Why should the government recognize marriages?

Marriage is recognized under civil law by statute for the purpose of administration of other laws.

Regulations to prohibit multiple marriages.

Enforcement of minimum ages.

Health regulations.

Morality regulations, including consanguinity restrictions.

Registration of births.

Registration of children under school statutes to regulate the orderly and proper schooling of children.

Vital statistics.

Taxation.

Child welfare and support.

Inheritance

(probably other reasons also.)

The marriage of two people directly affects society. Society has a need and an obligation to register and regulate marriage.

The fight over same sex marriage is only possible because of the hijacking of the meaning and spirit of the marriage statutes when they were enacted.

When all statutes regulating marriage were written, the clear definition of marriage was a man and a woman. By bypassing and co-opting this definition, gay activists, through court action, have made same sex to mean marriage, although they are clearly two different things.

The primary intent of marriage is to produce a family unit as regard other laws.

The primary intent of same-sexers is to obtain government benefits -that were originally enacted to benefit widows and their children or to to aid families with children and to encourage childbearing- while recognizing their coupling in regards to other laws.

I strongly disagree with same-sex marriage as it is a perversion of the spirit of marriage statutes which were originally enacted to regulate male female relationships and to provide a legal framework for the raising of children.

The government of the people has a vital interest in encouraging families in which children are raised.

It is to these encouragements that the gay agenda wants to act as a parasite.

Ok, you gotta tell us what you're thinking here.

There are enough non-married couples (or groups) living together - and where offspring are involved - so that laws and rights can vary significantly. And it would now seem that there's a movement to redefine "marriage" in broader terms. If that was to be successful, even broader definitions would inevitably follow.

The alternatives would be to 1) have "marriage" be defined in very strict and limited terms, and have rights and responsibilities in other relationships bound by contracts. Or 2) have the government butt out entirely - a Tea Party inspired approach?

I must say, your comment on confirmations not being recognized was funny. If it could be statistically established that going to Confession at least once a month made a person less of a drain on society, shouldn't we get tax breaks for going into The Booth? I mean, we're not pushing religion, we're responding to empirical evidence.

I've seen you post several times before. Aren't you a Catholic? The reason I ask is because you're implying that marriage shouldn't be around. Catholics, however, view marriage as a sacrament to God between a man and a woman.

Government recognizes, or permits, marriage because marriage is beneficial for the state. Marriage brings forth more persons for the state, in order to continue it. If the people of a state do not replace themselves, serious social, economic, cultural, and security issues result. This has been an ongoing practice ever since man organized himself under a state, be it tribal or central.

Neither. the government acknowledges the criminal status of marriage to validate a settlement that has implications as to factors rights, inheritance, and tax status. no longer something. Governments do no longer care (nor ought to they) approximately mating relationships or love. Peace.

The reasons go back to the biology of the human creature. We are born helpless, with an extraordinarily long road to maturity and self-sufficiency, usually about 20 years.

We need a long period of dependence on parents, and our parents have to have a somewhat irrational commitment to our education and maturation. Ordinarily, this means that our two biological parents must commit themselves to one another for life.

Lifelong commitment is not natural. It requires outside encouragement by society, church, and government. Without this encouragement, many parents fail to make a commitment, to the great detriment of children. Today, we are seeing record numbers of single parents in western cultures, to the great disadvantage of children.

Governments depend on stable families to produce economic wealth, social stability, and democratic decision-making. Stable families depend on husband-wife marriage.

Cheers,

Bruce

It governs and attempts to control human behavior. It is a way to protect the inheritance rights of children.

I have to go with Harrison on that one ... inheritance, taxation, spousal benefits, child support. All of these are derived from marriage.

For official registration. In the past, without government registered records, some people abused it, like marrying (for polygamy) in other states or other countries.

Inheritance laws, child responsibility, spousal benefits...