Hello all, I have an issue I would like to address before I get into whether or not homosexual people should be able to marry each other.
My question is one of why the government should be concerned with marriage at all.
Right now if you are married (legally) without children, you recieve no benefits whatsoever from the government, as a matter of fact you get penalties when it comes to things like taxes, and later on in life, social security.
The only time marriage allows a benefit from the government is when children are also involved in the equation.
So the question is why should the goverment care at all about marriage? Why not keep track of families, and care providers for dependants, and leave marriage to the religions that define what it should be in their doctrine?
This isn't me trying to change the system, I just need to be filled in on where the governments role is necessary when it comes to marriage. I can think of situations, like military personell and the bonuses applied to marriages and such, and also the way insurance is interpretted, but these are very specific cases.
Tell me what you think.
edit: changed military officers to military personell.
[ February 25, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Chaz_King ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Bzzt. You are wrong on at least one count.
Survivorship rights, property rights, visitation rights (all stronger than a Power of Attorney, and much cheaper and easier to get) are also advantages of civil mariage.
In fact, there are purportedly some 1400 federal rights and responsibilities that civil marriage confers. Plus whatever your state adds.
-Bok
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
Thanks, Bok---I was about to say the same thing.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
First off thanks for the infos on what marriage entitles you too. That was more of what I needed to know.
So government plays a role in marriage to help deal with the legal issues of of property ownership, and child issues brought up from death of a partner, or divorce.
With this defined, then the next question becomes one of why sexuality matters in the definition of marriage as far as the government is concerned?
The relationships don't change emotinally or financialy just because the relationship involves two people of the same sex, so why should they recieve a different status under the law?
And what happens when a transexual (IE a person who used to be a man but is now a woman) gets married to someone who used to be the same sex as them? Are they now perfectly able to have the law apply to them even though they can't have children, but as long as their "naughty bits" are ok they can gain all of the benefits?
It just seems very odd to me why this is even an issue from a legal standpoint (moral and religious issues I can understand fine).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My position on this issue is, and has been for years, that people should be allowed to personally incorporate before a judge as part of a voluntary written contract. The terms of this contract can vary, but general assumptions include access to medical care, shared inheritance, and shared guardianship of any children produced by the union. If people want to make this a "traditional" marriage-style bond, they're welcome to do so; if they want to incorporate with six other men, they're welcome to do that, too.