You take two people (of the same sex in most places). They fill out a sheet of paper, perhaps take a blood test, and BOOM! Their status in the eyes of the law is suddenly different. They get special benefits. In California, at least, their future property becomes common property. They have to go through a legal procedure to reverse their special status.
Why does our governement make this distiction based on a non-dependent realationship? I can understand that it would make sense when it mattered legally if children were legitamate, and other social matters were more tightly regulated. But does it still make sense now?
I think that socially and religously, marriage makes a lot of sense. I can’t, however, understand why it is still a legal issue. Anyone want to help me out?
Because the people who make the laws are social and religious.
Because society, in general, values marriage and the concept of the family unit.
Because there needs to be some system to settle disputes when marriages end and assets are divided.
BTW, not all legal aspects of marriage are benefits…there are some legal drawbacks…for example, the “marriage penalty” tax and alimony requirements following divorce.
If the public is having trouble with the simple legalization of same-sex marriages and/or civil unions for the sake of equal rights under the law, do you really think they’re going to be up for dissolving the institution altogether? Not bloodly likely.
From the legal point of view (lawyers please correct me), marriage is the ONLY contractual relationship in which no damages for breach of contract are allowed. Simply stated, this means that (in a “no fault” state) your spouse can divorce you without cause, and you are not liable for any damage award from a court.
Truly a weird situation!
Well, I took it as
“Is marriage a/n [social] anachronism?”
when the topic title was probably intended to be
“Is marriage a/n LEGAL anachronism?”
which is quite a different thing.
If marriage is usually based upon a religious understanding, it’s surprising that the legal aspect doesn’t use a different terminology, like “domestic partners”, “legal domestic partners”, “domestic partners contract”, etc., which usage would definitely help in the current national debates over same-sex ‘marriage’.
If marriage were dead, why do gays want to get married? It’s hard to argue that marriage is an anachronism when so many people are trying to change the law so that they can get married.
Now the legalities have to be dealt with to adjust to the realities. And what may result may be called a “civil union.” But the point of marriage is to solemnize a relationship (even if the relationship breaks up later). As long as people fear lonliness, there will be marriage.