• Yes they should

    Yes I think that in order for a couple to pay their taxes the government is going to have to get involved with marriage to keep up with proper records and to archive the statistics in order that we keep records for future reference so that we can see how civilization is growing.

  • Everyone agrees on limits

    Even the people who say, "government should not be involved" turn right around and say "as long as the parties are such-and-such". Well, who is going to enforce your caveats? We can agree that close blood relatives, people who are below a certain age, and an arrangement where one or both parties are unwilling, should not be granted marriage. But how will this be monitored without government involvement?

  • Yes, in order to establish...

    Yes, in order to establish a common underlying framework and reciprocity across all 50 states and all US territories available equally to everyone.

    The States would then leverage this framework to further refine their own system that represents the electorate. The State version would be managed and regulated at the State level but would have to adhere to the principles established at the Federal level.

    Otherwise, without a Federal framework, you would have a confusing patchwork of varying State related systems and potential lack of reciprocity that would require the intervention of the Supreme Court or Congress to rectify. With the mobility of the average citizen increasing every decade, there is no reason that marriage and divorce laws should share a basic framework across the entire US. People are now leveraging this confusion for their own advantage in both marriage and divorce proceedings

  • Yes, the government should be involved in marriage.

    Marriage is a contract in which two people enter that has legal implications in terms of taxes and special rights for spouses. If the government is expected to recognize marriage at all, then it has an obligation to prevent incest or marriage between non-consenting non-adult legal entities. If you want the government administering licenses to consenting adults, then you want government involved in marriage to some degree.

  • No. There is zero reason.

    Marriage is simply a recognition between (usually) a man and a woman. The government has no role in that. It just... Doesn't..

    It is true that "married" couples have more opportunities, like tax deductions. I personally think that is completely unconstitutional. Granting tax deductions to a man and a woman just because they are married? Why can't I get married to some random woman and never see her again just for the tax deduction?

    Just leave marriage to the private to decide.

  • It's a personal choice.

    If the government offers incentives and benefits to becoming married then it discriminates against those who are single. It's like offering tax cuts to people if their group of friends contains a certain percentage of a certain race; there is no reason for the government to give incentives for people to go out and make personal relationships.

  • Let us decide!

    The government should leave marriage up the to the people involved in getting married. Weather is normal heterosexual, homosexual, polygamy, or even poly-fidelity, the people in Love should get to make that choice. As long as they are consenting adults the government should stay out off it. Sure the government is involved in the marriage license but that should only be there to prevent incest, minors, and non-consenting adults for being entered into it. As far as gender, how many, and things like that, leave it up to the people in love.

  • No way!

    Marriage is an extremely private matter, and should be left up to the couple to decide freely how it should go. Although, there are people in our government that think they need to stick their noses in everyone's business, it isn't right. The only thing they should have control over is the license. The should be the only jurisdiction they should have over it.

  • No, marriage is a private matter that does not affect others.

    Since marriage does not affect those outside the two individuals that are being married the government should have limited interference in the topic. The government should only be involved in the legal implications of taxes that comes along with marriage, but in terms of who can marry whom, the government should stay out.

  • Only to issue the license.

    The government has no business telling people who they can or can not marry, as long as the parties are all consenting adults. They should issue the license and then go ahead and mind their own business. We have much bigger problems in this country than who is getting married. How about we focus on what's important and stay out of people's personal lives?

  • Divorce is a Problem

    Divorce gives the one or both of the partners in the marriage zero reason to care about responsibility to who you get married to. The gooberment essential tells you its ok to f up as much as you want. Why? Because alimony!

    You have the ability to pretend your a sweet person get married get divorced and live off alimony.

    Because you can get divorced for any reason.

    Destruction of the family unit is perfectly ok thanks to the government. No need to worry. Destroy you children's lives and tell them to say by by to daddy! Or mommy! Mostly it's by by to daddy. Because mommy can live off alimony. Mommy no go to marriage counseling. She'll just fu#% it all up.

  • It is wrong.

    Let's talk about the Constitution. There is one very important amendment that's commonly ignored. It is the 9th Amendment, usually referred to as the "enumeration of rights". The 9th Amendment pretty much states that all of the human rights that aren't explicitly protect by the bill of rights are now protected by the 9th Amendment. The founders knew there were more rights than Amendments they could write, so they had to put this one in there. Now, under most circumstances, marriage is considered a right. Therefore, the government should not regulate it. Rules turn rights into privileges. We fought a war to insure that our rights as humans would never be considered privileges under a "privileged" ruling class ever again. But dictators will be dictators when they cannot see beyond their own ideologies, laws, and the peoples' views. Under dictatorships, rights matter very little, and the people will suffer. They always do.

  • Marriage for life

    To most people in North America recognize marriage doesn't last forever with divorce being common. Women have equal rights so government sanction marriage is no longer required. Many children aren't born into marriages today so the protection against incest is by education not law. This totally fixes the same sex marriage debate. No legal marriage means no debate. This would in no way effect religious unions or affect religious rights to own beliefs.

  • Marriage is an institution mired in sexism

    Marriage as an institution has long been touted as necessary for family, where family has stood for "property." In this way it was understood that a woman would go from her father's family to her husband's and she would not have any legal standing of her own, let alone property and that the marriage is a contract. Although recently the idea of what makes a marriage has begun to be redefined, there is nonetheless a long history of barring certain classes or races from joining this so called sacred institution and although the women's, civil and LBGTQ equal rights movements have gained victories no amount of leveling up can fix the inherent unfairness of the institution as it was created. This is why I believe marriage should not be a government run program but a private affair between consenting adults as they see fit and all entitlements benefiting the status quo of a married couple should be ceased.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.