Should the state be involved in the marriage game?

[Guest]

The government should stay completely out of it. Meanwhile, religions should be 100% free to grant or deny the privilege of marriage rites as they see fit, without state interference. No form of marriage should ever be legally recognized, endorsed, or rewarded with benefits.

 

 

At the same time, it's probably a good idea if the state offers some kind of framework - whether it's called "civil union", "household registry" or whatever - that gives similar legal beneifts as marriage gives today. This framework should not be limited to couples (open to whatever number of people wish to join in it), should not care about whether the people joined in in are relatives (brother and sister getting a c.u. should be okeydokey fine), should obviously not care about orientation, type of relationship etc.. 

 

The only things the state should be interested in is whether the people joining the union did so out of their own free, informed will. That probably must include some kind of age limit. Personally, I think 14 is probably old enough to make a decision for themselves.

 

Also, this c.u. should be far, far more easy to legally dissolve than the divorce process currently used for marriage. Give folks, say, two weeks to a month of thinking about it, then have everyone involved sign a document, and presto, no more c.u..

[Dreamsexual]

On 1 February 2019 at 4:13 AM, Mysticus Insanus said:

The government should stay completely out of it. Meanwhile, religions should be 100% free to grant or deny the privilege of marriage rites as they see fit, without state interference. No form of marriage should ever be legally recognized, endorsed, or rewarded with benefits.

 

[uhtred]

5 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Agree with this bit.  But I'd just keep the rest in the realm of personal contract law, if people wanted legal stuff attached.

Laws can be important to protect people in asymmetric marriages, and to provide for children. In many cases tranditional marriage law works well. 

[Dreamsexual]

On 1 February 2019 at 6:37 AM, uhtred said:

Laws can be important to protect people in asymmetric marriages, and to provide for children.

 

[Sally]

On 1/12/2019 at 8:53 AM, uhtred said:

What I was suggesting is that there be nothing "special" about the marriage contract from the government's point of view, and that there be many possible contracts.

 

There IS nothing special about the marriage contract in the US.  The only thing it governs is the support of any children of the marriage and the disposal of common property if the marriage ends.  That's it.

 

All of the restrictions that people are talking about perhaps apply to different countries.  

[Dreamsexual]

On 1 February 2019 at 7:09 AM, Sally said:

All of the restrictions that people are talking about perhaps apply to different countries.

 

[uhtred]

8 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

If people are concerned for their kids, existing wills and contract law can do this.  No need for state marriage specific laws, which by their nature outlaw various kinds of union.  Since all parties drawing up a contract have to adults, there's no real issue with asymmetric marriages (at leadt no worse than now).

The problem is that a lot of people are careful thinkers.  By having a standard "marriage" contract, people get protection from issue that they may not have considered.

 

btw: I my preference would be for the state to have a set of a variety of standard marriage contracts aimed at the most common situations, and then people would have the ability to make their own (within certain legal restrictions). 

 

There are a few issues in marriage contracts that might not fit into normal law.  In particular agreements about sexual relations might not be legal in a normal contract but would make sense in a marriage contract. 

[Dreamsexual]

On 1 February 2019 at 3:37 PM, uhtred said:

By having a standard "marriage" contract, people get protection from issue that they may not have considered.

 

 

 

[uhtred]

5 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Which can be done via lawyers apart from the state, just like property conveyancing or wills - usually standard formats, I believe. 

 

 

It can be done, but many people do not think these thigns through, and cannot afford lawyers to create new contracts. 

[Dreamsexual]

On 1 February 2019 at 10:30 PM, uhtred said:

It can be done, but many people do not think these thigns through, and cannot afford lawyers to create new contracts. 

 

[uhtred]

On 2/1/2019 at 2:38 PM, Dreamsexual said:

The trouble with giving the state power in marriage, though, is that a) they will then use tax breaks etc to try and socially engineer, obviously to the detriment of some groups/forms of marriage, and b) it is highly likely, when swayed by democratic opinion and popularism, to outlaw certain types of union.  

 

It's always wise to think that whatever power one gives the state (in this case to decide who can and cannot get married) will at some point in the future be used against you or your group.

We may want the state to have the power to do social engineering.  In a democracy that is supposed to represent the will of the people. Flawed as that notion is, giving the power to religion or directly to money isn't a great idea.   Power we don't give the state may wind up in other hands.  For example if the state doesn't define marriage laws, then people who want to  be "married" will be stuck with what religion provides. 

 

No one needs a religious or state marriage - they can choose to ignore all together. 

[Dreamsexual]

On 3 February 2019 at 7:12 AM, uhtred said:

We may want the state to have the power to do social engineering.  In a democracy that is supposed to represent the will of the people. Flawed as that notion is, giving the power to religion or directly to money isn't a great idea.   Power we don't give the state may wind up in other hands.  For example if the state doesn't define marriage laws, then people who want to  be "married" will be stuck with what religion provides. 

 

No one needs a religious or state marriage - they can choose to ignore all together. 

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

But the crux of the matter is that I don't think the state should have the power to say such and such a personal co-habitation situation is legitimate and has attached benefits, whereas some other situation is criminal, without clear evidence of great social or individual harm arising from said situation.  In other words, child sex slaves bad, polyamory acceptable.  Etc.

Seeing how much we disagree with each other in that other thread, you'll be happy to hear I'm 100% with you on this here. 

[Dreamsexual]

On 3 February 2019 at 10:19 AM, Mysticus Insanus said:

Seeing how much we disagree with each other in that other thread, you'll be happy to hear I'm 100% with you on this here. 

 

[Guest]

Just now, Dreamsexual said:

See, we can make you into a liberal yet

Nah, thanks... but maybe I can stop you from remaining a fascist enabler. 

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

you're not a liberal (classical) by your own admission, iirc

With that (classical) in front of it, you're right I'm not... let's keep it that way. 

 

 

On the first part of that post... we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Dreamsexual]

On 3 February 2019 at 10:29 AM, Mysticus Insanus said:

With that (classical) in front of it, you're right I'm not... let's keep it that way. 

 

 

On the first part of that post... we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[uhtred]

20 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Ok, I guess I wasn't seeing democracy or separation of church and state as social engineering, rather just political systems.

 

But the crux of the matter is that I don't think the state should have the power to say such and such a personal co-habitation situation is legitimate and has attached benefits, whereas some other situation is criminal, without clear evidence of great social or individual harm arising from said situation.  In other words, child sex slaves bad, polyamory acceptable.  Etc.

I see that as a much deeper / broader question as to what extent we want the government to be able to influence behavior with taxes, but not actually control it. For instance should laws encourage home ownership, or advanced education, or having children etc.   An interesting but broader question. 

[Dreamsexual]

On 4 February 2019 at 6:42 AM, uhtred said:

An interesting but broader question. 

?

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

But, focussing just on this thread and marriage, what's the argument for the state being able to tell some citizens that their non-harmful choice of family life is illegal, better, or worse compared to others?

The only one I can fathom at least in theory is incentivizing having kids, thus ensuring pensions will continue to be paid by future generations.

 

With overpopulation and climate change, I don't think even that it's a strong argument. Immigration will be far more relevant than procreation in that regard for Northern hemispehere industrialized nations (cue screeches of "white genocide" and "Umvolkung" from the usual suspects... but they can go stuff it.)

[Dreamsexual]

On 4 February 2019 at 7:59 AM, Mysticus Insanus said:

The only one I can fathom at least in theory is incentivizing having kids, thus ensuring pensions will continue to be paid by future generations.

 

[uhtred]

22 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Well, as far as this thread goes, I don't think the state should try to influence personal marital behaviour with taxes.  I'm not sure I want them influencing any behaviour with taxes - I cant see a good argument or example for that off the top of my head.

 

But, focussing just on this thread and marriage, what's the argument for the state being able to tell some citizens that their non-harmful choice of family life is illegal, better, or worse compared to others?

I can see the state incentive's marriage in general if statistics show that married couples are more productive and less likely to commit crimes (for example).  I suspect one of reasons same-sex marriage was adopted so quickly in many places was that governments realized that it generated *more* revenue. 

 

Similarly, if home owners are more stable,  more likely to be involved in their community, the state might incentivize that. 

 

 

[Dreamsexual]

On 5 February 2019 at 6:18 AM, uhtred said:

I can see the state incentive's marriage in general if statistics show that married couples are more productive and less likely to commit crimes (for example).

 

[Sally]

In the US, there's no special benefit to being married.  The tax situation has been changed so single people aren't at a disadvantage, and the state is only legally concerned about support of any children.  Even then, if a woman has a child and names the father on the birth certificate, both parents must legally provide support.   Re inheriting property in common if a partner dies, that can be taken care of by a Will/estate document.  In most US states, divorces are not contested; they are called dissolutions.  So marriage in the states is pretty much optional now, and the state doesn't interfere.  Instead of the state being more interested in control as years have gone on, it is less interested.  

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Sally said:

In the US, there's no special benefit to being married.  The tax situation has been changed so single people aren't at a disadvantage, and the state is only legally concerned about support of any children.  Even then, if a woman has a child and names the father on the birth certificate, both parents must legally provide support.   Re inheriting property in common if a partner dies, that can be taken care of by a Will/estate document.  In most US states, divorces are not contested; they are called dissolutions.  So marriage in the states is pretty much optional now, and the state doesn't interfere.  Instead of the state being more interested in control as years have gone on, it is less interested.  

What was all the "marriage equality" fuss about, then? Why didn't LGBT couples just accept civil unions? If your statements are true, it sounds like much ado about nothing at all - drama for drama's sake.

[Dreamsexual]

On 5 February 2019 at 7:54 AM, Sally said:

So marriage in the states is pretty much optional now, and the state doesn't interfere.

 

[uhtred]

22 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

That wouldn't be enough justification at all, imho. 

 

Because that exact same reasoning can be used to justify all kinds of crazy things:

statistics might show that not drinking alcohol means you're less likely to commit crime, thus ban alcohol;

stats might show that playing video games decreases average school grades, thus ban games;

stats might show gay couples pay more taxes, thus ban hetero marriages;

stats might show X thus ban Y etc.

 

Unless the damage done is directly to others (not indirect), unless the damage is huge, unless the evidence is clear cut, and unless banning the thing doesn't unduly prohibit individual liberty, the government shouldn't make X illegal.

But we we are talking about incentives / disincentives, not bans. The government already taxes alcohol, cigarettes etc to discourage their use. It already subsidizes energy efficient appliances, and electric cars.

 

I'm not saying I think it gets it right, but its very common for the government to use taxes to encourage or discourage behavior that it doesn't want to flat-out require or ban.  

 

 

[Sally]

19 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

But people in certain unions would still face some degree of legal discrimination, or at worst some sort of legal sanction.  An incestuous polyamorous family, for example.

I doubt whether unions of more  than two people would be legallized anytime soon in any jurisdiction, or country, for reasons having to do with the two main contractual issues: children and property.  

[Sally]

22 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

What was all the "marriage equality" fuss about, then? Why didn't LGBT couples just accept civil unions? If your statements are true, it sounds like much ado about nothing at all - drama for drama's sake.

Just as many hetero couples wanted the emotional/cultural advantages of being considered "married", many gay couples did also.  It wasn't much ado about nothing; it was about being denied what hetero couples had, just because of orientation.  Some gay couples have not married.  They wanted the choice, just as everyone does.