Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Should states consider moving away from marriage all together?

I answered a question earlier; albeit naively, about Iowa gay marriage. I don't keep up with marriage, Iowa or gay issues... so I shouldn't have answered the question... I was mistaking the California Pro 8 ruling with Iowa.

I'm sure many people are like, 'how do you mix up cali and iowa?' They're both states that I don't live in, so I don't pay much attention to them.

I'm not a very big supporter of marriage of any kind because to me, I see the stats on divorce and it seems to me like it's just a waste of money. It also seems to me if you are lucky enough to be in love with someone, why do you need to have someone give you a piece of paper as proof of your love? There's only two reasons I can think of: you're religious or you want the tax benefits. If it's not those, then you're really just arguing about a word... which is silly.

Each religion has it's own interpretation of marriage and what it entails. Most don't include same-sex marriage. That sucks, but it's freedom of religion to practice as they see fit. If they choose not to support gay marriage, then the government has no place to try and force it to do otherwise.

The second reason is tax incentives. This is where the government's role comes in... in terms of taxation, representation, medical influence, the power over property... and I get that. And in that respect, I think any couple should have those kinds of rights.

It seems to me the logical solution is change the 'marriage' to something else. Civil Union? Then, the government can allow everyone the same equalities without crossing the line of religion and state. Including for Aethiests who; for whatever reason, want to get married despite not believing in religion.

So would you be for getting rid of the word marriage and leaving it as a religious only matter allowing the state to replace the license with something just as binding but under a different name, or against it? Why?

Update:

Good point VDC, I hadn't thought of that. I mean... you're right... it's kind of backwards. But, that seems to happen every time the government gets involved in something.

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I recently learned that the reason married citizens are taxed lower is because Americans used to largely live in communes where they would share the profits and expenses with a dozen or more people. These people made very little money and the government had to find a way to tax them. Going away from marriage would make sense to the government so it could recoup more money, but I think the voters would raise a big stink. Plus, more people would pool together to make less money so they wouldn't be taxed. It would probably bankrupt the nation.

  • 1 decade ago

    I was thinking about this myself. I am not really condoning gay marriage but I do think that marriage itself is different in each community and each religion. It does seem to make sense to leave marriage up to the individual rather than make it something the government acknowledges or doesn't acknowledge. Take for example common law marriage. If you are not going to make the effort to get some sort of licence you shouldn't be acknowledged for it. There are many gay couples out there willing to file for a licence of marriage but are not being allowed and here we have two people living together that don't want to get it in writing but they get rights in some states. How is that okay? lol. Go Figure.

  • ?
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    you are able to desire to. yet, as quickly as a decide makes a ruling that is going to be annoying. once you went in to petition your request it appears that evidently which you probably did no longer bypass the greater mile to instruct your "difficulty" case. you will have had to instruct which you made a reliable faith attempt to look for a greater effective jobs that pays additional funds in NJ without such success; yet you will additionally would desire to instruct which you "Have" a greater effective interest waiting for you in the different state. whilst the decide denied your request that grow to be an "Order", now, in case you get married the Order does no longer exchange given which you get married or pregnant, you nevertheless would desire to bypass a make yet another request with the recent adjustments. And, there are no longer any ensures. in case you get married, you will would desire to instruct that your new husband has an prolonged status solid profession in yet another state; because of the fact the question would be, he's just one individual and it may be much less confusing for him to bypass. i'm no longer a decide, i'm a toddlers propose and an argument I see is that it appears that evidently which you attempt to maintain you toddlers removed from their father and you will would desire to instruct that's no longer real. i've got self assurance the toddlers Order calls so which you will no longer commute greater effective than 50 miles from the non-custodial be sure if that's what's on your order that is beneficial to be sure in the journey that your bf is prepared to bypass half-hour closer to NJ and that would remedy your subject.

  • Moma
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    No

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.