# Do you think we need national level laws about marriage, divorce, and inheritance? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2007, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428 "2007-02-08T23:22:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![According\_to\_Pliny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@According\_to\_Pliny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/According_to_Pliny)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/1 "2007-02-08T23:22:11Z")
There ought to be more uniformity about common law wives, when palimony is allowed/disallowed, who the nominal next of kin are, etc. So many couples split up and/or live and die in separate states. Do we really need 50 versions of these? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2007, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/2 "2007-02-08T23:27:46Z")
No. State laws govern the prevailing standard of public opinion in that state. It would take a constitutional amendment to give the power to regulate marriage, divorce, and inheritance to the Federal government. It’s not needed, and in fact is contrary to one valuable function of the states – one state can try something out and see how it works, rather than all-eggs-in-one-basket feature of federal law. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/3 "2007-02-09T14:02:41Z")
Another no. By the way–there are common law husbands, too. Here in Texas, at least. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/4 "2007-02-09T16:55:20Z")
Wasn’t there an attempt to amend the constitution to given the federal government power over marriage and divorce back in the 20s? I remember reading something about concern over child marriage and divorce mills. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/5 "2007-02-09T18:44:58Z")
Given that marriage is relevant with regards to various federal areas of jurisdiction, such as taxes, immigration, and the like, it would seem that at the very least it would be necessary for the federal government to have some rules about how it accepts State-recognized marriages. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/6 "2007-02-09T18:46:43Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] It would take a constitutional amendment to give the power to regulate marriage, divorce, and inheritance to the Federal government. [/QUOTE] It would? Why? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/7 "2007-02-09T18:52:33Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] There ought to be more uniformity about common law wives, when palimony is allowed/disallowed, who the nominal next of kin are, etc. [/QUOTE] Why? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/8 "2007-02-09T19:40:02Z")
We already have some federal laws requiring uniformity of domestic issues, like the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”). These mainly just establish guidlines for establishing jurisdiction and resolving conflict of laws between courts of different states. As far as establishing direct federal control over family law, no way. The federal goverment doesn’t want direct control over family law issues. Since 1859, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that lower federal courts don’t have jurisdiction over common divorce cases in what’s called the “domestic relations exception.” Basically, divorces are piddley and the feds have better things to do. Federal courts are crowded enough, can you imagine what it would be like if they had jurisdiction over every divorce, child custody, and unending child support modification case in in America? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/9 "2007-02-09T21:20:23Z")
**pravnik** , aren’t you conflating federal legislative jurisdiction with federal court jurisdiction? assuming Congress could pass a federal divorce act that applied uniformly across the U.S., would it be constitutionally required to say that only the federal courts would have jurisdiction? couldn’t they say that the state courts had jurisdiction, except in situations like diversity? just askin’ - I’ve got no dog in this fight. (But that is how it works in Canada - Parliament passes the divorce law, which gives jurisdiction to the provincial courts, except in a couple of very rare circumstances, when the Federal Court has jurisdiction.) ---
**Author:** ![According\_to\_Pliny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@According\_to\_Pliny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/According_to_Pliny)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/10 "2007-02-09T21:59:46Z")
[QUOTE=Steve MB] Why? [/QUOTE] Because I think state laws are an anachronism. And “states rights” as a goal is mainly a remnant of racial discrimination. Are citizens of other western nations subjected to so many different laws? All the duchies of the pre-Napoleonic era have been made obsolete. There are national idenity cards, national auto registries, marriage and divorce laws. Why are we still stuck in the past? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/11 "2007-02-09T22:11:53Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] Because I think state laws are an anachronism. [/quote] Most people think otherwise. Perhaps we should vote on it… > [@](#): > > And “states rights” as a goal is mainly a remnant of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is illegal, so that’s a red herring. > [@](#): > > Are citizens of other western nations subjected to so many different laws? I don’t know. Why don’t you do some research and find out. > [@](#): > > All the duchies of the pre-Napoleonic era have been made obsolete. > There are national idenity cards, national auto registries, marriage and divorce laws. > > Why are we still stuck in the past? All nations must operate in exactly the same way? Why? Many US states are of equal size to European countries. Plus, we have a constitution that allows states to make their own laws on many matters. ---
**Author:** ![According\_to\_Pliny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@According\_to\_Pliny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/According_to_Pliny)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/12 "2007-02-09T22:15:00Z")
You want me to change my mind because of what most people think. Why? Why should we all think alike? Red herrings? Yeah. That’s why the stars and bars still adorns pickup bumpers everywhere in the south. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/13 "2007-02-09T22:15:12Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] Because I think state laws are an anachronism. And “states rights” as a goal is mainly a remnant of racial discrimination. Are citizens of other western nations subjected to so many different laws? All the duchies of the pre-Napoleonic era have been made obsolete. There are national idenity cards, national auto registries, marriage and divorce laws. Why are we still stuck in the past? [/QUOTE] The beauty of states’ rights is that it’s a way to manage the massive size and diverse population we deal with in the US. I believe that the more that is taken over by the feds, the more anger and divisiveness we will have in this country. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/14 "2007-02-09T22:19:04Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] And “states rights” as a goal is mainly a remnant of racial discrimination. [/QUOTE] Ironic, then, that national marriage laws in the U.S. would almost certainly have the effect of entrenching discrimination against gay and lesbian couples into law. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/15 "2007-02-09T22:25:18Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] Because I think state laws are an anachronism. And “states rights” as a goal is mainly a remnant of racial discrimination. Are citizens of other western nations subjected to so many different laws? All the duchies of the pre-Napoleonic era have been made obsolete. There are national idenity cards, national auto registries, marriage and divorce laws. Why are we still stuck in the past? [/QUOTE] Well this is one legitimate asking of “Why do you hate America?”. You can’t have the United States (think about the name for a moment) and have all those things. You are calling for a brand new nation on the existing soil under the guise of some type of nationialistic “progress”. Do you think the European Union has a goal of consolidating everything in Europe? The big question is “why?” Some people see these differences and get disturbed by the the diversity and differences among people and areas and others recognize their rights to live and operate differently under one philosphical umbrella. Centralization often doesn’t work worth a damn except to make it easier to make diagrams and simple pictures showing the way that the world works. It gets implimented through a joint partnership of control freaks and simpletons. Luckilly, it is an extreme fringe opinion so we don’t have much to worry about back here on planet earth. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/16 "2007-02-09T22:48:56Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] You want me to change my mind because of what most people think. Why? Why should we all think alike? [/quote] No, you don’t have to change you mind. But if you want to change anyone else’s mind you have to offer a reason, not just an opinion. So far, your reasons are pretty thin, and boil down to: many other nations do this (even though most of those other nations are smaller than our largest states). > [@](#): > > Red herrings? Yeah. That’s why the stars and bars still adorns pickup bumpers everywhere in the south. Affirm the Consequent much? If A, then B. B, therefore A. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2007, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/17 "2007-02-09T22:53:17Z")
[QUOTE=Northern Piper] **pravnik** , aren’t you conflating federal legislative jurisdiction with federal court jurisdiction? assuming Congress could pass a federal divorce act that applied uniformly across the U.S., would it be constitutionally required to say that only the federal courts would have jurisdiction? couldn’t they say that the state courts had jurisdiction, except in situations like diversity? [/quote] No, because when the U.S. federal government regulates, it has to regulate directly; it can’t create a regulatory system and then compel state goverments to enforce it. For example: > [@](#): > > While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions. The Court has been explicit about this distinction. “Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States…” > > In the end, the Convention opted for a Constitution in which Congress would exercise its legislative authority directly over individuals, rather than over States. This choice was made clear to the subsequent state ratifying conventions… > > In providing for a stronger central government, therefore, the Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States. As we have seen, the Court has consistently respected this choice. We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require orprohibit those acts. _e. g., FERC v. Mississippi_, 456 U. S., at 762-766; _Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn._, Inc., 452 U. S., at 288-289; _Lane County v. Oregon_, 7 Wall., at 76. The allocation of power contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments’ regulation of interstate commerce. [New York v. United States](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-543.ZS.html), 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). Even assuming domestic issues were subject to an enumerated power, a situation where the U.S. Congress creates an entire family code and then compels state governments to enact and enforce it in their own courts instead of federal courts would be unconsitutional. Even if it were, federal courts would _still_ have jurisdiction to review state court rulings, because now it’s a federal question. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2007, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/18 "2007-02-10T00:06:29Z")
[QUOTE=pravnik] We already have some federal laws requiring uniformity of domestic issues, like the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”). [/QUOTE] UIFSA, UCCJA, etc are not federal laws. They are Uniform Acts as explained here: > **[Uniform act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Act)** > > In the United States, a uniform act is a proposed state law drafted and approved by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). Federalism in the United States traditionally limits the legislative authority of the federal government in favor of the states. Specifically, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it ... These acts do not have the force of law unless and until they are enacted by a particular state. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2007, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/19 "2007-02-10T00:58:55Z")
I have been here for a while and seen versions of the OP pop up a few different times. I noticed that this is one of the only semi-serious topics that you can’t get a debate going on because there are so few people for it whether they are rich, poor, liberal, conservative, northern or southern. People want more local control and state has a group of other states that it doesn’t want to compromise with. People that propose these things usually seem to be on the liberal side. It always sounds like they want a benevolent federal government to lord over the states like a wise father. There are so many problems with that notion I don’t know where to begin. I agree that centralized control of many things in the federal government is going to drive social issues mainly towards a national standard of social conservatism rather than the other way around. The compromises involved wouldn’t make anyone happy. Another premise in the OP is flawed. The U.S. is the 3rd most populous nation in the world. Lots of other countries follow the state model including India. The countries in Europe can have strong central control (although often not well) because they are tiny geographically for the most part and have a population a fraction the size of U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2007, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428/20 "2007-02-10T01:07:54Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] You want me to change my mind because of what most people think. Why? Why should we all think alike? [/quote] Well, you’re right. We shouldn’t all think alike. That’s why we have state’s rights. I don’t want to live under, say, the Virginia legal code. And I’m sure a good percentage of Virginians don’t want to live under a Californian legal code. That’s why they live in Virginia, and I live in California. If we tried to create a totally uniform national legal system, at best we’d end up with some half-assed Frankenstein that pleased neither the people in Virginia nor the people in California. That’s what makes state’s rights a good idea: it’s more responsive to the will of the inhabitants of the state, and, within certain limits, gives people who are dissatisfied with how one state works the option of moving to a different state without having to expatriate themselves entirely and move to a different country. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-we-need-national-level-laws-about-marriage-divorce-and-inheritance/391428.md?page=2)