Sorry to be rude, I Do not think marriage have to do with birth control, also the right to choose to marry a guy or a lady is a personal freedom which should not have a limit on it.

+1 @LoreZyra

Marriage is not a property of one's government identity. Whether a person is married or not should not factor into their status, treatment, or other relations with their government. 

Marriage is a social contract and a property of one's social identity. It exists for the purposes of social well-being, child-raising (does not have to be one's own biological children), and utilizing shared resources. These items would need to be codified in law, but not in the Constitution. 

Despite whatever tolerance we, collectively, may wish for all persons to have, we must be willing to admit that some are far too 'stuck in their ways' to ever accept those who differ from their beliefs. Because of this, we must allow those individuals the ability to self-segregate, in their social lives ONLY, to allow them to 'not have to deal' with those whom they may believe to be aberrations. The quality of any business they perform cannot be enforced, except what has been written into law in the cases of public health and safety. If the customers are not satisfied with the treatment they received from the business, they can attempt legal proceedings to regain compensation for time, effort, and resources spent if they feel exceptionally harmed.

We cannot force people to like each other or accept each other. The best we an do is set up a situation where minimum harm is achieved when people disagree.

Example: I cannot imagine a situation in which a strongly devoted Catholic who finds the idea of homosexuality abhorrent would ever find it comfortable living next to a family of homosexuals. If this Catholic operates a business, that is not a social activity and they should not be able to refuse to perform their business for anyone, regardless of their personal feelings.

AAS

I believe that the government shouldn't have control over the decisions of who we can or cant be with and for how long we can or cant be with this person. We should be able to freely make up our own minds on who we want to be with, or be married to someone for how ever long or short we wish to be with this person. Please make a voting thing over this and let us vote to choose what the people REALLY want.

This is wonderfull idea. Which means a beautiful life

"We now know the ratio between men and women signing up is roughly 4:1 so you you might be right. Not sure I want to share a wife with 3 other men though."

I have huge doubts that we'll need to resort to this. Once Asgardia becomes more well known, more women will be interested. Once Asgardia has been around for a while and has proven to be stable both physically and socially, even more women will be interested. If not, we can find ways to get them interested and perhaps less afraid to venture out into space. Polygamy only works with certain kinds of people, and people I know have opted out of it because their partners didn't have enough time for them and they were left wanting a deeper relationship. It's not something that works for everyone, even if they try to adapt to it.

That being said, marriage should only be on documents. Leave the asgardian government out of this.

Anthropologically speaking, marriage is not natural; however, none should be prevented from pursuing a marriage based on his/her own personal convictions.  The constitution's purpose should be for securing rights, not denying them.  Condemning anyone to a life of misery or, potentially, to becoming a prime target for spousal homicide is simply wrong.  Not everyone believes in marriage.  And what of other lifestyle choices?  What of good people who practice polyamory?  Are they to be discriminated against right out of the gate?  Moreover, the idea that marriage might control population has long been disproven.  Those issues are separate.  

Item of note:  If the concern is the potential for overpopulation in a zero gravity environment, then all can rest easy... or not.  Tests have already been conducted in orbit with rodents, proving that proper fetal development of Earth's lifeforms is dependent upon Earth's gravity (or its simulated equivalent).  Unless any space-based population has a 1G simulated gravity, 24/7, pregnancy in general is of automatic and severe concern.  Miscarriage, infant mortality, and deformity are nothing any parent wants.  And, if carrying successfully to term is dependent upon the mother's being isolated in the proper gravitational environment for nine months of hormonal mayhem, few women are going to be very gung-ho about it.  Given that atop the scientific logistics, the real concern might be for making sure Asgardians in space can reproduce successfully at all.  

Marriage is not a concern of the Constitution. 

I don't see any provision  for social contracts, and don't think there is any necessity for one. At our core we are a Nation of free individuals. Any social contract is between the individuals involved. We need to leave social prejudices behind.   Freedom of choice, and respect for individual rights is  one of the bases of our new Country.

All the studies to date shows that monogamist  man-women marriage is the most stable form of human cell and the best for children development and education, compared to others forms of union. It is not a moral point of view, but it's about choosing the best policy.  If I can accept the freedom of each citizen to choose the form of union they want, as a state and for the common good, we have to promote what is the best for citizens and especially for children. (I can search for and publicate these stuides if wanted).

In summary, I'm in favor of a tolerance policy for any type of union between two adult citizen, but the state should promote and favor traditional marriage, not other types of union because it is the best formula to promote a stable and durable society.

About the question of one time marriage, I think a second marriage should be allowed in case of widowhood. We can't ban separation, but allow divorce and second, third, fourth,... marriage is to create instability. I mean, we have to allow people to form any form of family they want, because freedom is a right, but, because it is the best way for a society, the state should promote one one marriage.

The way to promote it is subject to debate of course, but could be tax reductions, fiscal advantages,...

@SirCedric(Asgardian) on 31 May 2017, 6:40 a.m.

While you have bias data to support the idea that children brought up in a monogamist relationship, I am strongly opposed to having the Government dictate how I should live my life. There are cultural aspects that I will simply ignore for this "argument." Not only should we not focus on how many times one gets "married," but we should not care if they are in a polyandry relationship either.

Consider the statistics of the registered citizens, there are about 4 males for every single female! Great options for the ladies, I suppose. But if Asgardia is expected to expand into Space, that will be a very slow process without more females onboard. While I have nothing against providing tax credits to married couples, I don't believe we should promote this concept. After all, we wish for all citizens to be equal before law.

Marriage is an old-fashioned institution. I do not think a government has anything to do at all with how a person lives his/her life. If two (or more) people decide to share a relationship, should a government be deciding whether it's constitutional?

To LoreZyra: You said '' I am strongly opposed to having the Government dictate how I should live my life ''.

No one tells you or has to tell you how you should live. That's not the point. Marriage is a choice, and yes it is demonstrated that it is the best way to educate children and give them stability. I don't want to say that someone born outside the marriage can't be a nice and stable person. Just that statistically it is the best way.

A government may tolerate lots of form of union, to guarantee the freedom of his citizens,  but has to promote what is the best way, which is traditional marriage. I repeat, here it is not a question of moral, but of public policy.

The is a very nice study about that, published in Spanish: '' Familia y bienestar en sociedades democraticas, el debate cultural del siglo XXI'' from F. Pliego Carrasco, PhD in social sciences.

He shows clearly, using official statistics from different countries, including ''first word'' countries, that domestic violence, use of drugs,education results,... are far better for children coming from a stable traditional family.

Once again, there is a lot of exception, but public policy is about the common good, tolerating a lot but only promoting what is the best!

SirCedric(Asgardian) on 31 May 2017, 6:40 a.m.

... I'm in favor of a tolerance policy for any type of union between two adult citizen, but the state should promote and favor traditional marriage, not other types of union because it is the best formula to promote a stable and durable society.

My focus was on the "promotion" of marriage. Fortunately, the Constitution Draft(s) make no reference to marriage. However, it's my strong opinion that the substantive laws of Asgardia should also not make any mention nor promotion of any form of union between consenting adults. We have virtually no data for how family-units could survive in space for long periods of time.

You can aggregate data from any number of sources (and ignore some data) to support one's personal bias. AS you mentioned: "there is a lot of exception..." What appears to be evident, to me, is that with a good, supporting community (not explicitly the family-unit of a mother/father/etc), children can grow up to be productive and stable adults within that community.

I've worked in a few countries and several companies. I've seen how the "promotion" of married people places the single, unmarried people in a lower class status. People who are married are given more lead-way for taking time off and taking sick-time. Likewise, the tax code in the States allows for a slightly higher credit on tax liabilities if you are married. A married male is more likely to earn more for the same job compared to an unmarried male. Again, this is another way to lower the status of the unmarried persons (by definition of law, if any)... I'm not wanting to create these class structures at all for citizens (who should be considered equal before law).