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?

[Cephus]

I imagine the statistical data you are using refer to the US, but the question topic did not specify any particular country. It would help if we could find international statistics. Marriage failure rates are not nearly as high in my country (not that I can guarantee they will stay low forever, of course). What your statistics prove is that something is wrong with American marriage, not necessarily with marriage worldwide. I bet this has to do with the fact that Americans tend to marry at a younger age due to societal pressures, and that they tend to have rather unrealistic expectations of marriage, probably because of too many Hollywood movies (the media romanticize and idealize marriage, so if it's not just as perfect in real life, people become disillusioned).

I don't know that there's any worldwide data on divorce but I would be surprised if it's doing statistically better worldwide than it is in the US. I think a lot of the reason that marriages in the US, at least, are failing is because it's too easy to get into marriage and too easy to get out. Divorce is no longer stigmatized and no one is ashamed to be married a dozen times. There was a time when someone who got divorced was seen as a failure as a person. That time is, unfortunately, past.

I was talking about in-laws. If my wife and I weren't married, I would feel no obligation whatsoever toward my in-laws.

No? I don't feel an obligation toward my in-laws because of a piece of paper, I feel an obligation because I love and respect my wife and she holds them in high regard. No piece of paper necessary.

I must admit you're right about this. But that would be "common-law marriage", which is a kind of marriage after all. You're also right that too many people are unfaithful. But is that a character flaw on the part of those people or is it the fault of the institution? I tend to think the former is more likely to be true.

A marriage license doesn't stop infidelity. It doesn't cause it either. Again, we're seeing no real demonstrable reasons to be married at all except for the legal benefits.

But is that a fact? The legal benefits are very important in some cases (such as when the spouses have different nationalities), less so in other cases. People still get married even in cases when the legal benefits are negligible.

Only because it's seen as the 'socially acceptable thing to do'. If the state tried to do away with the tax benefits of marriage, I suspect you'd see a serious drop in the number of people getting married, simply because there isn't a reason to do so.

[Dilettante]

Cephus wrote:

I don't know that there's any worldwide data on divorce but I would be surprised if it's doing statistically better worldwide than it is in the US.

The most recent statistics I could find are the following, from http://youthtools.ibelieve.com, a Christian site. There were some at http://www.divorcereform.org/gul.html from the Heritage Foundation.

WORLDWIDE DIVORCE

Divorces as percent of all marriages:

Russia 65%

Sweden 64%

Finland 56%

Britain 53%

U.S. 49%

Canada 45%

France 43%

Germany 41%

Israel 26%

Greece 18%

Spain 17%

Italy 11%

SOURCE-Divorce Center, Time September 25, 2000

It's really interesting to compare divorce rates with religious affiliation:

DENOMINATIONAL DIVORCE
From 4,000 adults:

Of born-again Christians, 27 percent are or have been previously divorced. As for the others, 24 percent are or have been previously divorced. Baptist recorded the highest divorce rate with 29 percent. Catholics had the lowest at 21 percent. The Mormon divorce rate was 24 percent and athiests and agnostics had a 21 percent divorce rate. Of the entire adult population, 11 percent currently divorced but 25 percent has experienced at least one marriage breakup. Whites divorce more than Blacks or Hispanics, 27 percent, 22 percent, and 20 percent respectively. Of Asians, 8 percent divorce.

SOURCE-Barna Research Group, December 21, 1999

I completely agree with you about the causes you mention for higher divorce rates. If breaking one's promises is no longer stigmatized, it's not surprising people have become more flighty.
Plus, maritally unreliable people do not want to admit that they may just not be cut out for marriage!

No? I don't feel an obligation toward my in-laws because of a piece of paper, I feel an obligation because I love and respect my wife and she holds them in high regard. No piece of paper necessary.

Ideally that's how it should work. But what if your wife actually disliked some members of her own family? That's what I mean about feeling an obligation because of the marriage bond rather than out of personal affinity.

Only because it's seen as the 'socially acceptable thing to do'. If the state tried to do away with the tax benefits of marriage, I suspect you'd see a serious drop in the number of people getting married, simply because there isn't a reason to do so.

Actually, in my country around the 1980s there were virtually no tax benefits to being married, but rather the opposite was true (until a guy sued the Government and won). Apparently that didn't stop people getting married at the same rate, even though by then cohabitation was already socially acceptable. Inertia, then? Who knows. Maybe people just like weddings...

[Cephus]

I completely agree with you about the causes you mention for higher divorce rates. If breaking one's promises is no longer stigmatized, it's not surprising people have become more flighty.
Plus, maritally unreliable people do not want to admit that they may just not be cut out for marriage!

I don't know that there are people just not cut out for marriage, but I do know that a lot of people are much more immature today than people of similar ages would have been in the past. We really do coddle people too much instead of forcing them to get out and succeed on their own, we hand things to them on a silver platter and pick them up every time they fall. It's no wonder so many marriages fail, these people aren't mature enough to realize that marriage takes work and sacrifice.

Ideally that's how it should work. But what if your wife actually disliked some members of her own family? That's what I mean about feeling an obligation because of the marriage bond rather than out of personal affinity.

For years, half of my wife's family didn't talk to the other half. I felt no obligation to 'bond' with any of them just because I signed my name on the dotted line, and there are still some that we just don't see because we don't like them. Heck, there are people in *MY* family I don't see because they're annoying.

Actually, in my country around the 1980s there were virtually no tax benefits to being married, but rather the opposite was true (until a guy sued the Government and won). Apparently that didn't stop people getting married at the same rate, even though by then cohabitation was already socially acceptable. Inertia, then? Who knows. Maybe people just like weddings...

I think there's a difference between 'socially acceptable' and 'socially accepted'. Look at interracial relationships. They've been around for a long time, they're perfectly legal and socially acceptable. That doesn't mean that a lot of people don't regard an interracial couple as a bit different than a same-race couple. I think something similar applies to marriage. Marriage has traditionally been seen as the norm and even though it is 'socially acceptable' to live outside of that norm, a lot of people are going to be uncomfortable doing so for whatever personal reasons they might have. That's going to push more people into having that piece of paper, just because it makes them feel that they fit in better than not having it.

[richGUY2112]

According to the atheist web, the divorce rate of atheists run at about 4%

[Gandalf]

New guy here! I have a quick and very important point to make. But first, I will start with a question. What came first, God's Law or political law? For those of you reading this that answered the former then you are correct! God's Law did precede ANY other law in history, and is therefore the only law to base all other laws on. The global society should give the entire marriage situation back to the church ... the CHRISTIAN church. And leave the government out of it. Marriage is based solely on God's Law, His Will for a couple (that being a man and a woman), and above all else, love. The global society, including the governments around the world, have turned precious love into a political debate. HOW ROMANTIC! Keep it in the church, where love prevails.

[Cephus]

New guy here! I have a quick and very important point to make. But first, I will start with a question. What came first, God's Law or political law? For those of you reading this that answered the former then you are correct! God's Law did precede ANY other law in history, and is therefore the only law to base all other laws on. The global society should give the entire marriage situation back to the church ... the CHRISTIAN church. And leave the government out of it. Marriage is based solely on God's Law, His Will for a couple (that being a man and a woman), and above all else, love. The global society, including the governments around the world, have turned precious love into a political debate. HOW ROMANTIC! Keep it in the church, where love prevails.

I don't know if I should laugh or vomit. This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read here.

Do try again though.

[otseng]

I don't know if I should laugh or vomit. This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read here.

Let's try to be civil here, esp to a newbie. If you see inconsistencies in logic or relevance, politely point them out. But there is no need to make such comments about a post. Thanks.

[Cephus]

Let's try to be civil here, esp to a newbie. If you see inconsistencies in logic or relevance, politely point them out. But there is no need to make such comments about a post. Thanks.

When it is as ridiculous as that, sure there is. It's about as ridiculous as someone coming on here and posting racist drivel. Obviously, this individual doesn't quite comprehend that there is life outside the walls of his church or a little concept like 'freedom of (and from) religion'.

But certainly, let's see what the newbie has to say for himself. Hopefully it's more than the typical "I'm right, you're wrong, so there" stuff.

[McCulloch]

New guy here! I have a quick and very important point to make. But first, I will start with a question. What came first, God's Law or political law? For those of you reading this that answered the former then you are correct! God's Law did precede ANY other law in history, and is therefore the only law to base all other laws on.

I am sure that you will be providing some evidence to substantiate this claim. Start by proving that god exists.

The global society should give the entire marriage situation back to the church ... the CHRISTIAN church.

Then prove that the god you have proven to exist has granted legal authority to the Christian church to administer marriage. Then answer how the christian church should administer marriages of non-christians. Should Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and atheists be forced to be wed in christian churches with christian clergy. Or maybe you think that marriage should be restricted only to christians. Having solved that dilemma, answer which particular christians should be allowed to administer marriage. Catholic? Orthodox? Coptic? Anglican? (how about the Anglicans who support same-sex marriage?) Evangelical? Mormon? Jehovahs Witness? Progressive Christians (some of them also support same sex marriage)? Independent?

And leave the government out of it. Marriage is based solely on God's Law, His Will for a couple (that being a man and a woman), and above all else, love. The global society, including the governments around the world, have turned precious love into a political debate. HOW ROMANTIC! Keep it in the church, where love prevails.

In Canada, it is not just a political debate, it is a human rights issue. Do you believe that those who believe that their god or gods oppose same sex marriage be allowed to impose their unsubstantiated faith-based morality on those who do not subscribe to their particular faith? What a dangerous precedent you are suggesting!

[Gandalf]

Please! You can not be serious. I can not offer any more proof to of the things I believe than you can of the things you believe. And if you CAN give any form of respectable proof then I would be fair enough to read it and possibly give an opinion, if that is what you are looking for here. Although I can not give any proof of what you are asking, I CAN tell you that I live by something very valuable in human life ... FAITH! It is rather important for not only a Christian but anyone from any religion to have faith in what they believe. And I obviously have faith in God and in His Wisdom and Power and of course His Law. So, now that you know that I am humbly admitting to you that I am unable to give proof that would be enough to convince even the most feeble minded and ignorant, I would like to ask you to prove to me why it is that you believe what you believe in this complicated situation. For FAITH is MY weapon of choice in the battle against all that is against God and His Law.