Here’s my question: Why does the government have anything whatever to do with marriage? why not just let it be a private or church-related contract?
Because the people have a legitimate interest in promoting marriage (between a man and a woman) in order to create stable and prosperous family structure for our children and the next generation.
Why should the people be told that they have no right to have a say on such an issue?
Exactly. You give government the keys to something and this is exactly where you eventually end up.
for the same reason they use the tax code to give (or take) from certain groups based on their marital/child status—control.
‘Why does the government have anything whatever to do with marriage? why not just let it be a private or church-related contract?’
The sooner folks quit looking for any modern gubberment to define and protect marriage the better, in my opinion. Trusting the gov’t with such an important task was doomed to fail, eventually.
Govermnent involvement hasn’t been good for the institution, at least in modern times, in my opinion. Most folks seem to see marriage as just another lousy government contract that can be broken and resumed as long as government says so. Also, many seem to be conditioned think that marriage comes from the govenment, to the point they easily accept impossibilities like “gay marriage” as long as the government says it can exist.
Freegards
What is the most cost effective manner to raise future tax paying citizens? A stable home provided by a mother and father who are married.
And that’s why the state is invovled in marriage. Children raised in a two parent, married home and less likely to drain the system through welfare and correctional costs, they are more likely to succeed in school. Children raised with a mother and father, who are married, are much more likely to avoid poverty, and thus drain the system themselves, and are much more likely to become productive taxpaying citizens.
It’s cheaper for the state to encourage and support marriage than try to clean up the mess that occurs without married parents rasing children.
Marriage makes a civilized society. And that is in the state’s vested interest.
totally agree with your comment - since when should the government be in the business of certifying any marriages?
and tax coddes or other laws designed to manage the behavior of the population are wrong in my opinion also.
No tax breaks (redistribution policies) for buying green, saving for retirement, buying a house...Because it leads to abuse, is unfair in that tax law is not uniformly applied to citizens, and it is not part of the enumerated powers of the federal government (giving monetary incentives to change behavior).
It leads to abuse such as rep Nadler’s Bill - tax break for voting democrat (living in a high cost of living state).
It’s all about the benefits. This is from a “gaylife” website that I held my nose and visited. After turning on “private browsing” so it couldn’t set a cookie.
Notice how many of these are going to cost the rest of us money?
These benefits were established in an earlier generation that assumed the man was working and the woman was home raising children. That model is now broken even for hetero couples and needs to be revisited.
Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
Because someone has to protect the unalienable rights of children, and if this is not done by the two people who produced it, then it becomes the responsibility of the tax payer. Since making children the responsibility of the tax payers deprives those tax payers of the unalienable right to own property, civil marriage was created to jointly FORCE those two (exactly one male and one female) who created the child to care for it.
A child has a right to have a mother and a father.
Because someone has to protect the unalienable rights of children, and if this is not done by the two people who produced it, then it becomes the responsibility of the tax payer. Since making children the responsibility of the tax payers deprives those tax payers of the unalienable right to own property, civil marriage was created to jointly FORCE those two (exactly one male and one female) who created the child to care for it.
A child has a right to have a mother and a father.
Unfortunately, our alternative life style friends, who are always whining about "equal treatment", don't want to go this equal (legally correct) route. In most cases, they want ONE judge to overrule the laws made by representatives directly elected by the citizens, or, in even worse cases like California, overrule a direct referendum of millions of citizens.
Give the poster a cigar.
Why have a national army? Why have a post office? Why get up in the morning?
IMO, marriage is the best way to organize society, but coincidentally that has been validated and confirmed by almost every state in the Union. You can have a minimist state and still endorse a basic unit of society, it wouldnt kill you. In fact, it just might be the best way to ensure personal freedom.
It became a government issue when people asked for special tax breaks and legal benefits for married couples. Let the camel's nose into the tent...