Why do we let the government define marriage?

Question

Shouldn't it be up to individuals and their respective religons?

Answer 1

Amen.

It was Jefferson who indicated that there needs to be separation between church and State; however, GW Bush has brought that "Old time religion" back into government but trying to make it unconstitutional for g*y people to marry each other.

250 years after the Bill of Rights was drafted, we still have politicians who still don't get it; the people should have the right to decide things without government interference.

Answer 2

Civility of civilization... You don't need to be a Christian or a nanotechnology scientist to understand that the pieces don't fit. Basically marriage, itself, is to protect the interests of the people involved. Trust is the key. If it weren't for our strive for our own desires that supercede the moral law, a man and a woman would not need tto marry. The relationship would just work. As far as the country is concerned, they legislate in trends that pass like bell-bottoms and Atari. The simple fact is that the individual does as one pleases anyway regardless of the benefits and walk in line with their own moral convictions. If they want to marry, I won't scoff at it. But at the same time, according to my own moral convictions, I see g*y marriage as a few steps away from having public orgies at the high school gymnasium.

Answer 3

I think its ridiculous that marriage needs to be defined, but the fact that a fringe, kook, counter culture left wing element is attempting and has already succeeded in redefining an institution that has stood unchanged for thousands of years, it is now warranted.

Answer 4

It has become a LEGAL argument, that's why the state is involved.

If a small minority didn't try and force their agenda on the other 98% of the country, we would not have to even waste time with such nonsense

Answer 5

Why should religions define it? Marriage institution is older than organised religion so it doesn't own the rights to it any more than government.

As the highest legal authority, I would say it gives them the right. This doesn't mean I agree, I am just saying why it is so. Personally I would rather it be free from both government and religious interference and completely an individual choice.

Answer 6

I heard a well-respected minister explain that his function at a wedding is to represent the state more than the church.  He makes legal what the couple have already decided and that the "marriage" takes place in their hearts (and physically afterward, without getting too graphic).  All he does his ratify the legal contract and pronounce a blessing upon it.

But, back to your question, it's partly a moral question.  People generally have enough problem with the legalities behind a same-s*x relationship.  Avoiding calling it a "marriage" may be a matter of semantics, but--like it or not--the government is simply doing the peoples' bidding by trying to define it.

As to your last comment ("religion existed before government"):  That is true, but remember, though, that God ordained government to keep order in the society.  Religion should INFORM societal decision-making.  IMany people don't believe God would approve of a definition of "marriage" that precludes the natural possibility of children.

Answer 7

because of the tax benefits and other considerations,marriage is seen as a business contract among other things. i dont personally care if g**s marry each other.