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.
The emotional trauma caused by an affair has lasting impact not just on the betrayed spouse but direct and indirect families. Many times a betrayed spouse will turn to drugs or drinking causing poor work performance and possible termination. End result is social drain on food support or gov assisted therapy. Even children may be greatly effected by this needing support and therapy throughout life. Point is why have a certificate/contract that you can freely break hurting everyone around you and possible draining society but have absolutely no ramifications not to break it,.
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.
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.