How is it even constitutional for the government to be involved in marriage?

Cordelia: How is it even constitutional for the government to be involved in marriage?
I’ve heard the argument that the denial of gay marriage is unconstitutional. But, I believe ALL government recognition of ANY marriage PERIOD is unconstitutional. First of all, it violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Marriage is a religious institution, so to have the government endorse it is an establishment of religion. Secondly, institutional marriage also violates the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. By giving federal benefits to married couples that are deprived to single people, single parents, and unmarried couples living together, the government is giving married people an unfair advantage under the law. The Constitution mandates that the government treat all people equally under the law, unless they have a compelling interest to do otherwise and the government DOES NOT have a compelling interest to treat married and unmarried people differently under the law. Thirdly, institutional marriage violates the fundamental constitutional principle of limited government. A government that’s involved in our intimate relationships is NOT limited. So, let’s return to the true Constitutionalism and get the government out of where it doesn’t belong.

Answers and Views:

Answer by Daken
Actually in this day and age marriage is a legal institution. It is the formal agreement that shows the desire of two people wanting to act as a single financial unit.

Answer by Twista
+ 1

Answer by Gazoo for Prezident
Marriage is NOT a religious institution. And that equal protection gripe about the taxes has already lost in court.

Answer by JOExHIGASHI
Because that is where your tax money goes.

Don’t claim your spouse as an exemption if you don’t want to. And don’t file a joint tax return.

Answer by Everard
I agree with you but we don’t have the numbers.
~

Answer by Hybiscus
marriage is a legal contract, not a religious ceremony. that’s how

Answer by Madame Bleu
I agree with some people above. Marriage does not have to be religious. I hate god and I wana get married.

Answer by Mathew
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments limit the powers available to the Federal Government while reserving to the States and the people other rights not already listed in the Federal Constitution. Therefore, if the Constitution doesn’t say the Federal Government can recognize a particular marriage nor does it say the Federal Government can prohibit a certain kind of marriage, then the Federal Government does not have that right.

I have also used the right of the people to peaceably assemble, or to freely associate with whomsoever they want to, and to be free to REFRAIN from associating with whomsoever they do not want to associate with. The government can’t make you marry someone you don’t want to marry, nor can they stop you from marrying whoever you want to marry. It just doesn’t have that power.

Answer by Dancefly
The government does not recognize marriage because it is religious but rather because marriage is a legally binding contract, and the government has a legitimate interest in seeing the terms of that contract upheld. Also, the Constitution enjoins the government to “promote the general welfare.” That is a very broad empowerment, and it’s hard to reconcile with a strict notion of “limited government.”

I didn’t hear you complain about the government’s pursuing couples into their bedrooms and regulating the kinds of activities that can take place there, but that happens. Nor did I hear you complain about the Republican plan to insert the government between a woman and her doctor.

Answer by Karl Hartman
I love this question. I see no reason at all that the government has any reason what so ever to be involved in a marriage between anyone or anything. If I want to marry a tree, the government should have no say in it at all. If I want to marry a hundred people male or female, again it is non of the governments business. Marriage is a contract entered into by two people. I think the contract should be made explicit and options should be made available. In these days the contracts should be for a set period of time and renewable after that time. Divorce should be a dissolution of the contract or simply a refusal to renew.

The government has no business at all legislating morality. The government has no business at all involving itself in marrages of any kind, sexual acts between people of any kind, (Providing they are consentual), or any other issue of morality.

Answer by fistoffury
You would be right but entering into a marriage contract, that the gov’t enforces, will give you special rights single people don’t have. You can’t really think the Founders were trying to establish a gov’t that would not allow marriage.