The Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business (Both Gay and Straight)!

[Icon O'Clast]

So many conservatives are up in arms about government's support of gay marriage, but they are missing the mark completely. In fact, they are part of the problem. They have the wrong premise to begin with. It is not up to the government to define what is and is not marriage. This is totally a religious question. If the government wants to make sure there is legal protection, that' fine, but it should not call it marriage. There could be civil unions (whether gay or straight) with laws pertaining to them. Get the government completely out of marriage.

 

[Occam's Banana]

There could be civil unions (whether gay or straight) with laws pertaining to them. Get the government completely out of marriage.

If you are just going to replace "marriage" with "civil unions," then what is the point?
You would only be changing the name of the thing people are going to argue about.

Get the government out of "marriage."
Get the government out of "civil unions."
Just get the government out. Full stop.

 

[Origanalist]

If you are just going to replace "marriage" with "civil unions," then what is the point?
You would only be changing the name of the thing people are going to argue about.

Get the government out of "marriage."
Get the government out of "civil unions."
Just get the government out. Full stop.

But, what would we argue about?

 

[Neil Desmond]

The way I understand it, basically females used to be sold by their fathers to other men like property & for the longest time that's how women were perceived - as property. Even today this notion seems to have not yet completely tapered off and once in a while it can still be seen how it's still lingering. I suppose that religious institutions came up with this concept of marriage to co-opt this idea of men owning women, but it still basically holds the principle that women are a man's property, which can be seen by mandates that wives submit to or obey their husbands.

I guess getting involved in religious affairs such as marriage is a nice way for government to make itself get larger while at the same time merging church and state together. People who love power and control tend to centralize things, and this is just another example. What's going on right now with Conservatives and Liberals is basically a competition for who gets their way when it comes to the concentration of power and control.

How exactly did the US government get mixed up with marriage, anyways? Was it perhaps after the Civil War by issuing "marriage licenses" to prevent "blacks" and "whites" from getting married to each other?

Anyways, it's all just more examples of why I consider myself a libertarian rather than a "conservative" (whatever that's really supposed to mean).

 

[Occam's Banana]

How exactly did the US government get mixed up with marriage, anyways? Was it perhaps after the Civil War by issuing "marriage licenses" to prevent "blacks" and "whites" from getting married to each other?

That's my understanding - at least for individual states' involvement in marriage.

I've heard that the original impetus for federal involvement in marriage was the Progressive movement's "public health" agenda (which was heavily shaped and informed by racialist and eugenicist concerns).

 

[phill4paul]

I was listening to an NPR show this afternoon and the issue was brought up by a caller. The caller just brought up the fact that government should just be out. How there would be no controversy anymore and we could just put the issue to rest. The pro-state gay marriage advocate dismissed him. Paraphrased: "Since that is not going to happen, we need to focus on marriage equality." So many times I hear conservatives say the same thing. "Since that is not going to happen, we need to not expand the government."

 

[Occam's Banana]

But, what would we argue about?

Oh, I'm sure we could come up with something ...

 

[Christian Liberty]

I was listening to an NPR show this afternoon and the issue was brought up by a caller. The caller just brought up the fact that government should just be out. How there would be no controversy anymore and we could just put the issue to rest. The pro-state gay marriage advocate dismissed him. Paraphrased: "Since that is not going to happen, we need to focus on marriage equality." So many times I hear conservatives say the same thing. "Since that is not going to happen, we need to not expand the government."

Well, the conservative is right that we shouldn't expand the government, but they are wrong to dismiss the ultimate goal of getting government out of marriage. So are the liberals. Neither side "gets it."

 

[LibForestPaul]

Money !!!

Tax liabilities...
Health Care...
Disability...
Soc Sec...
Medicaid...
Spousal support, child support.

Marriage laws = privileges. Imposing state control over private property.
(The business that must provide health care option. etc...)

That is why both sides want the state involved in marriage.