• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why do states have the right to regulate marriage

Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
'Sister Wives' family challenges Utah bigamy law

"It (bigamy) is not protected under religious freedom because states have the right to regulate marriage," said Paul Murphy, spokesman for Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/sister-wives-family-challenges-utah-bigamy-law-072501794.html

The question I have is "why" do states have to right to regulate marriages?

My only answer is, so the state can force a centralized belief onto the citizens.

For christians, marriage is between a man and a woman. If society can break that mold, men can marry men, women can marry women, and men and women can marry multiple partners.

My personal opinion, we need to break the strangle hold Christians have on marriage.

If we have freedom of religion, we also need freedom from religion. Freeing ourselves from the moral bonds chiristians placed on marriage is the first step to freeing our society the strangle hold of religion.
 
Last edited:
States have a right to regulate marriage because it's not one of the rights granted to the federal government and thus falls back to the states.
 
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
Double Trouble said:
States have a right to regulate marriage because it's not one of the rights granted to the federal government and thus falls back to the states.
Click to expand...

herm0016 said:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Click to expand...

Lets think outside the box guys.

Yes, that is what the constitution says, but why isn't marriage regulated on a local level?

Why does marriage have to "regulated" at all? Why do people have to file for a marriage license and request permission from the state to be married?

Why cant people just register their civil union at the court house?

"Why" does the state require people to ask permission before they can get married?

A license is a permit to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Does that mean that marriages are illegal without the states permission? If so, why?

Shouldn't it be left to the people to decide who we want to marry?

Why do we have to ask permission from the state to get married?
 
Last edited:
Because it's basically a business arrangement in the government's eyes. Taxes, shared benefits, inheritance, etc. Which is why it's stupid when there's regulation based on sexuality. Government should only be recognizing civil unions between consenting adults and leave any labels of marriage up to those adults.
 
herm0016 said:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Click to expand...

Should freedom of religion not dictate the 'nor prohibited by it to the States' clause?
 
EagleKeeper said:
The above
Click to expand...

You are thinking inside the box, and the above quotes are the simple answer.

The deeper question and answer are why the states decided to regulate marriage, as opposed to leaving it to the people.

"Why" do we have to request permission from the state to get married?

"Why" aren't people free to marry who they want?

You do not find it oppressive that the government dictates who we can and can not marry?
 
Texashiker said:
You are thinking inside the box, and the above quotes are the simple answer.

The deeper question and answer are why the states decided to regulate marriage, as opposed to leaving it to the people.

"Why" do we have to request permission from the state to get married?

"Why" aren't people free to marry who they want?

You do not find it oppressive that the government dictates who we can and can not marry?
Click to expand...

They "regulate" it both to collect fees from licensing and because busybodies want to have a say in our personal lives in the name of "serving a societal good." Government should no more be involved in my marriage than they are my baptism or birthday party.
 
People have tied marriage to government rules, laws, regulations, and most importantly - money.

Of course Government has a say in its own law.
 
Stupid thread is stupid.

The states have no right to regulate religious marriage. I can marry 122 women as a member of the church of we don't give a fuck about anything.

The state can regulate the legal joining of two individuals just like it can regulate contracts. So states can regulate legal marriage.

Simple. States can regulate legal marriage but religious marriage cannot be regulated.

Simple.

/end stupid thread
 
I don't think states SHOULD have the right to regulate marriage. I would prefer that rights be uniform across the nation and allow the states to compete economically, but unfortunately we're moving in just the opposite direction, where the federal government controls & dictates the vast majority of economic matters and one's rights vary from state to state.

And some Christian sects do recognize an evolved definition of marriage which allows for same-sex marriage.
 
Texashiker said:
http://news.yahoo.com/sister-wives-family-challenges-utah-bigamy-law-072501794.html

The question I have is "why" do states have to right to regulate marriages?

My only answer is, so the state can force a centralized belief onto the citizens.

For christians, marriage is between a man and a woman. If society can break that mold, men can marry men, women can marry women, and men and women can marry multiple partners.

My personal opinion, we need to break the strangle hold Christians have on marriage.

If we have freedom of religion, we also need freedom from religion. Freeing ourselves from the moral bonds chiristians placed on marriage is the first step to freeing our society the strangle hold of religion.
Click to expand...

Then move to a muslim country.
 
Texashiker said:
You are thinking inside the box, and the above quotes are the simple answer.

The deeper question and answer are why the states decided to regulate marriage, as opposed to leaving it to the people.

"Why" do we have to request permission from the state to get married?

"Why" aren't people free to marry who they want?

You do not find it oppressive that the government dictates who we can and can not marry?
Click to expand...


As always the issues is the word "Marriage". The institution of "marriage" has exist prior to recorded history. Marriage potentially means something different depending on when and where. For example marriage as it pertains to a "Insert Major Religion" likely isn't the same as say African Tribes in the 17 century. Even today the biggest stumbling block is the difference between Religious interpretation of the institution of marriage and how the State recognizes marriage as it pertains to legal matters.

The State recognizes "Marriage" as it pertains to state legal matters. This could be shared benefits from workplace, custody of children, property, inheritance, taxes, citizenship; the list goes on. When you apply for a marriage certificate at the state level, you are asking the state to recognize that union as it pertains to state legal matters. The State has to be able to recognize this union in order to correctly interpret the laws.

If the state doesn't regulate marriage how can it be asked to make legal judgments as it pertains to marriage or unions?

Important to remember, a marriage recognized by a (religious body or what not) isn't necessarily recognized by the state and vice versa.
Perfect example. A couple I know are Catholics, who were married in a Catholic ceremony. After the ceremony the state marriage certificate was screwed up without either party realizing it. The screw up caused the state to invalidate the certificate and thus in the eye of the state they were not married, yet in the eye of the Catholic church they were. Ironically it wasn't until 2 years later when they were dealing with issues as it related to state legal matters that they realized the problem with the state marriage certificate.
 
techs said:
Stupid thread is stupid.

The states have no right to regulate religious marriage. I can marry 122 women as a member of the church of we don't give a fuck about anything.

The state can regulate the legal joining of two individuals just like it can regulate contracts. So states can regulate legal marriage.

Simple. States can regulate legal marriage but religious marriage cannot be regulated.

Simple.

/end stupid thread
Click to expand...

Actually you might have used a bad example. Statues actually have laws against the practice of Polygamy. So your religious marriage of 122 women would need to not fall under what states consider the practice of polygamy.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Because it's basically a business arrangement in the government's eyes. Taxes, shared benefits, inheritance, etc. Which is why it's stupid when there's regulation based on sexuality. Government should only be recognizing civil unions between consenting adults and leave any labels of marriage up to those adults.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. However, you must realize that marriage is an institution in three respects - religious, societal, and legal. Churches handle marriage for obvious reasons that really aren't the subject of this thread. It is a societal institution because it is how we organize ourselves as the basic unit of community. The rearing/raising of children is also a primary reason for its societal existence. Gonad has mentioned why it is also a legal institution. The problem is, calling it 'marriage' instead of a civil union on the legal level promotes confusion. It invokes the other natures of the institution, which if we have government that espouses freedom of religion, shouldn't be the case. Going to the courthouse should not have the same meaning as going to the church. This is why so many people are up in arms about the whole homosexual "marriage" thing. That link needs to be severed for everyone. Let them get civilly hitched like the rest of us. They can go to whatever church (Episcopalians or whoever...) to get "married" if they so choose. The government should have nothing to do with the latter.
 
Ynog said:
As always the issues is the word "Marriage". The institution of "marriage" has exist prior to recorded history. Marriage potentially means something different depending on when and where. For example marriage as it pertains to a "Insert Major Religion" likely isn't the same as say African Tribes in the 17 century. Even today the biggest stumbling block is the difference between Religious interpretation of the institution of marriage and how the State recognizes marriage as it pertains to legal matters.

The State recognizes "Marriage" as it pertains to state legal matters. This could be shared benefits from workplace, custody of children, property, inheritance, taxes, citizenship; the list goes on. When you apply for a marriage certificate at the state level, you are asking the state to recognize that union as it pertains to state legal matters. The State has to be able to recognize this union in order to correctly interpret the laws.

If the state doesn't regulate marriage how can it be asked to make legal judgments as it pertains to marriage or unions?

Important to remember, a marriage recognized by a (religious body or what not) isn't necessarily recognized by the state and vice versa.
Perfect example. A couple I know are Catholics, who were married in a Catholic ceremony. After the ceremony the state marriage certificate was screwed up without either party realizing it. The screw up caused the state to invalidate the certificate and thus in the eye of the state they were not married, yet in the eye of the Catholic church they were. Ironically it wasn't until 2 years later when they were dealing with issues as it related to state legal matters that they realized the problem with the state marriage certificate.
Click to expand...

You stated this better than I did. My experience (as a Catholic) was to get "married" at the courthouse first before getting Married in the church (which technically considered it a convalidation). We had to because of legal concerns as my fiancée's health insurance plan (through her father) refused to cover her after a grace period expired since getting her degree. (Yes, COBRA is rediculously expensive and you can't afford to have gaps in insurance coverage with epilepsy, although the ACA has helped) This, unfortunately, was a few weeks before the church ceremony happened. I can completely see the situation you posted happening too. This is why I and many others see these institutions as seperate.
 
because henry viii abolished the catholic church in england and so the king's courts then had to determine if someone was married, rather than asking the canonical courts.
 
ElFenix said:
because henry viii abolished the catholic church in england and so the king's courts then had to determine if someone was married, rather than asking the canonical courts.
Click to expand...
Yeah but marriage existed in Europe before Christianity of any denomination did. So who regulated marriage then?
 
techs said:
Stupid thread is stupid.

The states have no right to regulate religious marriage. I can marry 122 women as a member of the church of we don't give a fuck about anything.

The state can regulate the legal joining of two individuals just like it can regulate contracts. So states can regulate legal marriage.

Simple. States can regulate legal marriage but religious marriage cannot be regulated.

Simple.

/end stupid thread
Click to expand...


yea go ahead and see how fast you go to prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top