Should the Government Have a Say in Marriage?by Sherry Holetzky | More from this Blogger 10 Aug 2006 06:09 AM Many people believe that "The State" -the government- should get out of the marriage business altogether. There are two main reasons for this belief. One is the presumed doctrine of separation of church and state, as furthered by those who don't approve of any religious influence in government (more on the separation doctrine tomorrow). The other side is those people of faith who don't approve of governmental influence on religion. However, the government recognized marriage as an important component of civilized society and decided to bestow certain benefits on married couples, in order to encourage people to get married, as well as to stay married. In essence, benefits were intended to help create committed relationships, households, and families. Stable homes make for a more stable society. Regulating marriage is also intended to make property rights, inheritance rights, custody, and other issues more manageable. But, is that good enough? Other people believe that while it's fine for individual states to define marriage and decide what benefits go along with it, the federal government has no business getting involved. This argument does carry weight, since marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. It should be a states' rights issue, according to the Tenth Amendment. While states do legislate marriage to some degree, there are still federal provisions, requirements, and benefits in place that many see as wrong. The interesting thing is that there are also people who believe it should be a federal issue despite the fact that such a position is not in line with the Tenth Amendment. There are more sides to this debate as well. On one side, advocates for alternative definitions of marriage believe that the federal government should include those alternatives and offer benefits, and that the government should force all states to accept such marriages. On the other side, advocates for the protection of one man, one woman unions hope to amend the Constitution instead of attempting to further their agenda via judicial fiat. When it comes to marriage, there are many debates, and within each one, there are many different arguments. So, who's right?
In my opinion, we should abide by the Tenth Amendment, which gives power over anything that is not addressed in the Constitution, to the several states, or to the people. The only other legal method is to amend the Constitution so that it does in fact address the issue of marriage. This is not to say that gay marriage activists cannot promote their own amendment as well, but rather to note that these are the constitutional methods for dealing with issues not spoken of in our founding documents. Learn more about Sherry Holetzky  Sherry Holetzky is a work at home mom and freelance writer. Married to her best friend, Sherry and her husband are raising their family in a quiet rural setting in the beautiful Ozark Mountains. Relevantmarriage tags User Comments keshavmysore (76) 12 Aug 2006 07:27 AMI think you can not and should not keep away the State from Marriage! Marriage is not entirely a religious affair. And it is in the interest of the civilized society for, Marriage which is an instrument through which two individuals come together to form the Basic Unit of the Society. I go a step further - that Divorce should not be permitted at any cost to COUPLE WITH CHILDREN (emphasis intended). You see, when a couple decide to have a child, the child has no say in this (obvious!). She comes in to this world because of the (presumed) responsible decision of two individuals. in course of time, when these individuals tend to drift apart for whatever the reasons, and decide to separate, not only they are going to DEPRIVE THE CHILD OF HER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PARENTAL CARE, but also they re inflicting an irreversible scar on the impressionable minds of the future generation which is represeented by their CHILD. This may alter the child's psyche and the child may harbour ill feelings towards the Societal set up which shattered her childhood. This is detrimental to any Society, East or West. So I advocate the State to enact or enshrine in the Constitution, the CHILD'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PARENTAL CARE. Then make provisions in the Law to BAN DIVORCE TO COUPLE WITH CHILDREN. If you make a beginning in this direction today, then you will see a RESPONSIBLE ADULT GENERATION tomorrow and a healthy society. Sherry Holetzky (11404) 14 Aug 2006 08:07 AMI appreciate your comments. You've obviously put a lot of thought into this issue. I don't advocate removing the government entirely. I just believe that according to the Constitution, marriage should be a state issue. I doubt that we'll ever see "no divorce" legislation, but I think no fault divorce has made it far too easy to walk away from commitments, and like you said, it's the children that pay the most dearly. wootyhead (30) 15 Apr 2007 05:30 PMLet's not forget that the tenth amendment also states as an option that powers not delegated to the federal government could be delegated "to the people." The respective states are not the only other option for that responsibility, and the government should either have no place in marriages, or--if it insists upon carving out a place for itself--it should at least establish a consistent one. Sure, "The government recognized marriage as an important part of civilized society," but let's consider why: I've heard and read claims that the institution gained such recognition due to the alleged association it has with longer, healthier lives for all those involved. But most importantly, it seems to have gained that status due to the stable environment it allegedly provides for families, especially those with children, who apparently grow up healthier and happier and more psychologically stable than those of unmarried parents. But if the pubic policy's concern is to create environments more conducive to healthy childrearing, then benefits should apply to alternative sects as well, because other types of families do raise children, and at a rate that is rapidly emerging as the norm. Favoring an ideal circumstance through public policy is not going to eliminate the growing reality of those alternatives. The government should instead enforce policies to actually cater to any family with children present. The use of these privileges to benefit only unions between man and woman perpetuates a prejudice that seems inherent in our government's agenda. If childrearing is their genuine concern, they would adapt the allowances to include all thsoe who contribute to that cause of raising healthy children. Until the government is ready to consider all family-inducing unions equal, they should stay out of the business altogether. It confuses the meaning of marriage to attach governmental benefits to it--marriage was never meant to be a government sactioned institution, but one to serve the varying needs and preferences of the couples and families involved. If the government is not going to "protect" everyone to whom that all-inclusive description applies, it should bow out, protect no one, and leave such institutions as marriage "to the people" engaged in them. Community Tags amend the Constitution, Ban Divorce to couple with child, marriage benefits, states rights, the state and marriage, Tenth Amendment Discuss this article
|
Marriage categories |
