To "marry" or not to "marry"..here is an interesting take..

[dixiegrrrrl]

I read this Dear Abby thing, and went...hmmmm....

Is marriage a religious or a state issue?
And why?
and should it be either/or?

And why is my brother and his long term partner any less married than Mr. d. and I are
even tho none of us have state or religious "sanctions" to live and love as a couple.

I would appreciate your views after reading the following:


"Dear Readers:
I have learned that not only individuals, but also some churches feel so strongly about separating the legal aspect of marriage from the religious that they have voted to only “bless unions,” and their clergy no longer sign marriage licenses."

Dear Abby: The state may want to control and even redefine marriage. But a covenant before God, and witnesses, has been more than good enough for His people throughout most of history, and it has worked for my house for more than 30 years. – God Is Our Witness in Colorado

Dear Abby: In this day and age, especially with jobs so scarce, a lot of young couples are finding that by becoming legally married they disqualify themselves from things like prenatal care, health care for their children and government assistance programs.
Another idea gaining in popularity is that unless everyone in this country has equal rights for marriage, no one should be getting married. Several couples I know have married without the paperwork because they regard the alternative the same as sitting at a segregated lunch counter, and they are unwilling to support segregation. – M.N.R. in New York

[valerief]

1. Marriage started with men owning women. Heads spin when considering

men owning men (who's the honcho man?) or women owning women (how can a woman own anything?). At least, I think that's the history/mindset of it.

[pnutbutr]

2. state

Since things like taxes are tied directly to your marital status it would make marriage a state issue.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. It "would", but "should" it?

Interestingly, one of the selling points ( pun intended) to acceptance of gays was marketers proclaiming that gays had so much disposable income ( since they had no "marriage taxes, partly).
And so to your point:
the state sanctions marriage for financial reasons.

Let's say financial issues were non-existant...what would be the state's interest in marital status then?