Letting the government decide your life for you? Marriage Licensing.

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 08:38:21 -0400

I totally agree with this. I don't see why people are upset that government fails to endorse same sex marriages. I am more upset that I have to have government permission to get married. I am for less government. We shouldn't let the government decide on what we can and can't do as long as it isn't criminal in nature. A lot of these issues come from a religious interpretation of what is conceived to what should be a marriage. This is more of a libertarian view of things but I don't think we should have to ask permission for such a thing. A point in which the writer pointed out is marriage licenses haven't always been the case. It wasn't a requirement until the mid-19th century.

Why should be let the government decide who we can marry. As long as they are of legal age and can enter into a contract legally why should be have to get government permission on something so personal? You see cases where a Judge or Magistrate can deny someone for ridiculous reasons. In 2009 a Louisiana Justice of the Peace denied a license due to the couple being interracial. Why would we give the government the authority to do such a thing?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 8:52 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 08:52:08 -0400

Sir, I find it ridiculous that in this day and age that we are still fighting this battle. There is no reason two people, straight, gay, interracial... The government has more things to worry about than who people fall in love with and choice to spend the rest of their lives with.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 9:12 AM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 09:12:47 -0400

Sir, i thought we lived in America! Home of the brave and land of the FREE.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made May 26 at 2015 9:26 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Tue, 26 May 2015 09:26:15 -0400

Legally, marriage should not be regulated, unless it contributes to obscenity of course. But a government chiming into to private sectors preventing certain kinda of marriage is a touchy subject. One one hand, anyone should be able to marry where they please, on the other hand, it may be against the private sectors values.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 10:56 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 10:56:04 -0400

It is based around the tax code. As marriage has a tax incentive it needs to be managed federally. The only way to change the federal requirement to marry is to change the way we collect federal tax. The fair tax (sales tax no income tax) would solve almost all of these issues. Won't help the state law items like death taxes and insurance plans, but would alleviate the federal problems. (needs an amendment to make it legal)

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 11:16 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 11:16:33 -0400

Sir, I agree we let the government have to much control of what we do. But the real question is why does our government even care about this issue shouldn't they be more worried about our homeland security and the threats of ISIS on our home turf. With that said as long as people keep feeding in to this and discussing these small issues the government will continue to put there hands in it cause it puts there names is the public eye. Instead people should address these matters throug voting and putting the right people in office instead of complaining about the ones that are there.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 12:36 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 12:36:53 -0400

In a perfect world, the government would have no role in marriage. They would not sanction, prohibit, or treat anybody differently because of it in any way.

But we don't live in a perfect world. The Government uses marriage as a proxy for other legitimate actions. It grants many privileges, such as tax benefits, transferrability of family insurance coverage, and simplified probate/estate processes. It establishes responsibilities, such as joint debt liability. It cements rights, such as power of attorney, visitation, and next of kin.

Yes, many of the second and third order effects the Government allows via marriage are possible to accomplish without marriage. The process to do so outside of marriage, however, is daunting and expensive, to the point of often being prohibitive, and the process to enforce a claim to such rights/responsibilities through contract alone is even more difficult than the process of establishing those rights/responsibilities through contract alone.

So, no matter how much we would like to get government out of the "marriage" game, the realistic likelihood of doing so is essentially nil.

And that goes to the other side of the coin. If the legal contract of marriage grants benefits, privileges, responsibilities, liabilities, and rights, then the Government *necessarily* has a vested interest in creating rules and standards for the entry and dissolution of such a contract. You cannot get the Government out of the process without divesting it also of the claims established.

Once we have all of these claims, and a process for entry/exit, another concern comes in, and that is the Constitutional Right (and from a moral stance Universal Right, even if not legally recognized) to due process and equal protection/application of the law. The issues of marriage equality for same-sex marriages fall into the same bucket as the issues for marriage equality for interracial marriages, etc, etc.

The Government *must* have a compelling reason for a restriction on who may enter into that marriage or those so blocked are being denied their due process and equal protection/application rights. restrictions on the civil and contractual act of same-sex marriage, no matter how strong the religious exception taken may be, utterly fail to have a valid, compelling government interest, just as restrictions on interracial marriage did a generation ago.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made May 26 at 2015 3:42 PM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Tue, 26 May 2015 15:42:20 -0400

On this question, I do not believe the courts nor the government's have the authority to change the definition of a marriage. It is defined a man and a woman. If the courts want significant others to have legal status for insurance, medical, retirement, etc. Etc. benefits that is fine with me; however no need to unsanctify marriage as marriage falls under religious practices in most cases. Any government intervention, involvement is unconstitutional and overreaching of their authority.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 8:28 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 May 2015 20:28:19 -0400

Your specific point seems fine, but what about bigamy? What about marriages contrived to gain citizenship or separation pay? Should the government have a role in regulating these types of marriages? Any blockage to legalized gay marriage is going to fall, eventually if not soon.

Your broad point is more worrisome. You said, "We shouldn't let the government decide on what we can and can't do as long as it isn't criminal in nature." What is "criminal in nature"? Is it what is currently listed in the criminal code? Is it common law? There is positive criminal law, so should the government make criminal whatever it wants to regulate? In fact, isn't your stance unconstitutional? The Constitution explicitly allows the federal government to regulate non-criminal things, and States have broad police powers which do not apply only to criminal law.

What about the government's role in tort law, property law, contract law? How could we have contracts without an enforcement mechanism? What would an enforcement mechanism be if not government?

As for the Louisiana interracial marriage case you mentioned, that Justice of the Peace was apparently forced to resign, and bars to interracial marriage were held unconstitutional in 1967. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/16/louisiana.interracial.marriage/

Governor calls for firing of justice in interracial marriage case - CNN.com

The actions of a justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple have prompted some top officials, including Gov. Bobby Jindal, to call for his dismissal.