Should the state be involved in the marriage game?

[daveb]

22 hours 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.  

Some legitimate questions as I don't know a lot about the details of marriage, never having been there myself.

1. What about getting included on one's partner's health insurance? Don't you usually have to be married to do that? (this is an issue my sister is dealing with)

2. Ditto for Social Security benefits for spouses.

3. Ditto for hospital visitation rights (and other things where you need to be "family" to be allowed to be present and/or to participate in some things.

 

Some of those may have one outcome or aspect to them if you were married and then got divorced vs never having been legally married, as far as my limited knowledge takes me.

 

On an entirely different line of thought:

My feeling about marriage is that it combines 2 things that don't necessarily go together - a legal contract and a cultural institution (often religious). The state is usually involved in legal contracts one way or another (at the very least because it's the state's duty to uphold the law). But doesn't need to be involved in cultural institutions (and in many cases isn't). Combing the two things is often where conflict arises, in my opinion.

[Dreamsexual]

On 6 February 2019 at 6:08 AM, uhtred said:

But we we are talking about incentives / disincentives, not bans.

 

 

[Dreamsexual]

On 6 February 2019 at 6:23 AM, Sally said:

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]

1 hour ago, daveb said:

Some legitimate questions as I don't know a lot about the details of marriage, never having been there myself.

1. What about getting included on one's partner's health insurance? Don't you usually have to be married to do that? (this is an issue my sister is dealing with)

2. Ditto for Social Security benefits for spouses.

3. Ditto for hospital visitation rights (and other things where you need to be "family" to be allowed to be present and/or to participate in some things.

 

 

In the US, in most states (we are such a big country that state laws sometimes conflict):

 

1.  No, if you declare that you and a living parner are a community (can't think of the word for it), some employers will allow the partner to be on the employee's insurance.  But aside from employee medical insurance (which not everyone has), your individual health insurance doesn't cover your partner, married or not.

2.  Social Security is complicated.  When you're working, each of you have your own Social Security account,  upon which you can draw when you retire (you have to be at least 62, or disabled).  But if you're married and retired, sometimes a marriage partner can draw on the other partner's account, and if the marriage partner dies, the partner still alive may get the benefit the dead partner got, if it's more $$.  

3.  Hospitals have changed their policies and allow friends/unmarried partners visitation rights.  However,  you have to either be married to the patient or a family member to be able to have any decisiionmaking on the patient's medical  care.  

 

[Sally]

42 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Which seems a bad thing to me.  The financial issues could be covered in contract law without the government banning/making illegal certain unions.

 

Also you said, "They wanted the choice, just as everyone does."

I agree.  So why not give polyamorous and incestuous unions that same choice?  I see no good reason at all.

 

You act as though the big bad government was going to come to your house and tell you what you can and can't do every minute.  That hasn't happened in 350 years in this country, and it's not likely to.  However, if you want to claim that the government is GOING to, no one can stop you.

 

As far as choice, gay couples wanted the choice to have the same type of marriage that hetero couples did -- in other words, two people being married to each other.  That's  the choice they now have.  If you want two family members to be able to marry, or three people to marry, you should work toward that by advocating with legislators for a law allowing that.  Or you can just continue complaining.  That's how gay marriage was gotten:  people worked toward it through legislation.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Sally said:

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.  

So, just empty feel-good rhethorics. They could just have privately call their c.u. "Marriage", the First Amendment already guaranteed them that right, didn't it?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, daveb said:

On an entirely different line of thought:

My feeling about marriage is that it combines 2 things that don't necessarily go together - a legal contract and a cultural institution (often religious). The state is usually involved in legal contracts one way or another (at the very least because it's the state's duty to uphold the law). But doesn't need to be involved in cultural institutions (and in many cases isn't). Combing the two things is often where conflict arises, in my opinion.

Excatly! That's why the state should butt out of marriage, and leave the matter up to religions (whether organized or private. syncretistics rites). Separation of church and state.

[Dreamsexual]

On 6 February 2019 at 8:29 AM, Sally said:

You act as though the big bad government was going to come to your house and tell you what you can and can't do every minute.

 

[uhtred]

8 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

I thought we were talking about both - or at least I was   Seems like an internet miscommunication.

 

It does.  I'm not sure it should.

 

 

I guess "disincentive / ban" is not all that clear.    If the government does not recognize same-sex marriage, that is essentially a ban on same-sex marriage, but only a disincentive on same-sex relationships.

 

To be clear, I would like completely symmetric rules on marriage with respect to genders - in fact I'd like there to be a variety of standard contracts avaiilable that are called "marriage", but I think I've wandered off into thinking about the conditions under which the government should be allowed to provide incentives for various activities. 

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:46 PM, uhtred said:

To be clear, I would like completely symmetric rules on marriage with respect to genders

 

[uhtred]

23 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

What about with respect to number and genetic relation?

OK more specifically:

I'd like to see a variety of standard "marriage" contracts that cover cases like both working spouses, stayathome spouse etc. Other organizations could have their lawyers draft up other contracts that after review would also be called "marriage".  The standard government provided one would be gender symmetric.

 

"marriages" of more than 2 would require different contracts because splitting assets on partial divorce etc, might need new rules.  Same for parental authority.  I'm happy to call those "marriages" as well.   I would want to see a study on how various tax laws would impact.  I think though  that the financial advantages of marriage wouldn't apply - for instance a company that provided health insurance to spouses wouldn't be required to support a harem of 1000 spouses.

 

I think (adult) incest is the bizarre last taboo in western civilization.   I have not problems with incestual relationships as long as there is no chance of children resulting.   There are very good biological / genetic reasons to not allow close relatives to have children and since this is for the sake of the children, I am OK with those being enforced.

 

I draw a line at non-human.  You can have a pet and as long as you don't abuse it, all is fair, but its not a marriage. 

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 4:09 PM, uhtred said:

The standard government provided one would be gender symmetric

 

 

[uhtred]

6 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Why give the government such a power and responsibility?  Private lawyer firms can do this better, and this means one less area of state intrusion into private lives.

 

I agree that incestuous couples shouldn't have kids, but I wouldn't want the state to enforce that (else we go down a pathway of preventing some disabled people from having kids, or people becoming mothers over a certain age etc).  

 

If people want to produce offspring with problems then I say it has to be left up to them and to cultural pressure rather than state threat of violence.

 

But it seems we agree on much more than we disagree

We agree on a lot. Need to fix that or there is nothing to talk about.

 

Many people can't afford lawyers, that's the only reason I want an essentially free state service

 

the question of allowing potentially badly disabled children to be born is extremely tricky. 

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 11:09 PM, uhtred said:

 

Many people can't afford lawyers, that's the only reason I want an essentially free state service

 

[Sally]

On 2/6/2019 at 12:39 AM, Mysticus Insanus said:

So, just empty feel-good rhethorics. They could just have privately call their c.u. "Marriage", the First Amendment already guaranteed them that right, didn't it?

The First Amendment has nothing to do with it, because religiion doesn't really have anything to do with marriage in the U.S.  The state legalizes marriage in this country.  If someone wants to get married in a religious congregation they can, but that's in addition to  getting a marriage license from the state, not instead of it.  And it certainly wasn't empty feel-good rhetorics, any more than African Americans or women being able to vote was empty rhetorics.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

The First Amendment has nothing to do with it, because religiion doesn't really have anything to do with marriage in the U.S.  The state legalizes marriage in this country.  If someone wants to get married in a religious congregation they can, but that's in addition to  getting a marriage license from the state, not instead of it.  And it certainly wasn't empty feel-good rhetorics, any more than African Americans or women being able to vote was empty rhetorics.  

It's just a word. Whether you can use a word or not is most definitely covered by 1A.

 

And being able to vote is an actual, tangible legal benefit - not in any way comparable.

[uhtred]

11 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Good point.  I guess under my system they'd have to save money to get married.  I expect a simple off-the-shelf marriage contract won't be prohibitively expensive (how much would it cost, for example, to draw up a will, or buy a house?).  I really can't imagine there would be many who honestly couldn't afford such a thing (in the UK at least).  And even then they aren't being prevented from being married, only from having a certain legal contract.

 

Yes, but I think this has to be parental choice.  They can be put under social pressure etc, but not threat of government violence.

If things were set up so that getting a license was near free, then I'm fine with the government not being involved.   Poor people can be surprisingly poor - a few hundred $ is a lot of money for many people - and is only an hour of an attorney's time.

 

That last is really tricky because the welfare of the potential child is involved as well. I don't have a good answer, but in general I think its OK for the state to enforce some control on how parents treat their children - vaccinations for example.   Its a deep morass. 

[Sally]

8 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

It's just a word. Whether you can use a word or not is most definitely covered by 1A.

 

And being able to vote is an actual, tangible legal benefit - not in any way comparable.

It wasn't an actual benefit -- legal or otherwise -- for many African Americans until about the 70s.  There were many ways around that legality in the Southern States.  

 

Nothing is "just" a word.  Words stand for feelings, thoughts, and legalities.  Every piece of legislation that any body with responsibility to make laws is words.  

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Sally said:

It wasn't an actual benefit -- legal or otherwise -- for many African Americans until about the 70s.  There were many ways around that legality in the Southern States.  

 

Nothing is "just" a word.  Words stand for feelings, thoughts, and legalities.  Every piece of legislation that any body with responsibility to make laws is words.  

That doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

 

Southern states suppressing the right of PoC to vote means that they impeded an existant right. It doesn't mean voting isn't a legal benefit.

 

And legislation being made of words doesn't mean all words have legal power. All X are Y =/= all Y are X.

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

That doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

 

Southern states suppressing the right of PoC to vote means that they impeded an existant right. It doesn't mean voting isn't a legal benefit.

 

And legislation being made of words doesn't mean all words have legal power. All X are Y =/= all Y are X.

What the Southern states did was impose a "poll tax".  That meant that voting was legal (which constitutionally it was) IF someone had the money to pay the poll tax.  Most African Americans in the South -- who were poorly-paid servants or sharecroppers -- did not.  The poll tax at that time was not illegal, because there was no legislation for bidding it.  Now, since it is illegal, what the Southern states are doing is closing poll places where African Americans live, meaning they have to drive long distances to vote.  There are ways to get around the legality of being able to vote.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Sally said:

What the Southern states did was impose a "poll tax".  That meant that voting was legal (which constitutionally it was) IF someone had the money to pay the poll tax.  Most African Americans in the South -- who were poorly-paid servants or sharecroppers -- did not.  The poll tax at that time was not illegal, because there was no legislation for bidding it.  Now, since it is illegal, what the Southern states are doing is closing poll places where African Americans live, meaning they have to drive long distances to vote.  There are ways to get around the legality of being able to vote.

I know all of that, Sally. It doesn't impact anything I said.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

The state should not be involved in marriage.

 

The way that I understand the law, the state has the power, within Constitutional limits, to enforce or not enforce contracts. If two people sign a contract saying that one of them will rob the jewelry store that the other owns and that they will split the insurance money; if the store owner instead keeps all of the insurance money; and if the robber then sues the store owner for breach of contract, no state is going to enforce that contract.

 

Within the limits of what kind of contract a state will enforce, people should be free to enter any kind of contract to distribute their resources or not enter any such contract.

 

Private individuals who choose to enter a contract with other private individuals should pay all of the costs of enforcing it. On the other hand, the enfocement of a contract such as an apartment lease that involves public accommodations should be paid for with public resources such as tax revenue.

 

Privileging entering a contract, and privileging particular kinds of contracts between private individuals, is not something that the state should do.

 

In other words, marriage or non-marriage should be entirely a private matter. If one wants to make his/her marriage legal--however he/she defines marriage--then he/she should pay the costs of state enforcement.

 

Meanwhile, states could choose not to enforce some or all contracts between private individuals.

 

The state's interests and the interests of individuals would be better served if non-public accommodations and non-public institutions were private in every sense of the word.

 

Personal intimate relationships are a private matter. Kinship is a private matter.

 

Liberal democracy means the state facilitating autonomous individuals' pursuit of their own interests, not the state deciding what individuals' interests are.

 

Liberal democracy means that the only interest the state has is preserving itself so that it has the ability to facilitate individuals' pursuit of their interests.

 

If the state says that in order for it to be preserved and be able to function it must incentivize certain arrangements such as biological mother and father under the same roof as their children, such intervention should be allowed by the people only when the state's claims are clear and not in doubt.

 

As far as I know, no such claims are clear and certain. Where is the evidence of a state that failed because it did not incentivize certain household arrangements such as mother and father together under the same roof with their biological children? Where is the indisputable evidence that people would not create such household arrangements without the state's intervention?

 

People should just be honest: support for state-sanctioned marriage is illiberal. Whether it is traditional monogamous marriage or some variation such as same-sex marriage that enjoys popular support, such support exists because state-sanctioned marriage benefits some people at the expense of others.

 

I am a 47-year-old man who has lived alone his entire adult life. My household arrangement harms nobody. I do not expect the state to reward me for it.

 

If you are doing what makes you happy, you should not expect the state to reward you for it. If you are doing something for the rewards from the state, you are not for liberty.

 

More importantly, if the state must offer incentives/rewards to get people to do the right thing, you do not have a healthy society anyway.