One, the state co-opted a religious institution (marriage), and started giving benefits for it. (Doesn't matter why, though I suspect to encourage population growth or an increasing population of tax payers.) This crosses the separation of church and state principle. Government should not turn a religious institution into a civil one. (You know, like a day of worship...) We don't live in a theocracy, so it doesn't matter how your religion defines marriage. It is a religious institution and the government should have no say in the matter.
Two, if you want the government involved in marriage, and you're going to give rewards (tax benefits, asset transfer, etc.) to two people who enter a coupling contract, you can't arbitrarily disallow others to enter that same contract and receive those same rewards. You're giving one class of citizen a benefit that is out of reach of another. It's like giving a benefit to right-handed people only, or whites only. It is immoral and unethical and is anathema* to liberty. (*Oh, the irony!)
Three, you have to understand that if you give tax benefits to civil unions/marriages of two people contracting to commingle assets (and that's really all it is in the perception of the state), you have to also extend those benefits to three people contracting to commingle assets. As well as 4, 5, or 6 people... So long as all are consenting adults, it is unethical to deny benefits to this category of contracted union (bigamy, polygamy) while allowing those same benefits to another classification of contracted union (monogamy).
The solution to all this is: the government should get OUT of the "marriage" business.
2013-04-28 19:48:38
So under your plan does that mean only religious members of a church (that's filled out the correct paperwork) could marry (and wouldn't that be a violation of the first amendment) or would the government have to assay alimony and inheritance, as well as paternal/maternal responsibilities, etc. for any group of adults that make a claim that they were married?
The contract seems a fundamental human contract (and a popular one!) so government will always have a role -- even a utopian-libertarian must see that, right?
2013-05-23 09:42:00
This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything with the government treating all classes of citizens in a fair manner.
The government should not exclude some class of citizen from entering into a contract that is tax-beneficial while allowing another class to do so.
The only part of the government that should come into play is the justice system. The courts have a role in determining fraud (contract breaking) and meting out the consequences thereof. But that's it.
The only reason the government is involved in marriage- from what I understand- is to provide tax benefits (an incentive) to make more tax-generating units (children). But it is unfair to give tax benefits to a man-woman co-habitation/commingling contract and not to a man-man, or a man-woman-woman, or a man-man-man, and every iteration thereafter...
My solution actually has the government not incentivizing marriage; that is, they have nothing to do with it! You want to get "married," go to your preferred marriage services provider and get it done. Afterward, bring the resulting contract to court to have it notarized/validated/whatever. Within that contract are all the points you mention: alimony in case of dissolution, inheritance, responsibilities, etc.
Is that clearer?
2013-05-23 09:59:59
Let me add one more thing: the Christian marriage covenant is a form of a co-habitation/commingling contract. It is a contract called "marriage."
The co-habitation/commingling contract into which you would enter would not be considered a "marriage" under this definition. You could call yours a "civil union."
It doesn't matter what we call our contracts. What matters is that we have entered into a contract. That's it.
If the government wants to give me tax benefits for my contract, they should extend those benefits to you, as well, even if your contract has more than two parties, or whose parties are of the same gender.
It would be better, however, to just cut out the tax benefits entirely and let people do what they want when it comes to forming relationships and contracts.
2013-05-24 10:22:02
I don't completely disagree -- actually it's fairer to say that I mostly agree. I think you view the government's reason for a marriage incentive a bit too narrowly, though.
Government, being tasked with ensuring a well-functioning society, sees benefits to marriage beyond just procreation. Family ties, community relations, estate management, having a partner increases work attendance/performance, etc.
But while I'm not as anti-tax as I think you are, I agree that using taxes to influence citizen behavior is fraught with moral dangers and is mostly a bad idea (I am a smoker, after all).
Anyway, the hot question today is over gay marriage, but I think the trend is clear: gay marriage will eventually be made legal in the U. S.
What I wonder about, though, is polygamous marriage. When it was outlawed in the US, the arguments against it were poorly worded and probably best described as racist, reflecting a Victorian reasoning that I think would not be as persuasive today.
And the challenges will come.
Ideologically, plural marriage doesn't bother me. It doesn't appeal to me personally, but then, no form of marriage has held much appeal to me so far... But when I look at real-world examples of how it's practiced around the world, I have to agree with the majority of women's groups and say it's extremely detrimental to women's rights.
So when it comes to governing: is polygamy dangerously disruptive to society? I feel confident that gay marriage is not. I feel confident that child-marriage is. But polygamy?
Probably...??
If I went before the SCOTUS today and had to present an argument, I'd have to say that polygamy is not _necessarily_ a bad thing, but that apparently, humans can't manage it in a healthy way.
2013-06-01 20:29:42
So anyway -- what would it look like if the government did get out of the marriage business? Do you just mean via taxation policy? or do you propose they refuse to recognize any marriages and everyone's on their own to enforce inheritance, alimony, et al.?
2013-06-06 20:56:49
The only role of the government in marriage would be to hear grievances in the case of fraud and render judgments thereof. This is its role currently for all other forms of contracts, so there's nothing burdensome or novel in this approach. The marriage (commingling) contract is just that: an agreement between multiple parties for mutual benefit.
It's just that for Christians (and other religions), there are benefits, responsibilities, and expectations that aren't of a civil nature. These are irrelevant to government, of course, and not applicable to ALL marriages.
You would, of course, include a clause in the marriage contract that stipulates what happens to assets (etc.) at dissolution*. Inheritance has nothing to do with marriage. I can currently leave my assets to anybody I please, regardless of what other commitments (that don't contradict) I might have made. Alimony would be part of the marriage contract, provision for which would be included in the dissolution clause.
So, yes, the government, for all intents and purposes, is OUT of the "recognizing marriage" business. (Never should have been there in the first place.)
*I suspect there are some Christians who would be aghast at including a clause for divorce. "This is for life!" I would not begrudge them this, so maybe there would need to be a "default clause" that all marriage contracts are assumed to include. I'm sure there are many ways to handle this.
2013-06-08 12:40:49
Yeah, well put. And you're right about inheritance -- I just conflated those things without thinking about it. I suppose because I do, after all, come from a traditional household. My parents are Baptist, by the way, but were married in a civil ceremony by a JotP in Missouri, so -- not too Baptist, I suppose.
I guess where I'm confused is when you say "the state co-opted a religious institution (marriage)." Co-opted how? You realize, I hope, that you are perfectly free to go into the Church of That Bison on My Head (I'm High Mucky-muck of that particular church -- we don't require you to actually believe anything) and marry as many toasters as you want in as elaborate a religious ceremony as you wish (except I have to work in the morning) and the state can't do a thing about it. It's true that the government doesn't extend tax-credits to you or your toasters and won't enforce visitation rights when your toasters are in for repair (not in Texas, anyway -- maybe Oregon), but it's not illegal. I'm not convinced it's co-opted marriage merely by recognizing some of them.
2013-06-11 12:11:23
I guess what I mean is that the government has taken what was initially a religious contract and given it their "blessing" (heh), but only certain of those contracts.
I do not think it is fair (and therefore, not right) for the government to offer services to a subset of contracted relationships. IMHO, that would like offering services to only a subset of races, sexes, etc... All of which I'm against, purely on the basis of individual rights.
You're right. My marriage can be by my definition, I understand that and agree, but only if it's the governments definition can I get tax breaks and other benefits. Why should I have to enter into a male-female contract to get those benefits, when I prefer a male-female-female or female-female or whatever contract?
Do you think it's fair for the government to provide benefits (of any nature) to one subset of contracted relationships and not to others, especially when the deciding factor is of a religious nature? There might be cases where this is reasonable, but here? I don't think so.
2021-03-07 14:33:44
Hi there cklester.com,
Do you always seat with your computer working for a long time? Or you see yourself in a position where you always focus on something for a long time, like computer screens or Television? Well, if you are in this category, you must have had experiences with neck pain. Yes, I know, that can be very painful.
Fortunately, Here_s an instant solution for you my friend _ Smart Electric Neck Massager. This is an electric massager which when hung around your neck can give you the same relief feeling you get from a chiropractor.
It_s smart, portable, and affordable. Right now, it_s available at neckbc.com Online Store. We are offering 50% off on our product. The procurement process is very simple, just hit the buy button and we get it shipped right off to you.
To know more about this special device, you can visit here neckbc.com . Why don_t you say goodbye to that neck pain today?
We are expecting your order right away!