Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I think they should to some point considering a lot of the benefits that are involved with being in a marriage are provided from the government.
I don't think it is the government's job to DEFINE anything. Maybe if they spent more time doing their actual job instead of trying to legislate morality, they might actually get something done.
In a word . . . NO!
hear hear!
AMEN to that crap man… SMH!
This is probably the first time I've agreed with TheJared on an issue. If the government is involved in anything pertaining to marriage, then yes, they absolutely have a right to define it. The government passes so many laws about marriage, and monitors things like alimony and life insurance, of which marriage is an important part of. If the government can't say "This is what we mean in our laws when we use the word 'marriage'," then they can't legislate any laws about it, or regulate any industries that use it.
Think about it. When you sign a contract, you usually see the contract define certain terms up front, to provide clarity to the contract. If the government is passing laws that in any way involve marriage, they need to be able to define what they mean by it. Whether or not the government *should* be passing those kinds of laws is a different question.
The real problem here is that different people define marriages differently. (I don't want this to devolve into a discussion about gay marriage, but that really is the best example.) The government needs to be able to define marriage, but there's no clear way to actually define it.