why is the governement in the marriage business anymore?
Question by marckadrian: why is the governement in the marriage business anymore?
should the government be in the business of legalizing adult relationships in any way shape or form?
note that i said, ‘adult’ relationships, not the relationship of a parent to a child.
biological parents are always responsible for their offspring, within the bounds of marriage or not, so they need not be considered in answering this question.
if adjustments to laws governing, for example, the provision of social security benefits, ensured that all individuals received appropriate retirement benefits, and given that matters like wills and probate always CAN be settled ad hoc, is there a reason, for a ‘power vested in (whomever) by the STATE’ to sanction relationships between consenting adults?
regarding benefits like ‘social stability,’ etc., that there may well be better ways of structuring a just and productive society, & that primogeniture can certainly remain intact via legal contracts no matter what that structure might be.
mamabear: ok, thanks for the info. but let’s assume everyone knows these things, or can easily find those facts.
let’s also assume we can make adjustments to social programs to ensure that women (or men) who stay at home to care for children are entitled to social security benefits comensurate with the actual work they do (comparable to physical labor at high union wages, i’d say! or at least that of a teacher’s salary, which should probably be doubled everywhere as well.)
take children out of the picture, and shouldn’t all adults just assume responsibility for themselves, and shoudln’t all contracts between adults with regard to their personal relationships be private, not subject to public regulation?
should the government be involved at all where a man and a woman, a man and a man, three women and a man, or five men want to consider themselves committed to one another?
why is a religious ceremony and commitment (marriage) any of the government’s business?
regarding an alternative: why does there need to be an ‘alternative?’ doesn’t any “alternative” also suggest some overarching, authorized, codified means of regulating adult relationships? why not leave it up to the adults involved without any alternative whatsoever?
the comment above should have read, why should the government be involved in religious and/or private commitments adults make to one another, contractually speaking.
irvin, forgive me but, ROFL!
it’s up to those of you who marry and consider your wedding vows holy to do that, not the government’s! are Christians’ commitments to one another as married people so tenuous that they need the government to enforce them??
gee, mamabear, i didn’t know that (sarcasm off).
now, what’s your point? that it’s a good thing or a bad thing for the government to be in the marriage business?
and oh, one more thing… did you know that this is a representative democracy we live in? that it’s a government, of, by and for the people, and that when it comes to social policy, we the people are supposedly able to change those policies? so, what exactly are you saying? that because the government regulates marriage, … what? what are you saying??! what’s your point? spit it out already!
M, pay attention. the question is not about adjudicating those civil matters. nobody has asked whether should we eliminate civil courts or civil procedings.
in other words, M, you’re all wrapped up in thinking that these issues need to be regulated in terms of something called, ‘marriage.’ if Martha dies intestate, why should her adult offspring be entiltled to anything she leaves behind? seems like they all should have thought of that long before Martha died, no? and if not, why should the state be involved? seems like it would be in the state’s best interest to simply claim the property and put it in the treasury, sell it at public auction… whatever.
Best answer:
Answer by mamabear
They were from the time marriage licenses began–they make money from them…
Tax wise, there is also a difference with married vs. single people.
Social Security benefits = an additional difference between the married and unmarried
VA Widow’s benefits–only go to married people–also that $ 250 (or whatever amount) Social Security gives towards burial–only goes to the legal spouse.
The US Census takes in this data every 10 years.
**Edit**
Do you realize that there used to be on-the-books laws–outlawing sodomy, oral sex, etc.–even within marriages? Do a history search–you’ll find them.
Polygamy is against the law (it is illegal to have more than one wife or one husband)…
So, this is not something new–the government has regulated how we live our adult lives for, probably, centuries.
What do you think? Answer below!