- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should govt. be completely out of the marriage/family business?
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:42 am to kingbob
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:42 am to kingbob
I have read that religion didn't create marriage. So if it was around without religion, then to me it isn't a religious thing. I do believe it is up to each religion wether to marry people or not based on that religions teachings and the government shouldn't have a say in that.
1
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:42 am to kingbob
quote:
Believe it or not, many many do.
If I had to put a percentage to it, I'd say no more than 10-15% get married solely for the benefits. Most get married because they love each other and want to have a life together.
It's off base to assume gays don't want marriage for the same reasons.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:46 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
people get married purely for the tax/legal benefits?
Sure they do, just like some couples get divorced for tax/legal purposes. It's a rarer occasion but their are advantages for not being married.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:47 am to bamarep
quote:
And, "changing the word" is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard and just shows how ignorant we've dumbed ourselves down to be. You can put a prom dress on a pig and most people still recognize it to be a pig.
If you don't want to believe that that matters to people, then you're free to believe otherwise, but I guarantee you. Words matter, traditions matter, definitions matter. Personally, I don't care about this issue. However, because so many other people care, I engage in it to try to find solutions that work for everyone. I think I've got one. Where's yours?
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:48 am to iwasthere
The issue is equal treatment under the law vs the definition of a word that refers to a religious sacrament. If the Civil Rights Act had never been passed, gay marriage wouldn't even be an issue because private clubs, businesses, and property owners wouldn't have to fear the government forcing them to provide services for gay weddings.
The real solution is to just take the decision out of the government's hands and give it to the individual couples themselves as to whether or not they themselves should be allowed to be "married". Those people can call it whatever they want. The religious can call it whatever they want. However, if the government calls it what it will, that is perceived to be more authoritative and concrete. Under no rational, constitutional basis, should the federal government have any say as to whether or not two consenting adults can marry, for OR against. Therefore, government should not decide and take no part.
Freedom means the freedom for other people to do things you don't agree with, the freedom for you to disagree with them, and the freedom to go ahead and do things they disagree with as well. Freedom is a double-edged sword with no hilt.
The real solution is to just take the decision out of the government's hands and give it to the individual couples themselves as to whether or not they themselves should be allowed to be "married". Those people can call it whatever they want. The religious can call it whatever they want. However, if the government calls it what it will, that is perceived to be more authoritative and concrete. Under no rational, constitutional basis, should the federal government have any say as to whether or not two consenting adults can marry, for OR against. Therefore, government should not decide and take no part.
Freedom means the freedom for other people to do things you don't agree with, the freedom for you to disagree with them, and the freedom to go ahead and do things they disagree with as well. Freedom is a double-edged sword with no hilt.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:49 am to Homesick Tiger
I think so. Marriage and family should be the the purview of the church and community. If individuals want to contract certain reciprocal rights and responsbilities, either related to these family relations, or based on other affiliations/reasoning, it should not be a state function to either facilitate or impede grown folks arranging their personal and business affairs in a manner they see fit.
This has been my position for well over a decade.
This has been my position for well over a decade.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:51 am to kingbob
Marriage was around before religion was involved. Gays getting married and calling it marriage does nothing to straight people. Harms no one.
The "get govt out if marriage" is such a stupid waste of time. It's never gonna happen and it's a waste of time to even discuss it.
The "get govt out if marriage" is such a stupid waste of time. It's never gonna happen and it's a waste of time to even discuss it.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:55 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I think so. Marriage and family should be the the purview of the church and community. If individuals want to contract certain reciprocal rights and responsbilities, either related to these family relations, or based on other affiliations/reasoning, it should not be a state function to either facilitate or impede grown folks arranging their personal and business affairs in a manner they see fit.
So when the State of Louisiana states that it's against "public policy" to allow gay marriage, that's a better option than to just let them get married? Govt is not going away so the only realistic options are allow it or don't.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:56 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
The "get govt out if marriage" is such a stupid waste of time. It's never gonna happen and it's a waste of time to even discuss it.
I can almost guarantee a majority of those calling for that would be the first ones griping come tax return season when they see a huge swing in their tax liability as a result of not being able to filed a married, joint return.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:57 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
The "get govt out if marriage" is such a stupid waste of time. It's never gonna happen and it's a waste of time to even discuss it.
So was legal gay marriage a hundred years ago yet now the majority of the states recognize it. You don't think that a hundred years from now the government might possibly be out of the marriage business? I would think the best way to change things in the future is to discuss it in the present.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:58 am to The Spleen
quote:
I can almost guarantee a majority of those calling for that would be the first ones griping come tax return season when they see a huge swing in their tax liability as a result of not being able to filed a married, joint return.
Absolutely not because I'm in favor of eliminating the income tax completely. See the FAIR Tax Act.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:03 am to Homesick Tiger
I was initially for the government getting out of the marriage business, but thought about it some more and think they should stay in it. The government should give people financial incentives to stay in a monogomous relationship and raise a stable family.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:07 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
So when the State of Louisiana states that it's against "public policy" to allow gay marriage, that's a better option than to just let them get married?
I don't think the State should have anything to do with it - get married, don't get married.
If you want to contract certain reciprocal rights/responsibilities, we'll handle enforcement of that in civil court - nothing more, nothing less.
Just end the practice of marriage licenses, "divorces", etc. straight contract law can handle all of that - and we can make it separate from any issues of sexuality. Criminal law can still protect children from abuse.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:11 am to kingbob
quote:
But they don't. They encourage single mothers to not work and have an ever increasing number of kids out of wedlock because they get more money for each kid and if they work more than a minimum wage job or save their money, they lose their benefits (subsidized housing, free cell phone, free healthcare, food stamps, ect)
This is the thing that needs to change. I'd be up for the government paying for the first kid, but if you and your baby's daddy are both on welfare and can't support the kid, then you both receive a complementary sterilization. Could you imagine how much the crime rate would go down over the course of a generation if we implemented this policy? Granted, I'd give a break to couples who have applied for welfare during pregnancy, but that's it.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:15 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
I think so. Marriage and family should be the the purview of the church and community. If individuals want to contract certain reciprocal rights and responsbilities, either related to these family relations, or based on other affiliations/reasoning, it should not be a state function to either facilitate or impede grown folks arranging their personal and business affairs in a manner they see fit.
Making something available to more people isn't inventing a new thing. It's expanding it. Government has been involved with marriage since before the Reformation. It's not going to stop no matter how much people complain.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:21 am to Mickey Goldmill
Government was only involved with marriage because the religion WAS the government. When government and religion are separate, their institutions must remain separate as well. Does the constitution empower Congress to make laws regulating marriage? No, then that is up to the states to decide. However, there's also that amendment about freedom of religion, but another about equal treatment under the law. Then there's another law about banning discrimination.
What do you do when the U.S. Constitution, its amendments, state law, U.S. law, and civil rights intersect? Who decides? Often, the answer should be a step back to beg the question: "why do we need the government to decide this?"
The vast majority of the time, our problems as a nation stem from government making a decision it does not need to be making, not an incorrect or an unjust or illegal decision, just an unnecessary one.
Every decision made by government at the people's behest takes that decision out of the hands of those it directly effects. When people are free to decide, they will decide, for good or bad. However, more often than not, the aggregate of all of those millions of decisions tend to create a better policy in a free market society than the centralized decisions made by a government at least one step removed from the causes and consequences.
What do you do when the U.S. Constitution, its amendments, state law, U.S. law, and civil rights intersect? Who decides? Often, the answer should be a step back to beg the question: "why do we need the government to decide this?"
The vast majority of the time, our problems as a nation stem from government making a decision it does not need to be making, not an incorrect or an unjust or illegal decision, just an unnecessary one.
Every decision made by government at the people's behest takes that decision out of the hands of those it directly effects. When people are free to decide, they will decide, for good or bad. However, more often than not, the aggregate of all of those millions of decisions tend to create a better policy in a free market society than the centralized decisions made by a government at least one step removed from the causes and consequences.
This post was edited on 6/23/14 at 10:27 am
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:34 am to kingbob
quote:
Government was only involved with marriage because the religion WAS the government.
No.
quote:
In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church's power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church's seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:35 am to kingbob
I'm with kingbob on this, with a few added items to strengthen things:
1. Also eliminate the estate and gift tax.
2. Pass a Constitutional amendment that would allow a church, a minister, or other religious organization to refuse to perform any "marriage ceremony" for any reason, or any business to refuse to participate (bakeries, wedding photographers, etc.).
3. The FAIR Tax should be just that, not a VAT.
1. Also eliminate the estate and gift tax.
2. Pass a Constitutional amendment that would allow a church, a minister, or other religious organization to refuse to perform any "marriage ceremony" for any reason, or any business to refuse to participate (bakeries, wedding photographers, etc.).
3. The FAIR Tax should be just that, not a VAT.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:38 am to Homesick Tiger
Yes. I don't think government should even call it marriage. Make it a contractual partnership. Partners are each others legal beneficiaries, spell out tax status. Also spell out terms for dissolution of the partnership. Divorces are handled per the terms of the contract, not some sympathetic family court judge.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 10:45 am to The Spleen
quote:
the government encourages a strong family unit.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News