Loading
A Simple Question:
Here is another simple question:
Who should decide who gets married: individuals or the government?
Recent Posts
Archives
- October 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (1)
- February 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (1)
Topics
- Arts & Culture (3)
- Business Regulation (1)
- Civil & Human Rights (4)
- Economy (1)
- Gay, LBT Issues (1)
- International Affairs (1)
- Media (1)
- Other (1)
- Public Policy (1)
- 9 Comments
- Add a comment
Show Newest to Oldest
Show Oldest to Newest
hepsy 5 months ago
Reply to SirBratwurst
simple questions require simple answers. gibberish isnt very attractive...neither is talking your … Show full comment
simple questions require simple answers. gibberish isnt very attractive...neither is talking your … Show full comment
LOL! Requirements whether simple or not can be such humbug! Are you suggesting that Republicans are better at talking around questions than Democrats, or the only ones who do? HA!
TMI? You re right, what I said is not my opinion, rather the way it is. Simply and without gibberish: A couple decides if they are to marry, according to the law of the state in which they marry. The law typically at the root of the discussion is the requirement of one man and one woman which is, in many states, defined by the vote of the people.
The preceding paragraph isn't in the realm of whatever should be. That's law. Marriage customs, too, however we feel about them, are also in the realm of reality, not should. Oughts and Shoulds are so subjective. What I would do with marriage law goes beyond convention, but I would include, should. ;)
What is your simple answer to the easy question?
Or did you only want to suggest I put my name on a shingle and join the Republican party? :-|
SirBratwurst (Democratic) - 5 months ago
Reply to hepsy
Marriage began as a religious institution, which is why kings needed the blessing of the church (whi … Show full comment
Marriage began as a religious institution, which is why kings needed the blessing of the church (whi … Show full comment
simple questions require simple answers.
gibberish isnt very attractive...neither is talking your way around questions. you would make a great lawyer, or republican:)
hepsy 5 months ago
Reply to johnnyk
Isn't marriage a religious institution? And governments have historically tried to controll it, i.e. … Show full comment
Isn't marriage a religious institution? And governments have historically tried to controll it, i.e. … Show full comment
Marriage began as a religious institution, which is why kings needed the blessing of the church (which was a two-way exchange, religious power for monetary power). When our country was founded, traditions and customs common to most people, such as marriage, were brought along. Long history short: when government stepped in to exert its power to mess up lives by dictating who could do what, and added licensing, fees and taxes for it, it was easier for individuals to imagine marriage as a government rite rather than understanding its religious beginning. We, US, are unique in combining a secular government with a society based on religious values, which is one of the reasons when people vote about marriage law, "one man and one woman" is preferred verbiage by the voters.
May any two people who want to marry decide to be married? Yes, although a legal union is not always the means. Each state has laws that any couple wanting to legally marry need comply with, if they want their marriage to be recognized as lawful. Every couple who meets a state's requirement for marriage may legally marry, without discrimination. If the law isn't liked, or is felt to be unfair, there are means to change it.
Not all couples who apply to be lawfully married, including one man and one woman, are eligible, for assorted reasons. Yet people fight for discrimination against voters, to allow special privilege for a select group of people. To override state law to allow two people of the same gender to marry, a couple of two men or two women, is discrimination against the voice of the people of the state who voted to retain, "one man and one woman" as a qualifier to marriage. To identify, for instance, "two men or two women," the woman who wants six men will find herself excluded, as well as the man who likes his horse or the woman who likes little boys, and they will all cry, "discrimination!" But then, why the limit of two men, why can't five men be married to each other, or three women and two boys? Or, why prohibit a clone from marrying its clone?
A couple, a man and woman, who have been living together for 20 years without marrying have no more rights in some states than any other couple (i.e., a woman and her pig, or father and his daughter) as not all states recognize common law.
Is that discrimination? No, it s the law of individual states.
Do I agree with the law? Not always. For instance, in Hawaii a couple related by blood closer than 1st cousins may not legally marry. That means that brothers and sisters not married to each other produce children who marry their uncle's children. And if a child us under the age of 15, consent of both parents and approval by a judge is required. If the couple are both 12, whose decision is it if they are to marry? The couple's, with the consent of all parents and a judge. Yes, Hawaii is a liberal state.
The simple question in this blog has a simple answer: the couple. The long answer is: depends on the law of the state in which the couple want to marry. It is the couple who decides what their commitment will be, if it is to be legal and if so, which avenue of legal they will pursue, whether a license from a state office, or documents drafted in an attorney's office.
Many gay couples enjoy a blessing of their union, same as traditionally married, and have relationships as lasting, or as unfaithful.
Your quote is usually attributed to Thomas Jefferson. He said so many things needing to be considered in today's politics!
-aloha!
johnnyk 5 months ago
Isn't marriage a religious institution? And governments have historically tried to controll it, i.e.; tax it. Didn't the kings of England require people to get their approval prior to getting married. I believe that was the era of serfdom. As we the people cede more and more of our rights we get closer and closer to becoming serfs again.
Comment on MrsPresidents post: If it is the job of the government to protect those that cannot protect themselves, abortion would be illegal. It is the job of our elected respresentative government to uphold the constitution and protect our liberty. Not intrude into our lives. I forget who the quote is from, but a government powerful enough to give you everything, is powerful enough to take it all away.
hepsy 5 months ago
If it s a legal marriage, it's already determined by law who gets married.
So it's up to the representatives of the people. If the people want the law to change, the course is through their legislature.
Of course, a couple can marry themselves without the government's involvement, then legally arrange for the benefits of a legally married couple.
So, who should decide who gets married? The couple.
countryplowboy 5 months ago
The Public. Civil unions are the governments domain. Marriage the people's.
Trinity 5 months ago
Reply to MrsPresident
Hahaha that's not so simple at all.... The government's job is to protect those that cannot protect … Show full comment
Hahaha that's not so simple at all.... The government's job is to protect those that cannot protect … Show full comment
I think our governments job is to protect the freedom and liberty of the American people. But as our country progresses the government is legislating more and more of our everyday lives. I think being free means you have choices. Some choices end in success and some in failure. Sometimes choices are hard sometimes they are easy. I do not want government involved in every intimate detail of our lives. I may be miss reading the situation but it seems like the current government is trying to make everything "fair, or even". Good intentions I am sure but I really think it is an impossible goal. Let’s say we want life to be equal in every aspect. What if you had people work and all the income went into a big pot and then was divided equal between all workers. Would that be fair? Would we also give equal amounts to those who can't or won’t work? Some people work harder than others for many reasons is it fair for the worker who works more hours to be paid the same as those who work less? I think people would work less, stop investing because there would be no reason, no reward. The same would go for business, why would a person start a business if there was no chance for advancement/ success. How would we resolve all the other fairness issues? Even something as simple as the location of a house, some homes cost more because it is built on a better lot, better view. I just don't see how you can make a equal world. I think the fact that you as a woman, a black woman if I may say has the ability to become Mrs. President is proof that America is a fair and equal country. Perfect No and it never will be. But if you penalize one group to benefit another that too is unfair. Think of it as a football game. The rules are the same for all but some players must work harder than others because of skill levels. Would it be fair to give the slower receivers a head start down the field because a defender is faster? The American people pushed for a woman’s right to vote, for abolishing slavery etc. that is the best way in my opinion. When you give that control to a government you just might end up with the 1 child law like they have in China. I don’t think government looks out for the best interest of the individual, it looks after the best interest of the government. In fact I have heard some in Washington say the rights of the individual are not above the rights of society as a whole. That is a statement that can be used to reinstate slavery or take away women’s rights to vote, if you have the wrong people in leadership. I am not anti government. Government has its place and purpose and I think it is up to the people to decide what that place and purpose is. Once you relinquish power to a government good luck getting it back. What do you think? Do you see it totally different?
MrsPresident 6 months ago
Hahaha that's not so simple at all.... The government's job is to protect those that cannot protect themselves, so they will work to help thee minority. Thee individual will think of their own selfish reasons and not think of society as a whole. So the answer should be government. I hate to put that kind of power in the governments hands but without government intervention on the rights of the individual who knows what our society would be like today. Would slavery still be legal? Would separate but equal still e in full effect? Would being gay still be classified as a mental disorder? Would women even be able to vote or hold a job that doesn't demean her?
1 - 9 / 9
SPREAD THE WORD