Someone needs to have some sort of control over marriage. Without control, it would just be complete chaos. There would be no one to control who performs it, who someone can marry, or how many. Since the government is in charge of laws, they should therefore be the ones making the laws for marriage.
What will this country come to if we just start making laws to satisfy every little whining complaint? Gays only want to be married so they can get the benefits that the government provides for married couples. We should just say marriage is between one man and one woman to preserve our nation.
Marriage is a basic building block of society, a social structure that nearly every society has given certain advantages to, because it creates stability and brings new citizens into the world. All societies create ways of running themselves, and they're called governments. And, governments, in turn, publicly state, monitor and promote the way that society understands itself. Without shared understandings and goals, a society falls apart. So, yes, a society, as expressed in its government, has the right to say what marriage or any other social institution means, in that society.
Marriage, as an institution, has always had some sort of binding contract and legal definition, whether secular or religious in nature. The act of marriage binds together two people, with their property. It involves, in the United States, at least, a variety of benefits and privileges. If this does not have a definition set by the government, people can take advantage of the benefits afforded married couples.
Marriage is ultimately a legal relationship. The government has ability to define and to regulate legal relationships. This is not intended as commentary on what the appropriate definition of marriage is or what the best regulations would be, only to observe that the government has rights in this area.
This seems elementary. One could just as easily ask, "Should the government have the ability to define the term 'unemployed' for the purpose of determining eligibility for unemployment benefits?" Of course it should-- what's the alternative? Each individual defining it in his/her own way, declaring that he/she qualifies, and then stepping up to claim the benefits? Silly, right? The specific WAY in which government defines marriage is an entirely separate question than the one posed here. Between a man & a woman? Between two humans? Between up to five humans? The definition itself is clearly the subject of much debate, but if as a society we deem it advantageous for the government to treat married people differently than unmarried people, articulating an objective basis for such discrimination seems a valid and necessary role for government to play. Of course, that leads us to the question of whether government should even recognize marriage at all...
It seems only obvious that if our tax laws are established around the marital union then government must establish a definition for that union. Marriage has traditionally been known as the union between man and woman and it always should only refer to that sort of a union.
If there needs to be a new definition to define the relationship between same sex partners then let the government define that sort of union, but it will NOT be marriage. Call it WIDGET, so now that when you file your tax return, you would choose Single, Divorced, Married or Widget.
Widget unions can enjoy the same benefits of couples in marriage, and where they do not, legal action can be targeted at the discrepancies as necessary.
The government should have the right to define marriage because many laws and governmental regulations, such as the tax code, vary according to whether or not the subject individual is married. If the government had no right to define marriage, then it would be effectively ceding the definition and enforcement of its laws and regulations to non-governmental groups instead of to people elected by the voters and subject to the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. judicial system.
It is my belief that the government definitely has the right to define marriage. Marriage is a legal union and the government issues certificates for such unions which are legal documents. If the government does not have any authority over who gets married, it takes away the whole purpose of having a legal and binding contract between two individuals who wish to be married. Marriage comes with certain responsibilities and if the government does not have some control over this, why have marriage at all?
I think if everyone starts being liberal and let's anyone who is in love get married, our society would regret it. Young teens and older people could get married. Relatives could get married. I don't think just because you love someone, you have to marry them. There are many cousins who would be married if they could and that could be dangerous. Young people under the age of 18 always think they are in love and unless the government keeps some rules many people could ruin their lives.
Marriage is defined in the bible and is therefore not open for redefinition. The basic tenet is one man and one woman joined together. This does not mean that individuals in same sex relationships should have different or reduced human rights, just that their relationship is not a marriage. Civil partnerships should afford those rights rather than calling such arrangements a marriage.
Im actauly an attack helicopter and im gonna marry a car and we will make a submarine
Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang Gucci Gang
Now, if your real question is whether or not marriage should be regulated by the government, then I say yes. Marriage regulation protects children and preserves their rights of inheritance. I suspect in a few more decades a marriage contract will become passé or perhaps evolve into some other kind of contract. However, until then the best way to prevent children from into poverty and preventing people from walking away from their obligations is regulation.
Marriage is a religious tradition that is not the government's business. People have the right to do what they want behind closed doors. But those things need to stay behind closed doors, because that is just how it should work. The government getting involved with marriage is a religious intrusion, because marriage is the church's thing, and church and state are separated.
As I said, who one wants to marry is up to the people who are getting married, and it is NOT the government's say in the manner.
Marriage was not created by the government, every claim of the start of marriage goes to a religion, not a government. As such, due to separation of church and state the government has no right to tell a church of any denomination how they can define their idea of marriage. In addition no major religion endorses or permits same sex marriage. The government has the right to define a civil union but they have no right to define marriage.
However, as long as any civil rights, tax, property, benefits, or otherwise, are attached to the status of being married, the government has a role to ensure such benefits are equally available to all, regardless of sexual orientation. Unfortunately the government has it's fingers in this pot and now needs to define marriage to be inclusive. It seems very few were concerned when such benefits were attached to marriage when we were allowed to define marriage exclusively. It seems the real problem is that any rights whatsoever are attached to what has historically been a religious ordinance.
I am not certain, but pretty sure marriages were performed by churches, without state involvement, first and for many years. But once the government got involved (not sure how or why) and attached certain legal status to marriage, the die was cast, and today's ruling was inevitable. The government should not define what is a religious institution, but now, I'm afraid, they must.
The government did not create the institution of marriage - God did. For some reason, however, the government stepped in and began regulating it. Why? The government should not be able to define what has already been defined. Homosexuals can call it whatever they want but it is not "marriage!"
God instituted marriage, agreement between a man and a woman, no third party was needed no contract to sign. God never gave government the control of marriage, government and the church took it, and then they turned it into this mess of laws we now have. You can be married by the government and not have a relationship, you can have a relationship and commitment between a man and woman without government and by Gods law you are married.
The divine right of government has stopped. Government has made marriage more than God intended it to be, and government has turned it into a power that they were never meant to have.
It doesn't matter what people think of you. You are the one controlling your heart. You are the one to make choose what is right or wrong. No one can make your choices for you because they aren't the one controlling you. Take a stand in what you believe in. Don't listen to what others say about what you believe in. Hatred, love, trust, and loyalty is what you believe in so make yourself stand out don't blend in with the crowd and lie to yourself.
Let me say straight up that I think being involved in a gay marriage is wrong for a number of reasons. However, I do concede that free people do have the right to get "married" if they are both consensual. However, the government should not be involved in deciding what a marriage is. For one thing, marriage has been a religious institution for a long time, and thus the government defining marriage is actually a violation of the separation of church and state. Not only that, but if the government were to define marriage, it would be legally any couple that is married under the government would have to be recognized by anyone, regardless of whether you see them as married or not, for religious or practical reasons. This is could wind up being a violation of the First Amendment, and thus restricts freedom. I say leave it up to churches, private organizations, and the individuals to say what they want a marriage to be. The government just needs to stay out of it altogether.