Marriage originated as a financial transaction. Religious implications came later, and I really don't care what someone claiming to speak for a god has to say on the subject of their god's rules for marriage. I don't follow their deity, I'm not a member of their cult, and those rules do not and should not ever apply to me. Government is going to be entwined with marriage as long as courts are left dealing the with the divorces, the inheritances, and custodies; some sort of neutral arbiter is required and it's one of government's functions to provide one.
When it comes to who can marry whom, I think government's role should be limited to preventing and punishing fraud and coercion; as long as all parties involved legally can and do provide their informed consent, that should be good enough. I can see some necessary procedures to ensure that no non-consenting person or one unable to provide consent is involved (your above minors and animals). But on such personal decisions, let those involved make the decision.
For the most part, I agree with you here. Although on the issue of tax exemptions, I don't believe that it should be necessary for churches to accept gay marriage in order to not be taxed. Legally, too, there is no reason for a church to have to give up its tax exemption over the issue--although you'll have to forgive me for not having the time right now to look up all the relevant case law on that point
( ... )
Comments 3
When it comes to who can marry whom, I think government's role should be limited to preventing and punishing fraud and coercion; as long as all parties involved legally can and do provide their informed consent, that should be good enough. I can see some necessary procedures to ensure that no non-consenting person or one unable to provide consent is involved (your above minors and animals). But on such personal decisions, let those involved make the decision.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment