Should the state be involved in marriages?

[otseng]

Should the state grant/register/define marriages? Why or why not?

What level of involvement should the state be in regards to marriages?

[Bobby]

Please explain what legal complications may arise from never having a marriage contract.

Let's create a hypothetical couple. A mature couple, let's say 50ish. They are both previously divorced and both were unhappy with the legal crap they went through during their individual ordeals.
Each of them are now very much in love with the other and have decided that marriage is unnecessary. They both understand that they can share their love for one another without it.
The man dies, suddenly. hypothetical heart failure. It was so sad. But nevertheless, this man was hypothetically rich. But he also has children. Adult children with attorneys. The rich dead man even had a will, but wills are too often contested, so it puts the lady, the significant other, in a very difficult position.
The fact of the matter is, I agree with you, and Mr and mrs. Muffin, in terms of what true love and true commitment are based on. Contracts are not necessary to prove devotion to another human being. But a license and a contract are not the same thing. The state does not issue marriage contracts.
My father, who was killed in the Vietnam war, who also was never married to my mother, was unable to provide his son (me) with any security while his son was growing up, because my parents were never married. Of course there is more to that, but essentially it starts there.
I have nothing against people living together, I would hate to be misunderstood. I've lived with my daughters mother for six years before we married. Now we are divorced and good friends, but anyhow...
I guess people just need to know what they want and what they should or should not expect under all circumstances. I guess we can all agree on that. So maybe, when we sum it all up, people could consider the possibility of different types of marriages available to them. One that provides a personal commitment, one that could be in the eyes of God, one that could be done in a courtroom, another under that Oak tree that was mentioned, and last but not least, the one that can take place in Las vegas, where you can be married by an Elvis impersonator.
Corvus, Mrmuffin, you guys are great, I wish you were my neighbors.
Bobby

[ST88]

What I do not want is a cultural/religious tradition dictated by government. I don't want any benefits to marriage recognised by state. You may get married in the eyes of God, but why does it have to be recognised in the eyes of the law, with accompanying benefits? It doesn't. If it's purely ceremonial, no one can tread on anybody else's toes.

The state has a direct interest in marriages. Historically, marriages have tended to serve as stabilizing influences on the population. Houses, families, dynasties, etc. which join at points in marriage of the young ones tend not to have conflicts with one another.

In modern times, marriages have been treated like de facto bi-directional psychiatrist/patient relationships, as confidants & such. You could argue that married people are less likely to cause civic disruptions because they have an outlet for their neuroses, mischief, & sexual desires. They can talk frankly and openly to the partner about anything that is troubling them or that they are thinking over without fear of that partner testifying in a court of law.

Practically speaking, being married is largely ceremonial. Our culture puts pressure on us to marry for many irrational reasons: fear of free-agent females, hard-held myths about raising children, religious subservience, and good old-fashioned high-school-fitting-in peer pressure.

That said, our predicament as humans causes us to tend to pair off. There are exceptions, but we largely seek out (or allow) just one other person to know us more intimately than we are normally comfortable with. Existing within a society, we have come up with this system of identification for those who have already paired off in this way, and are therefore suffering unwanted attention from any would-be suitors. Those who have not are fair game, as it were. Again, there are exceptions (a great deal of art and literature concerns this very topic). The state's interest in this way is our own. By registering with the state as a pair, we tell the other citizens of the state that we are no longer available as marriageable material. This contributes to social stability by avoiding conflicts that arise when such relationships are "confused" or misconstrued.

The state has further added civic incentives, like tax breaks, decision-making powers in emergencies, child-rearing rights, etc. (based on what the state believes will benefit society as a whole) in order to preserve the stabilization that the marriage creates.

How romantic.

[Corvus]

In modern times, marriages have been treated like de facto bi-directional psychiatrist/patient relationships, as confidants & such. You could argue that married people are less likely to cause civic disruptions because they have an outlet for their neuroses, mischief, & sexual desires.

But couldn't one argue that a strong committed relationship has these same advantages?

Practically speaking, being married is largely ceremonial. Our culture puts pressure on us to marry for many irrational reasons: fear of free-agent females, hard-held myths about raising children, religious subservience, and good old-fashioned high-school-fitting-in peer pressure.

But I am not denying anyone the ceremony, so those people that crave it can easily approach a church, temple, lodge or what-have-you and be lovingly united. These people can still claim to be married.

That said, our predicament as humans causes us to tend to pair off. There are exceptions, but we largely seek out (or allow) just one other person to know us more intimately than we are normally comfortable with. Existing within a society, we have come up with this system of identification for those who have already paired off in this way, and are therefore suffering unwanted attention from any would-be suitors. Those who have not are fair game, as it were. Again, there are exceptions (a great deal of art and literature concerns this very topic). The state's interest in this way is our own. By registering with the state as a pair, we tell the other citizens of the state that we are no longer available as marriageable material. This contributes to social stability by avoiding conflicts that arise when such relationships are "confused" or misconstrued.

If marriage was not the concern of the government, once can still claim to be married or part of a monogamous partnership. I will wager that as many people pursue a fiance or someone in any kind of committed partnership as persons identified as being married. I doubt things would be as confusing or ambiguous as you seem to suggest, and whether or not confusion arises from some unwanted suitor, the person being courted can easily refuse and set things to rights without any drama.

If it is natural for us to pair off, than the effect on social stability should not be terribly disastrous.

The state has further added civic incentives, like tax breaks, decision-making powers in emergencies, child-rearing rights, etc. (based on what the state believes will benefit society as a whole) in order to preserve the stabilization that the marriage creates.

Most of these incentives can be recognised without marriage or any formal recognition of it. Even so, I know that these incentives are often not even considered by a couple who plan to marry.

Let's create a hypothetical couple. A mature couple, let's say 50ish. They are both previously divorced and both were unhappy with the legal crap they went through during their individual ordeals.
Each of them are now very much in love with the other and have decided that marriage is unnecessary. They both understand that they can share their love for one another without it.

I think this is what is normally considered a de facto relationship, and the fortunate lady will normally be regarded by the government as the next of kin.

Corvus, Mrmuffin, you guys are great, I wish you were my neighbors.

Aw, shucks. Thank you.

[ST88]

In modern times, marriages have been treated like de facto bi-directional psychiatrist/patient relationships, as confidants & such. You could argue that married people are less likely to cause civic disruptions because they have an outlet for their neuroses, mischief, & sexual desires.

But couldn't one argue that a strong committed relationship has these same advantages?

Absolutely. Any strong committed relationship between two people has the potential to be a relationship like this. However, because the state has an interest in this being the case, the state can promote it by offering certain incentives for doing so. Declining the state's offer for civic recognition of the unit you have become should not and does not affect the quality of the relationship, neither does it affect society as a whole if the relationship is equivalent to marriage. However, because the state views these relationships as beneficial to its own existence and survival, and it offers fringe benefits for doing so, the fact that you decline the state's offer means only that you are denying yourself these benefits. Do you see what I'm getting at? If you believe that a marriage license is just a piece of paper, that the relationship is not affected by marriage, that religion does not need to be a part of it, then what is the reason for not getting married?

By registering with the state as a pair, we tell the other citizens of the state that we are no longer available as marriageable material. This contributes to social stability by avoiding conflicts that arise when such relationships are "confused" or misconstrued.

If marriage was not the concern of the government, once can still claim to be married or part of a monogamous partnership. I will wager that as many people pursue a fiance or someone in any kind of committed partnership as persons identified as being married. I doubt things would be as confusing or ambiguous as you seem to suggest, and whether or not confusion arises from some unwanted suitor, the person being courted can easily refuse and set things to rights without any drama.

I concede that my argument here is largely theoretical. I was just trying to show that our social contract with the state includes different sorts of benefits and stabilizers. Theoretically, the marriage prevents such interactions, but in practice probably not so much.

The state has further added civic incentives, like tax breaks, decision-making powers in emergencies, child-rearing rights, etc. (based on what the state believes will benefit society as a whole) in order to preserve the stabilization that the marriage creates.

Most of these incentives can be recognised without marriage or any formal recognition of it. Even so, I know that these incentives are often not even considered by a couple who plan to marry.

I would disagree with you here. The state has no way of knowing who is in a relationship like this without an issuance of some kind of recognition beforehand. Without recognition from the state, there is always the danger of misrepresentation of such relationships that would offer no benefit to the state, and may even harm it.

The fact that many couples do not consider the civic benefits of being in a marriage in order to make the decision is precisely my point. It affects the people in a committed relationship hardly at all -- it affects the state much more so. This is why the state has an interest. By themselves, the citizens of the state need not declare their commitment to other citizens in order to be in the commitment. However, the fact that these relationships benefit the state, and affect the individuals little, gives the state the impetus to organize and bureaucratize the practice.

ed: clarity of last section

[Dilettante]

I wish I had seen this thread before: I wouldn't have posted the same thing in "Random ramblings"...

OK, you guys...a few questions for those who say the State should keep out of the marriage business:

1. If marriage is just a piece of paper, why do gays and lesbians want to marry? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Unless there's more to marriage than meets the eye. I'd say for most people marriage is somehow more "public" than de facto relationships and for this reason it is viewed as a stronger bond, even if this is clearly not always the case.

2. If the State pulls out of marriage because it should be a private thing, why not keep religion out of marriage too? Religion is a public affair (not a private one) and a religious ceremony makes marriage just as public as a courthouse wedding.

3. Without State recognition of marriages, international, transatlantic marriages such as mine would not have been possible. My wife can legally reside in my country only because she is married to me (and we have to renew the paperwork every so many years). Without the State, should my family and me move to the US, I would be an illegal alien. I could be deported and separated from my loved ones. How would this work better without the State?. I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm just asking, since you seem to have already made up your minds.

Regards,
Dilettante

[mrmufin]

1. If marriage is just a piece of paper, why do gays and lesbians want to marry?

That's the thing; marriage is not just a piece of paper. If it was just a piece of paper, there'd be no debate. There are numerous real, state-sanctioned benefits (and/or entanglements) that come with being a party to a marriage contract. If the States get out of the marriage business, the State benefits and rights associated with marriage should follow. No more preclusion from testimony. No more de facto inheritance. No more assumed benefits. As falls Wichita, so falls Wichita Falls.

Because heterosexual couples certainly do not have a monopoly on family values, loving, caring, committed relationships, they shouldn't have a monopoly on benefits associated with being a party to a marriage contract. If marriage had no measurable benefit, it could still maintain its social and ceremonial aspects. By the same measure, same-sex couples can (and do) have ceremonies proclaiming their commitment.

2. If the State pulls out of marriage because it should be a private thing, why not keep religion out of marriage too? Religion is a public affair (not a private one) and a religious ceremony makes marriage just as public as a courthouse wedding.

Because religious participants should not be precluded from enjoying the ceremonial, public aspects of marriage. They can still be married, in the terms and traditions that they respect. There just aren't any backdoor State benefits.

3. Without State recognition of marriages, international, transatlantic marriages such as mine would not have been possible. My wife can legally reside in my country only because she is married to me (and we have to renew the paperwork every so many years). Without the State, should my family and me move to the US, I would be an illegal alien. I could be deported and separated from my loved ones. How would this work better without the State?. I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm just asking, since you seem to have already made up your minds.

An excellent point and example. If the State is insistent on being in the business of marriage, then it should not make any preclusions based on gender... I really have no problem with the State benefits associated with marriage. I do have a problem when States preclude persons from those benefits on the basis of gender.

And yes, I mean to say gender, not sexual orientation: the States have no test for sexual orientation when administering marriage licenses.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Dilettante]

I have no quarrel with same sex marriage. Since the goal of marriage is no longer procreation (see the fertility rate in western countries--my country has the lowest one in the whole world), I can't really oppose gay and lesbian couples marrying. They seem just as capable of sustaining a loving, committed relationship as everyone else. And that's precisely all we ask of a marriage nowadays.

[RevJP]

Should the government be involved in the marriage business? No, but they are invovled in the civil union business, a legal binding of two consenting adults into one (as recognized by law). What is the difference here? Marriage in its most ideal definition is a civil union sanctified and recognized by God.

What does this mean? The state has no reason nor right to involve itself in the concept of marriage as long as that concept does not violate the laws of the civil union (which simply means that a recognized official must be involved in the joining of the two into one entity.

It appears that we have discussed the need for marriage/civil union in a mishmash of comments, as opposed to allowing two consenting adults live together in a loving committed relationship. Which is of course a seperate issue.

What I think I am reading is that anyone should be able to claim thier couplehood and recieve the same recognition as those in a civil union, or that no one should recieve recognition or benefit for being 'two as one'. Is that truly the issue being discussed?

[Dilettante]

RevJP wrote:

Marriage in its most ideal definition is a civil union sanctified and recognized by God.

What you are defining is a specific type of marriage (religious or perhaps sacramental marriage). But in ancient Rome, for instance, there were many different types of marriage and not all of them were religious in nature. Actually, the marriage institution predates both organized religion and the State.
If there are reasons why State should not get to define what marriage is, I think churches are in the same situation. Why should a church (but not the State) get to define a cultural institution common to all? No one should force the churches to recognize other marriages but the ones they themselves have blessed, but the State exists for all, so the State is (currently at least) obliged to recognize at least some types of unions as marriage.
RevJP wrote:

What I think I am reading is that anyone should be able to claim thier couplehood and recieve the same recognition as those in a civil union, or that no one should recieve recognition or benefit for being 'two as one'. Is that truly the issue being discussed?

That's an issue which needs to be discussed, yes. Should the state regard all unions as civil unions and leave it to the parties involved to decide if they are married or not? What would the advantages of the total privatization of marriage be?
Until not long ago, in my country most couples had two weddings: a civil wedding and a religious one. Some people decided to have only a civil ceremony. But no one opted for just a religious ceremony because it had no legal effects. Give Caesar what is Caesar's...
Why must a religious ceremony automatically produce civil/secular effects and be called marriage?

[RevJP]

If there are reasons why State should not get to define what marriage is, I think churches are in the same situation. Why should a church (but not the State) get to define a cultural institution common to all

I think you are missing the point. There are civil unions which as you have stated encompass the legal aspects of two individuals joining as one entity. Then there is marriage, a religious, or cultural union, when encompasses the aspects of the civil union and the cultural or religious aspects of a sanctified joining of two into one.

The churches get to define what they recoginize as marriage, not civil unions, because the marriage aspect of the union is the religious/cultural aspect of the union. Just as they are able to choose who they will or will not make ministers or priests, they can choose who they will marry, based on their doctrine/dogma. They cannot prevent anyone from being joined in a civl ceremony, so I don't understand why they should be restricted or not restricted as is the state.

Until not long ago, in my country most couples had two weddings: a civil wedding and a religious one. Some people decided to have only a civil ceremony. But no one opted for just a religious ceremony because it had no legal effects. Give Caesar what is Caesar's...

Interesting, here in the US, the state dictates who can perform a wedding, a small form of control so that people cannot claim marriage anytime they want. A marriage consists of obtaning a license, which is signed by the minister and recorded by the County Clerk. The only difference between the marriage and the civil union as far as the state is concerned is who is performing the ceremony. Some states and counties require the ministers to register in the county in order to perform ceremonies - Not in my area though.

Why must a religious ceremony automatically produce civil/secular effects and be called marriage?

Expediency and demand of the populace. Few want to do two ceremonies to get the same thing. Add to that the fact that marriage, as you said, has existed long before civil unions and the states recognition of those unions.