S/O, should the government be marrying anyone?

[Anonymous]

This IS a religious rite. Are we in agreement that church and state should be separate?
To me, the government should not be marrying anyone any more than it should be baptizing people. To be fair, the government should just recognize civil unions and if you want to get "married" on top of that, find a church or other organization to do it for you.
This way, the government won't need to "legalize" gay marriage...or straight marriage. We can just recognize any kind of civil union and be on our way. If you oppose gay marriage, just join a chrch that does not condone it.

[Anonymous]

It's just a matter of semantics. Marriage is an age old legal partnership. The government has a role in terms of property ownership, taxes, inheritance, etc. The government's role is in getting their piece, and protecting the interests of the property owners (spouses and heirs). Also there are other rights withing marriage, ie next of kin, medical decision making, etc.

So yes you are right. But getting conservatives to agree to your logic will not be easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This IS a religious rite. Are we in agreement that church and state should be separate?
To me, the government should not be marrying anyone any more than it should be baptizing people. To be fair, the government should just recognize civil unions and if you want to get "married" on top of that, find a church or other organization to do it for you.
This way, the government won't need to "legalize" gay marriage...or straight marriage. We can just recognize any kind of civil union and be on our way. If you oppose gay marriage, just join a chrch that does not condone it.

Being married by JoP is not a religious ceremony, but civil, and is recognized as legal. You have to have a marriage certificate whether married by JP or church. So, the church part is frosting on the cake. All one must have to be married in the eyes of the law are civil documents and ceremony.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think the government should continue to encourage people to pool their resources and create shared households with people to whom they are not related by blood. Civil marriage is the best/easiest way to do this, and I think it should be available to all adults. There are benefits to communities and society when people live together more densely (although of course not in over-crowded conditions) and share the responsibilities of property maintenance and (when applicable) child-rearing. Not to mention that people are healthier when they are in (positive) committed relationships, so supporting those financially is a good investment long-term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I think the government should continue to encourage people to pool their resources and create shared households with people to whom they are not related by blood. Civil marriage is the best/easiest way to do this, and I think it should be available to all adults. There are benefits to communities and society when people live together more densely (although of course not in over-crowded conditions) and share the responsibilities of property maintenance and (when applicable) child-rearing. Not to mention that people are healthier when they are in (positive) committed relationships, so supporting those financially is a good investment long-term.

Then why not just call it civil union?
It matters to some that it is called marriage, so why don't we just change the name?
In essence the same thing, but no one is offended that the government is adulterating a term from the bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then why not just call it civil union?
It matters to some that it is called marriage, so why don't we just change the name?
In essence the same thing, but no one is offended that the government is adulterating a term from the bible.

I agree with your logic, but most people don't want to mess with the status quo, so I think your solution (which, again, I agree with) is a non-starter.