://carm.Org/questions/skeptics-ask/should-we-obey-governments-are-bad Marriage should not be a contract between man, woman and the government. Especially when the government now accepts same sex marriage which is against the principles of God.
The concept of marriage comes directly from the Bible....when two become one. Therefore it's a convenant with God and God only. Many have talked about the so called "advantages" of being legally bound by contract marriage by the government. In hopes that I don't sound too simplistic here....I still would have to say that the sole purpose of governmental involvement was based on the money they could receive by doing so. You have to have a "license" for virtually everything and anything one choses to do....even fishing.....and I certainly don't see the government giving lessons on how to be a better fisherman.
A friend of mine since high school was married for (23) years. Her husband had affairs with other women throughout, she went thru much misery and embarassment, yet stuck it out due to her high morals. He died. She receives a much deserved pension (something) of approximately $2000.00 monthly, because she was married to him more than (10) years. She recently was reunited with her first love and childhood sweetheart.....I know him too. She wants to marry, but if she does, she loses her pension. So being legally married has it's pitfalls as well.....and it's all about MONEY. I know this isn't what God had in mind when the covenant of marriage was introduced in the Bible. As such, I could not, cannot, support government involvement on the basis of their munipulational methods to receive more money....out of something so holy, spiritual and Godsent.
Injecting more Govt. oversight over something that is unnecessary makes little sense. Plus, the fact that gay people cannot do it as well, means it's obsolete, antiquated and ridiculous to still have this in modern society. The Govt. should focus on infrastructure and keeping us safe, that's it.
The government does not need to be in charge of, or regulate, marriage. Marriage is a personal choice, and it should be left to each individual. The government needs to perform the jobs it already has, and not create new ones.
I believe marriages are the province of the church of the couple getting married, not the government under which they live. Therefore, I do not believe that marriages should be a legal contract enforced by the government. I don't believe that the government has the right to determine the legality of any marriage.
if you have so little faith in you spouse that you would desire legal bondage for security, you should not marry in the first place. i guess god is not enough.
i feel two people are equally responsible and no outer body should force anything on any body.. marriage love is very personal the government should keep away from it
I do not feel that the government should be able to hold anyone that gets married to any legal obligations. I feel the only reason that the government is involved in the first place is because they can generate a higher tax bracket for couples they force to file jointly. This should be a religious issue and I feel that the government should stay out of people's personal lives.
The government has no place in a marriage because the founding fathers fought for freedom of individual choice. The government has no way of knowing who should and shouldn't get married. There is no government that can make two people love each other and stay together. That's a personal choice between husband and wife.
Personally I believe that marriage is a religious institution. Government generally recognizes marriage as a legal contract, but I don't think that government should have anything to do with establishing the legality of marriage or the enforcement of marriage. Doing so, in my opinion, is government infringement in matters of religion and is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Marriage is not a legal contract. It is an institution that allows two people to share their lives with each other. When you try to make it a legal contract the core concept of marriage, voluntary sharing gets violated and it becomes a chore. Government should not meddle in personal lives of people.
It seems to me the government already considers marriage a legal contract enforced by them. Think about this...you have to pay the courts to get a marriage license, you have to pay the courts to get a divorce, and your government taxes are different if you are married compared to if you are not. Therefore, it seems like the government already considers marriage to be a legal contract enforced by them. They should not, in my opinion, have anything to do with it. Marriage is a religious ceremony that should be enforced and proceeded over by the church of your choice. It is a proclamation of love between an man and a woman before God and everyone. Again, I say this as I have said many times before, the government works for us not the other way around. There is no place in marriage for the government to be involved.
It would be too much of a burden on the government to try to enforce contracts of married people. The pace at which the government gets things done is slow enough; we don't need to add to the problem by making them responsible for enforcing legal contracts regarding marriage. This is an absurd idea that could never work. The government shouldn't have any right in deciding if a couple should stay married.
Marriage is really just a state of mind. It has failed as a binding contract, as demonstrated by the divorce rate. Getting rid of the whole contract idea might actually help reverse that trend. As soon as the govt. gets in the middle of anything, it takes away instead of adding to the thing in question. In terms of marriage, besides getting tax breaks, the govt. has nothing to add.
Should marriage be a legal contract enforced by the government? No. I do not agree that love and personal relationships should be regulated by anyone except for those involved in said relationship. We are in the age of individualism, and relationships are formed by individuals. It should be the individuals that decide for themselves the details involving their relationship.
Civilly, marriage is a licensed status granted by the government with certain rights and obligations. Religiously, marriage is a covenant between loving people. The government should get out of the business of licensing marriages and instead recognize contracts between consenting adults. I advocate abolishing the marriage license and replacing it with civil unions that have full prenuptial contracts drawn. Leave marriage to the churches.
Is it any wonder why so many marriages are failing today? Lets try freedom for a change! They base all sorts of benefits off of marital status, and this creates all sorts of unintended consequences. Some couples get married for the wrong reasons, for instance tax purposes. Other people who are disabled and receive benefits find it very difficult to take the step of marriage due to having to give up benefits. Somehow the government thinks that when two people get married that money just miraculously appears from the sky - or that being married somehow makes the disabled parties less disabled. Its all just hypocrisy! If they would just take a more hands off approach to marriage and let God and the people involved work things out - then marriage could work like its supposed to. An agreement between two parties and their God.
Any kind of benefit (e.g. taxes; marriage can lower a couples' tax liability in most cases), and liabilities (e.g. property transfer, alimony, etc.) should not be regulated by government. Many people choose not to get married, or cannot marry in the way they wish to (e.g. same-sex marriage, polygamy, etc.). They in turn cannot receive these benefits In addition, the government should not place a bigger per capita tax burden on unmarried individuals. Declaration and deduction for dependents should be allowed, but should also be available to everyone, and structured in a way to better prevent abuse of the tax code. Any rights that liabilities due to property ownership, power of attorney, etc. would be more clearer, and more effectively handled through contracts agreed upon by individuals, not a generic 'marriage' contract.
I just cannot stand the fact that most Christians believe that you're only married in the eyes of God if you're "Legally" married. That being said is like saying that the Government has more power than God himself because they've now stated that Marriage the way God intended (two people making a covenant for each other) is now Illegal. This actually isn't true. The government Isn't saying that at all, they're just trying to Help with other issues such as finances, insurance, children, Money Issues.
If they believe that Marriage (the way God intended) was Illegal, then of course, it would be illegal to have sex without a marriage license - this isn't true whatsoever.
Also, the same government, who only God sees us as married, is allowing same sex marriages. Still think God sees us as married only if the Government recognizes it?
I'm actually not truly against the legal contract within Marriage - they're only trying to help you're marriage. They're not saying you aren't married if it isn't recognized by them, they're saying that they Recognize it in a way to help you out. If that were the case, what are known as truly illegal marriages Wouldn't be illegal.
Once again, I'm not againstT the contract, I actually feel that one should go with it if they decide to start a family. I'm just against the fact that Christians claim that that's the only way that God truly sees it as marriage.
The government shouldn't be worrying itself about the personal relationships of its citizens unless they are harming each other. It's a waste of government time and money and we have much greater things to worry about. Moreover, the government (parts of it) are using marriage laws in a way that is prejudiced against homosexual couples and uses it as a way to inject religion into politics.
People forget that marriage is a religious thing. Making it an official legal thing would take all the magic out of it. Plus, who we marry and have relations with is nothing to do with the government. Marriage isn't supposed to be equal for all types of people (homosexuals, heterosexuals, animals, objects), it is only meant for a single man and a single woman to bind in holy matrimony with god's blessing to live their lives together as a happy pair.
The state does not know how to handle thing fairly when it comes to the family court, why should we let them run marriage? They can't balance a budget or keep the streets safe so why do we let them in our households. What we do in our union is between you and me.
Use Civil Unions, therefore marriage is simply a ceremony. And people can choose to affirm that ceremony or not to.
If civil unions are adopted in place of marriage, the government will not be defining marriage. Which is a compliant of most conservatives. Gays will be allowed to have a marriage ceremony if they want to. No church should be forced into hosting, or doing the ceremony though.
Current marriage and family law is a joke in this country, and because of meddlesome family courts, divorces can cost more than a house or a supercar.
Biased family law and the prospect of someone using a judge to pry your kids away keep many men (and some women) away from marriage, and erode trust between genders in general.
Mandatory 50% asset forfeiture, 85% maternal custody rate, the legal slavery that is child support where men pay for a woman's "choice" -- meanwhile, many women use the biases of the system as a weapon against their husbands, or worse, as a form of residual income, bouncing from one man to the next, one child with each.
It has to stop -- Leave "marriage" in the religious world, and replace the legal designation of 'marriage' with a set of contracts for power of attorney, and with very real penalties for violation of vows. This should end no-fault divorce and prevent injustice to both parties in the event of a break-up.