• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the state recognize marriage at all?

Should the state recognize marriage at all?


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
I would be fine with doing away with legal marriage and just letting people appoint others in contracts. If two people have a kid let them be the legal father and mother, when someone dies they can portion out wealth to their spouse or someone else. Do away with filing married in taxes and make everyone file as a single individual or designate a household.

Basically, do away with divorce and just legally change contracts instead of going through the whole divorce process (which is expensive and time consuming). Don't recognize anything as a "marriage" from the state and let people decide.
 
Ideally perhaps, but when property or children are involved, and there is a divorce or a death requiring division, it is hard for the State NOT to get involved unless there is a contract spelling out who-gets-what and it goes uncontested.
Honesly, I think common law and contract law could cover that sufficiently with little more interference from government. In many states a "common law marriage" is handled in courts with the same standard as an officially married couple. Marriage is a contract, whether the state gets involved or not so I say expand common law to the issue, retract licensure, and let the courts handle it. I just don't like the idea of state and religious affairs(marriage) being open to government purview.
 
I keep hearing about the "devaluing" of marriage, but I can never seem to get a straight answer on what exactly that means. Furthermore, while the divorce statistic is a hard number, I can never seem to get other hard numbers which illustrate how the problem is the "devaluing" of marriage.

What this means, ultimately, is that the institution of marriage continues to be promoted both by the bureaucracy and by hysterical politicians despite its high failure rate and a complete lack of hard evidence as to why it fails so often and what might make a better alternative.

Never fear, politicians will continue to sing the praises of marriage in front of the cameras because it will continue to be a cheap way to score votes for the foreseeable future.

It's hard to nail down exactly how marriage came to be devalued, or how to distribute the responsibility, but the timing is pretty clear. Look what happened to divorce rates with the “sexual revolution” in the 1960s…

67149564d1372462395-so-horrible-im-not-going-divorce.jpg


This coincides with a trend of being much more accepting of all manner of sexual immorality; and with a greatly-lowered degree of respect, as a society, for the essential role of marriage and family. Our society has not recovered from the damage that was done here, half a century ago; and, barring any dramatic change in society similar to what caused this, it appears that a hundred years will pass, and the damage will still remain.
 
This coincides with a trend of being much more accepting of all manner of sexual immorality; and with a greatly-lowered degree of respect, as a society, for the essential role of marriage and family. Our society has not recovered from the damage that was done here, half a century ago; and, barring any dramatic change in society similar to what caused this, it appears that a hundred years will pass, and the damage will still remain.

It also coincides pretty closely with the introduction of the no-fault divorce. Maybe that's the real cause -- the fact that one no longer had to invent criminal or sinful behavior in order to get a divorce.
 
It also coincides pretty closely with the introduction of the no-fault divorce. Maybe that's the real cause -- the fact that one no longer had to invent criminal or sinful behavior in order to get a divorce.

It also corresponded with a sharp increase in both the social acceptability and the actual incidence of the sort of “criminal or sinful behavior” that previously was generally considered to justify a divorce.

In general, a very sharp decline in the respect in which marriage was held. We were “liberated” from the idea that you had to get married before you had sex, and before you started having children; and we were “liberated” from the idea of marriage as a lifetime commitment. We looked to the new, easy availability of birth control and abortion to free us from the consequences of sexual immorality and irresponsibility; and in so doing, we ended up massively increasing the degree to which we, as individuals and as a society are being adversely affected by these consequences.

Before this happened, we were correctly very well aware of the tragic results of children coming from “broken homes”. So now, not only have we nearly tripled the rate of “broken homes” and of children coming therefrom; but we have, on top of that, whole new generations of children who were never born into intact families to begin with.
 
It also corresponded with a sharp increase in both the social acceptability and the actual incidence of the sort of “criminal or sinful behavior” that previously was generally considered to justify a divorce.

In general, a very sharp decline in the respect in which marriage was held. We were “liberated” from the idea that you had to get married before you had sex, and before you started having children; and we were “liberated” from the idea of marriage as a lifetime commitment. We looked to the new, easy availability of birth control and abortion to free us from the consequences of sexual immorality and irresponsibility; and in so doing, we ended up massively increasing the degree to which we, as individuals and as a society are being adversely affected by these consequences.

Before this happened, we were correctly very well aware of the tragic results of children coming from “broken homes”. So now, not only have we nearly tripled the rate of “broken homes” and of children coming therefrom; but we have, on top of that, whole new generations of children who were never born into intact families to begin with.

In other words, there was a whole lot of change going on, and we can't really pin down why it went up. Hell, that spike also came during a period when our leaders got caught doing a lot of bad things, thus diminishing the public's trust in them as a nation at the same time a whole lot of civil rights activists popped up and captured the country's imagination.

So maybe it wasn't so much about the sexual revolution as it was about rejecting the package being sold to the public by people the public no longer trusted. Maybe it was about seeing the corruption in the way things had been getting done and rejecting it, then searching for a better alternative.

If you roll back the clock to when marriage was a highly respected institution, there was a lot about the United States that was far from respectable, especially by today's standards. Maybe instead of trying to slow or prevent the crumbling of the old we should be finding a better new.
 
It also coincides pretty closely with the introduction of the no-fault divorce. Maybe that's the real cause -- the fact that one no longer had to invent criminal or sinful behavior in order to get a divorce.

Which is a problem, just as getting rid of the waiting period before getting married. It means any two idiots can get married after knowing each other 10 minutes and get divorced after knowing each other 15 minutes. I think marriage should be hard to get into and harder to get out of.
 
Which is a problem, just as getting rid of the waiting period before getting married. It means any two idiots can get married after knowing each other 10 minutes and get divorced after knowing each other 15 minutes. I think marriage should be hard to get into and harder to get out of.

Why artificially limit the choices of competent adults?
 
Okay, I'll rephrase my question: Why artificially limit the choices of adults that the law would classify competent to make their own decisions?

Because they are making irrational, immature and unjustifiable decisions? Just because someone can make a particular decision doesn't mean it's the best decision to make, nor one that society as a whole ought to support.
 
Because they are making irrational, immature and unjustifiable decisions?

In your opinion.

Just because someone can make a particular decision doesn't mean it's the best decision to make, nor one that society as a whole ought to support.

It isn't society's job to decide what is the best decision for a competent adult to make. It is that adult's job. Otherwise, what's the point of individual freedom?
 
In your opinion.

Doesn't make it wrong or invalid.

It isn't society's job to decide what is the best decision for a competent adult to make. It is that adult's job. Otherwise, what's the point of individual freedom?

Sure it is. Society determines most things that are right or wrong, that's now morality works. According to you, child molestation or murder can't be considered wrong or actionable because it isn't society's job to determine that they're not fine.
 
Doesn't make it wrong or invalid.

No, but opinions are a piss-poor reason for legislation and regulations and policies that affect everyone, especially when there are so many differing opinions.

Sure it is. Society determines most things that are right or wrong, that's now morality works. According to you, child molestation or murder can't be considered wrong or actionable because it isn't society's job to determine that they're not fine.

Oh, yes, I was waiting for that. By all means, compare the regulation of marriage to the prohibition of child molestation. After all marriage involves 2 competent adults whereas child molestation involves one or more adults abusing or taking advantage one or more children, I definitely see the similarities there.
 
Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationshp?

They don't in most cases. In fact, I have no idea where you get the idea that they do in general.

Tax Issues for Unmarried Couples | Nolo.com

Plus, marriage shows that the couple is more likely to stay together than simply two people living together. Those who simply live together without getting married and are raising children are less likely to stay together throughout the child's/children's childhood than a married couple.

Almost no couples with children who stay unmarried stay together, study claims - Telegraph

Maybe it's psychological or maybe it is the legal/financial benefits of marriage along with the legal/financial hardships of divorce that keep these people together, but it is a fact.
 
I have a huge issue with so many people trying to make things less efficient. The marriage contract is already established to protect people and recognize people as legal spouses, a legally recognized familial relationship, with just a simple 1-page, cheap document. This document works fairly well to protect most spouses in most situations, especially the important ones. And all for a pretty reasonable one-time fee. And what is being suggested is to replace this simple cheap relationship-length contract with multiple expensive, lengthy legal paperwork that does not recognize people as legal family members with just those current documents. Plus some of those contracts can only be written to cover a short time length, so they have to be renewed (at another cost) every so often. It is ridiculous.
 
No, but opinions are a piss-poor reason for legislation and regulations and policies that affect everyone, especially when there are so many differing opinions.

Virtually all legislation is based on opinion, people vote based on opinion, politicians legislate based on opinion. You are operating out of your opinions, yet you condemn others for doing the same?

Oh, yes, I was waiting for that. By all means, compare the regulation of marriage to the prohibition of child molestation. After all marriage involves 2 competent adults whereas child molestation involves one or more adults abusing or taking advantage one or more children, I definitely see the similarities there.

As expected, since you can't handle the concepts, you attack the specificites.
 
There is no such thing as a "private marriage contract" in most marriages. You presume that marriage simply awards all the benefits that the State recognizes. Try dealing with property claims, parental rights, medical visitation and determinations when in-laws challenge a spouse they dislike.
I'm talking about the ideal that should be, not what currently is. Why would you need a marriage license to deal with property claims, for example? It would be incredibly easy to set that framework up in a private contract. Property claims, parental rights, medical visitation, etc. don't require marriage licenses to exist...that's just how it works now.
 
Yes. Couples in marriage are the foundation of society. Hence, the state should have a vested interest in being a part of that process. The process of marriage. Again, marriage has 2 parts:

A) legal
b) ceremonial.

The legal part is the state part when you go and sign a piece of paper at the city hall or social office or what naught. There is nothing romantic or religious about it. It just informs the state that there is another group of people who are ready to be part of the building block of society. Gay or straight, as it is now in 13 states in the USA I think.
The ceremonial part is the religious one. Also known as a wedding in Christianity, where you go at the church, say some vowes and put a ring on each others' finger. This is the romantic part also. The ceremonial part is also optional. All you really need is the legal part. The state part, to be married, by law.

The vows are the most important part. Too bad people don't seem to take them seriously anymore.
 
The vows are the most important part. Too bad people don't seem to take them seriously anymore.

Yes, the vows are the most important for the people who get married. Because it's what they promise to each other. But as far as the state should be concerned, their most important aspect is if you signed the piece of paper. That's it. And that's fine.
 
Would it be better to simply keep marriages, regardless of gender or number of spouses, purely a religious or otherwise private ceremony? Why or why not?

I think there is still a state interest to support the stability that comes with marriage. It's harder to keep today than in the past, but it's a windmill worth tilting. They just have to be fair and equal with the recognition.
 
I'm talking about the ideal that should be, not what currently is. Why would you need a marriage license to deal with property claims, for example? It would be incredibly easy to set that framework up in a private contract. Property claims, parental rights, medical visitation, etc. don't require marriage licenses to exist...that's just how it works now.

Not true, there are whole slew of laws that determine this:

Property claims are covered by inheritance laws if a person does not ensure a valid will exists. These vary from state to state.

Medical visitation: "If an incapacitated patient has not completely documented his or her wishes, hospitals follow state laws about who can make health care decisions for the patient. Many states rank potential decision makers and mandate that hospitals follow this priority order. In most states, a domestic partner or close friend is last on the list of potential proxies. In some states, domestic partners and close friends are not on the list at all." Hospital Rights (This includes who gets to visit.)

Parental rights: In most states blood trumps marriage, so that step-children can be claimed by either the natural surviving parent or other close relative.

Things are not as always as clear as you seem to think.
 
Not true, there are whole slew of laws that determine this:

Property claims are covered by inheritance laws if a person does not ensure a valid will exists. These vary from state to state.

Medical visitation: "If an incapacitated patient has not completely documented his or her wishes, hospitals follow state laws about who can make health care decisions for the patient. Many states rank potential decision makers and mandate that hospitals follow this priority order. In most states, a domestic partner or close friend is last on the list of potential proxies. In some states, domestic partners and close friends are not on the list at all." Hospital Rights (This includes who gets to visit.)

Parental rights: In most states blood trumps marriage, so that step-children can be claimed by either the natural surviving parent or other close relative.

Things are not as always as clear as you seem to think.
Again, you are just describing the way it is now, as if that refutes the possibility of something else. A system of no marriage licenses would require a lot of radical changes.

Property claims: If a valid will exists, your property claims argument is bunk. If not, all you would have to do is write in the marriage contract: "upon the death of either spouse, the surviving spouse is to inherit the full estate" or something of the like. The contract would then essentially act as a valid will.

Medical visitation: Your argument only applies if there is no documentation of wishes, as your source points out. The marriage contract would include a documentation of wishes, so hospitals would follow that documentation. State laws that prohibit such wishes from being followed should be removed.

Parental rights: Your argument here does not apply to marriages where both spouses are the natural parents of their children. That blood trumps marriage is irrelevant, because the surviving spouse is often the natural parent, and thus has both blood and marriage. Regardless, the marriage contract would specify that the couple has joint custody, and that in the event of death the surviving parent is to have custody, blood-related or not.

I'm not sure how you thought any of those examples debunked the feasibility of a private marriage contract.
 
Last edited:
Would it be better to simply keep marriages, regardless of gender or number of spouses, purely a religious or otherwise private ceremony? Why or why not?

As in many other areas, the state is far too involved in our lives. If it kept itself only to defense I would be much less vociferous in my opposition to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom