Should we privatize marriage?

[lake avenue]

Simple question. Should marriage be privatized? This system would include the government automatically recognizing any currently and future declared partnerships domestic unions. Then, if you want a religiously recognized marriage, you go and get a marriage done at a church, synagogue, whatever religious institution you want, you pay for it. Make domestic unions equal to marriage without the title or religious affiliation.

This way, gays can get domestic unions which are equal to marriage, churches aren't forced to give marriages to gay couples, certain people who currently can't get domestic partnerships (some states won't grant domestic partnerships to couples under a certain age) can then get them, and everyone's happy.

This may not be necessarily privatization in the traditional sense of the word, but I couldn't really think of a term that better suited it. Feel free to offer something up.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm done with marriage, you may do as you please..............

 

[FA_Q2]

Marriage is already private.

The idea that marriage is recognized by the government is the part that is not private and you don't seem to be stating they should change that. Your point makes no sense.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Simple question. Should marriage be privatized? This system would include the government automatically recognizing any currently and future declared partnerships domestic unions. Then, if you want a religiously recognized marriage, you go and get a marriage done at a church, synagogue, whatever religious institution you want, you pay for it. Make domestic unions equal to marriage without the title or religious affiliation.

This way, gays can get domestic unions which are equal to marriage, churches aren't forced to give marriages to gay couples, certain people who currently can't get domestic partnerships (some states won't grant domestic partnerships to couples under a certain age) can then get them, and everyone's happy.

This may not be necessarily privatization in the traditional sense of the word, but I couldn't really think of a term that better suited it. Feel free to offer something up.

That's what we have now.

A marriage ceremony in a church means nothing legally.

All marriages are civil contracts.

 

[Moonglow]

It is quasi private, yet it is regulated by the govt. for the license requirements by state..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Simple question."

Sorry, but it's an ignorant question.

Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts; and as civil law it can't be made 'private,' as the state also participates in the contract with the two marrying partners.

Because the state ensures the marriage contract complies with the law, it has the authority to make the contract binding on the two parties concerning spousal rights and responsibilities, matters involving property and assets, and the custody of children in the event of divorce.

Moreover, 'domestic unions' are not 'equal' to marriage, as 'separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the Constitution as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that requires the states to allow same-sex couples access to marriage law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations such as churches, where should the Supreme Court rule in a manner requiring the states to allow same-sex couples to marry in accordance with the 14th Amendment, no religious entity could be compelled to afford religious marriage rituals to same-ex couples.

 

[lake avenue]

Moreover, 'domestic unions' are not 'equal' to marriage, as 'separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the Constitution as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Why is it that something completely and utterly equal under the law is not equal? The only difference is a title. If they don't, by law, get anything extra besides that title, it seems fairly equal to me.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that requires the states to allow same-sex couples access to marriage law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations such as churches, where should the Supreme Court rule in a manner requiring the states to allow same-sex couples to marry in accordance with the 14th Amendment, no religious entity could be compelled to afford religious marriage rituals to same-ex couples.

I never said otherwise. In fact, this was partly the issue I was trying to get around with this proposal.

You've otherwise destroyed this proposal, so thank you for that, no sarcasm intended.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Should marriage be privatized?" No.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Simple question. Should marriage be privatized? This system would include the government automatically recognizing any currently and future declared partnerships domestic unions. Then, if you want a religiously recognized marriage, you go and get a marriage done at a church, synagogue, whatever religious institution you want, you pay for it. Make domestic unions equal to marriage without the title or religious affiliation.

This way, gays can get domestic unions which are equal to marriage, churches aren't forced to give marriages to gay couples, certain people who currently can't get domestic partnerships (some states won't grant domestic partnerships to couples under a certain age) can then get them, and everyone's happy.

This may not be necessarily privatization in the traditional sense of the word, but I couldn't really think of a term that better suited it. Feel free to offer something up.

When did it become Governments FUCKING BUSINESS ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Should we privatize marriage?

No, but you can do whatever you need to before your mythical old man in the sky to believe so, just as long as you get the license from the state.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Simple question. Should marriage be privatized? This system would include the government automatically recognizing any currently and future declared partnerships domestic unions. Then, if you want a religiously recognized marriage, you go and get a marriage done at a church, synagogue, whatever religious institution you want, you pay for it. Make domestic unions equal to marriage without the title or religious affiliation.

This way, gays can get domestic unions which are equal to marriage, churches aren't forced to give marriages to gay couples, certain people who currently can't get domestic partnerships (some states won't grant domestic partnerships to couples under a certain age) can then get them, and everyone's happy.

This may not be necessarily privatization in the traditional sense of the word, but I couldn't really think of a term that better suited it. Feel free to offer something up.

When did it become Governments FUCKING BUSINESS ?

8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.
13 Facts on the History of Marriage

 

[WorldWatcher]

When did it become Governments FUCKING BUSINESS ?

IIRC, over 500 years ago before there ever was a United States. Governments were involved to establish property rights and inheritance.


>>>>