I'll admit it, I'm against government sponsored gay marriage...

[TomCollins]

but only because I don't think the government should be involved in ANY marriages.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
but only because I don't think the government should be involved in ANY marriages.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what happens when a "married" man dies without a will. How is it determined that his wife gets his property without the government recognizing their marriage? Or what if a man is being tried for a crime in a court and the prosecutor want to call his wife to the stand. Should the marriage privilege not apply because the state doesn't recognize marriages.

Saying that the government should not be involved in marriages is not as easy a solution as it sounds. The fact is that there are so many legal implications of being married (many of which most people agree with, like the right to inherit a spouse's property, etc.) that the government cannot simply divorce itself (pun intended) from the marriage business.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]

Saying that the government should not be involved in marriages is not as easy a solution as it sounds. The fact is that there are so many legal implications of being married (many of which most people agree with, like the right to inherit a spouse's property, etc.) that the government cannot simply divorce itself (pun intended) from the marriage business.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not that hard. People make private contracts outside of the government all the time.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Saying that the government should not be involved in marriages is not as easy a solution as it sounds. The fact is that there are so many legal implications of being married (many of which most people agree with, like the right to inherit a spouse's property, etc.) that the government cannot simply divorce itself (pun intended) from the marriage business.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not that hard. People make private contracts outside of the government all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all of the legal implications of marriage can be replaced by private contracts.
Examples:
The right of a spouse not to testify against his or her spouse in court
The right of a spouse to sue for the death of his or her spouse
The rate at which people's incomes are taxed based on whether or not they are married
Issues relating to the custody of children

[theweatherman]

legal marragies are a necessary part of the governemnt.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Not all of the legal implications of marriage can be replaced by private contracts.
Examples:
The right of a spouse not to testify against his or her spouse in court
The right of a spouse to sue for the death of his or her spouse
The rate at which people's incomes are taxed based on whether or not they are married
Issues relating to the custody of children

[/ QUOTE ]

Marriage is nothing but a contract -- some people would simply like to remove the State as a party to the contract.

Except for the tax issue (which wouldn't be an issue if gov't took a neutral stance on marriage), all of these issues could be addressed by traditional marriage. In the absence of a legal contract, your church has rules. If you have no church, then write a contract.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Marriage is nothing but a contract

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply not true. Marriage is, in part, similar to a contract.

[ QUOTE ]
Except for the tax issue (which wouldn't be an issue if gov't took a neutral stance on marriage), all of these issues could be addressed by traditional marriage. In the absence of a legal contract, your church has rules. If you have no church, then write a contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am having a really hard time understanding your points here, but only to the extent that the government recognizes a change of status can certain rights related to marriage be conferred. The change in status is what makes marriage different from a contract.

I think a better analogy is maybe some sort of business entity. People can make a contract to create a certain type of business, but that business type (partnership, limited partnership, corporation, etc.) only has teeth because of the government's recognition of the business type and the govenment's decision to confer certain rights/responsibilities upon it.

[Mroberts3]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a better analogy is maybe some sort of business entity. People can make a contract to create a certain type of business, but that business type (partnership, limited partnership, corporation, etc.) only has teeth because of the government's recognition of the business type and the govenment's decision to confer certain rights/responsibilities upon it.

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo. You simply can not remove the government as a party in something like this and expect it to work (especially in the case of testifying in court). This is exactly why all people should be allowed to marry with regards to the state. (Why should a gay man have less protection in court than a straight man if his partner is called to testify against him? Maybe we should say that people with more than a million dollars can't get married... bet you that would piss off a lot of rich people who have to pay more taxes.)
If you are a bigot feel free to marry in your own church seperate from a government marriage to show your opposition to gay marraige.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Saying that the government should not be involved in marriages is not as easy a solution as it sounds. The fact is that there are so many legal implications of being married (many of which most people agree with, like the right to inherit a spouse's property, etc.) that the government cannot simply divorce itself (pun intended) from the marriage business.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not that hard. People make private contracts outside of the government all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all of the legal implications of marriage can be replaced by private contracts.
Examples:
The right of a spouse not to testify against his or her spouse in court one reason why it shouldn't be involved. No one should have the right of being an accomplice of another. Should parents have this right too? Children?

The right of a spouse to sue for the death of his or her spouse Families do this all the time. Ask the Brown family who sued OJ.

The rate at which people's incomes are taxed based on whether or not they are married Another bad reason that should be abandoned
Issues relating to the custody of children You have to be married to have children? This is not unique to marriage

[/ QUOTE ]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
So what happens when a "married" man dies without a will.

[/ QUOTE ]

The property passes to (in order of legal priority in New Jersey): the parents, children, siblings, half siblings, grandparents, collateral heirs, then lastly the state.

Maybe the dumbass should have had the common sense to write a will if he wanted it to go to someone else.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
legal marragies are a necessary part of the governemnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[Mroberts3]

Tom, you still didn't address my situation below. I can tell you disagree with the idea that anyone should be allowed to withhold info but that doesn't mean you should argue against marriage. If that particuar part of law bothers you, attack it, not something unrelated. Until that is changed, there is no reason ANYONE should recieve less protection under the law.

This is exactly why all people should be allowed to marry with regards to the state. (Why should a gay man have less protection in court than a straight man if his partner is called to testify against him?

[TomCollins]

What about the live-in girlfriend of someone? Should they get the special rights? What about the mistress of a married dude? What if someone wants to marry 3 women and a dude? Should they all be protected? Why should the government limit marriage to 2 people?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the live-in girlfriend of someone

[/ QUOTE ]

They have the ability to get married, ergo no special protection.

[ QUOTE ]
What about the mistress of a married dude

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is the possibility of marriage.

The distinction is that a gay couple who wishes to marry can't. These above groups could (provided that the man in the second got a divorce)

[ QUOTE ]
Why should the government limit marriage to 2 people

[/ QUOTE ]

No great reason...efficiency maybe???

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I am having a really hard time understanding your points here, but only to the extent that the government recognizes a change of status can certain rights related to marriage be conferred. The change in status is what makes marriage different from a contract.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any contract the government recognizes will change your status -- the difference in marriage is that there are three parties to the contract, and one can unilaterally alter the contract. Another difference is that it can be modified, but never concluded.

My point was that the government does not have to be a party to the contract or the terms to recognize that a relationship exists. Marriage is between two people, and if they choose, their church and community.

I thought this article was pretty good:

"What's The Point of Marriage, Gay or Straight?" (http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/whymarriage.htm)