Why is the government even involved in ANY personal relationship at all?

[liberalhistorian]

All of these hysterical blowhards frantically trying to "save" marriage from the ravages of those horrible, evil gays and all of their sheeple minions who're going along in lockstep have got me thinking about this question.

Did you know that until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the government wasn't even involved in even traditional marriage at all? There were none of the many, many benefits tied only to marriage that there are now. And that's the way it should be. Marriage brings hundreds of both tangible and intangible legal, financial, economic, tax, insurance and social benefits that are only available to those relationships which the GOVERNMENT has decided are worthy of them when the state has no business at all deciding any such thing for anyone.

There are literally hundreds of benefits, both tangible and intangible, that can be gotten only through marriage, period. I don't think most people even realize that, even married people, but those of us who are single and well into adulthood are more aware of that than others. And as a former real estate paralegal and historian who's researched these issues, particulary in regard to rights of property ownership in marriage and dower rights, I can guaran-damn-tee you that that is very much the case. And that is just plain wrong.

We need to go back to the way it was before the state got involved at all and started tying all kinds of legal, financial, economic, insurance, tax, and social benefits to marriage and defined marriage in a certain way. Taxes and social security are especially infuriatingly unfair areas in this regard. Why do you think it's so important to so many gays to be able to marry, as they should be?

Conservatives are irritating in this respect because they're always screaming about "getting government off our backs", "less intrusive government", "individual freedom", etc., etc., blahblahblah, and they absolutely refuse to see the blatant hypocrisy of their activism in this regard and their attempt to shove their own version of what personal lives should be down everyone else's throat. They and the state need to leave our private lives and decisions the hell alone, quit deciding that certain benefits can only be had through marriage, and get out of the business of deciding which relationships are worthy of state sanction and which should be criminalized or denied blessing.

Remember, it really wasn't that long ago that interracial marriages were legally forbidden in more than half the states. Hard to believe now, but I see the same unfair injustice in regards to gay marriages. Few things piss me off more than people sticking their nose into the private lives of others, and that includes the government. Let people make their own decisions regarding relationships, including whether they even want to be officially married or not, and quit tying benefits and rights of property ownership, etc., etc. solely to marriage as defined by the state.

[Warpy]

1. The state claims an interest in protecting

the rights of children when squabbling breaks out. It also claims a right to oversee the fair dissolution of property when that happens.

Other than at the time of the breakup, the state interferes very little, except by favoring one wage earner families through the tax laws from the early 70s to the end of the marriage penalty.

I think the state has only two choices: either give up the marriage and divorce business and allow the churches to handle it all, or extend the benefits of what is a legal contract to all adults crazy enough to enter into it.

(I can see that having churches be the arbiters of divorce disputes would have both advantages and disadvantages, but I'd still prefer the dispassionate approach of the secular state, since some churches out there don't recognize divorce under any circumstances.)

[liberalhistorian]

2. Actually, the state is involved more than you

think, particularly the federal government. There are myriad tax, social security, and financial benefits relating to federal benefits that are only available to those who are married, benefits that everyone should have access to, not just married people. Check out the web site of the American Association of Single People, www.unmarriedamerica.com, for more information in this regard. It'll be an eye-opener, I guarantee it.

[benddem]

3. I asked my reptile Senator

Why since marriage is NOT in the constitution...how do we get to amend the constitution.

[liberalhistorian]

5. And what was his brilliant response?

"God said it should be in the constitution, so that's that?":evilgrin:

[Selwynn]

4. That is exactly my position. I jokingly said I'm not for gay marriage...

...although in this society I am. But what I really feel is I am not for state having any say any anthing, marriage or otherwise. Marriage should be a symbolic ritual that people decide they want to do because it has personal meaning. No state involvement in hetero, gay, any any other kind of relationship. Yeah, that includes polygamy.

[liberalhistorian]

6. Exactly!

That's exactly what I'm saying. Let people decide their own relationships, don't tie all these hundreds of tangible and intangible benefits to what the STATE has decided is the "proper" marriage, and LEAVE THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT! The way it used to be.

[2Design]

7. they have a boring, puritanical life and need something to do...eom

same states who are against gays are the same states that were against interracial marriage...and their fear is that a judge will over turn the law again....and make them accept...that is their REAL fear....that is why they call them rogue judges....A judge made them accept interarracial marriage and integrated schools...and they are obviously still pissed.

[liberalhistorian]

8. That probably does explain a lot of it,

but not all. All I know is that I'm damn sick and tired of it. Marriage was not even common in the lower classes until the last quarter of the 19th century, and it was economic, frankly, not romantic. All the benefits tied to marriage at that time made it more of a necessity for them than it had previously been.