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.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.
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.
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 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 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.
Because we have such a high percentage of incompetent 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.
In your opinion.
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?
Doesn't make it wrong or invalid.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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'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.
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.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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?