# Is marriage an antiquated institution that should be eliminated? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2009, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552 "2009-03-24T03:39:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/21 "2009-03-24T20:42:34Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Sure, atheists can get married. However, if there’s anything that Prop 8 taught us, it’s that _theists believe marriage belongs to them_. Separating the religious aspects of marriage from the secular aspects will remove their ability to bitch when marriage gets “redefined”. Allowing civil unions (through the state) with non-binding marriages (through their choice of church) resolves the situation nicely, without the church complaining when the state changes the rules and allows non-traditional marriages. The church would be free to say, “Homosexuals can’t marry”, but would be prevented from telling homosexuals that they don’t get the rights that civil unions would allow. > > I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept. > > And, for the record, I’ve been married for eleven years now. It’s not a difficult concept at all. Your proposal would achieve your aims, which would be to drive a wedge between the state and the word “marriage”, because in your eyes that word has been tainted with religion. The problem is that people want to be married. They don’t want to enter into a “civil union”, which strikes most people as a fake marriage. In California, for example, gay people can already enter into civil unions which are almost the equivalent of marriages. But they want marriage, and I don’t blame them. The word carries meaning and history with it. I don’t give a damn what theists think. I don’t give a damn what any church thinks. I want to be in a marriage, not a civil union. Ed ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/22 "2009-03-24T20:47:25Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with marriage, except that at its roots it’s a religious institution, which means that homosexuals can’t get married because it somehow damages existing marriages. Replacing all (future) marriages with civil unions changes nothing- except that now the various churches have no say in who can or can’t get married. > > Alternately, allow anyone to get married to anyone. However, as Prop 8 showed us, this isn’t acceptable to some people. > > Requiring two separate but equal institutions (traditional marriage and civil unions) is making things overly complicated- and “separate but equal” never seems to stay “equal”. Actually, from the POV of the Christian religion, the church’s original position on marriage was that it was a secular legal issue, not a religious issue. The local priest would happily bless your union if you wanted, much the same as he would bless your new fishing boat at launching, but it wasn’t until 5-600 years ago that the church decided that marriages \*had \*to be performed by a priest. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/23 "2009-03-24T21:15:27Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with marriage, except that at its roots it’s a religious institution, which means that homosexuals can’t get married because it somehow damages existing marriages. Replacing all (future) marriages with civil unions changes nothing- except that now the various churches have no say in who can or can’t get married. Woah woah woah - since when is marriage a religious institution? Sure, lots and lots of people solemnize it before their preferred god or gods, but what it basically _is_ is a social partnering of two individuals into a union in which they share their life, property, bed, and children (if any). It is an institution that suffers not in the slightest from changes in religion or _removal_ of religion (or _weren’t_ there marriages in communist russia?). Really, it’s no more a religious institution than eating meals became a religious institution when people started praying over them. It’s a social institution, and that’s that. That being the case, the only sensible arguments against it would have to be secular - so far those have been very poor against gays marriage, tending to be slightly stronger against incest, somewhat stronger regarding polygamy (mostly due to complications involved), and ranging to the extremely solid against marriage to minors, pets, and household appliances. (The lack of good secular arguments against gays in particular really bothers those religious people who happen to also be bigots, of course.) As for disbanding marriage entirely as an institution, I can’t see a reason to attempt to do it. If you did, everyone would declare themselves to be married anyway, whether by the authority of a church or by their own will, and the main difference would be that the doors would be opened for insurance companies and hospitals and the like to pick and choose which marriages not to recognize. How often this would be abused, I cannot say - but it would surely complicate things legally speaking. If your goals are to remove extra government benefits and conditions for married couples, you could theoretically attempt to alter those benefits and conditions directly. It would have to be simpler than getting any politician to denounce marriage as an institution. If your goal would be to slip gays past the bigoted religious opposition to them being married, I’m doubtful it would help. Each religion would fall back on god as backing _their_ marriages, and recognize the marriages of other religions, and probably even the self-declared secular marriages of types they approved of. But they would still refuse to accept or recognize gay self-declared marriages or treat the partners as they normally would treat married couples. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/24 "2009-03-24T21:43:53Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > It’s not a difficult concept at all. Your proposal would achieve your aims, which would be to drive a wedge between the state and the word “marriage”, because in your eyes that word has been tainted with religion. > > The problem is that people want to be married. They don’t want to enter into a “civil union”, which strikes most people as a fake marriage. In California, for example, gay people can already enter into civil unions which are almost the equivalent of marriages. But they want marriage, and I don’t blame them. The word carries meaning and history with it. > > I don’t give a damn what theists think. I don’t give a damn what any church thinks. I want to be in a marriage, not a civil union. > > Ed Not only that, but the moment we cede marriage to the churches the nasty ones will start trying to do away with civil unions too. I got married in a nice ceremony with no mention of god or religion. I’m with you, I don’t want theists to take that away from me. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/25 "2009-03-24T21:48:52Z")
> [@runcible\_spoon](#): > > Okay, so we’ve gone over the replace-marriabe-with-civil-unions before, but what about just flat out no marriage? To be more precise, any marriage you want, but the government doesn’t give a damn. Not that I think this is either a) practical or b) necessarily good, but what would be the consequences? Now, I’m not married, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m surely missing certain things, but here’s what I see for the current effects of marriage: > > Custody of children - AIUI, biology counts, but marriage counts too. Also for child support, occasionally from what I’ve heard. > > **1) Tax effects** - don’t know what they are, but I know there are changes in how you file. > > **2) Visitation rights in hospitals and such** - I don’t know if this is a legal issue or hospital policy. > \*\* > 3) Health insurance/other benefits\*\* - adding spouses to policies and the like. > > **4) Wills/living wills** - who gets what, who gets to decide what after you’re (brain)dead. > > I guess my real question is, why is the government involved in most of this stuff? Taxes are the only really necessarily-governmental issue, and I wonder if we really need to change tax laws based on marriage. What are the pros and cons? You left out the most important one, in common property states like California, at least, which is the sharing of assets as befits a long term relationship. The readiness to do this, as the default, is the think distinguishing marriages from civil unions or less. It is not something to be entered into lightly, which is the point. I’m for civil unions today, as a stopgap until gays are allowed to marry, as they should. After marriage is available to anyone, I’d have no problem with doing away with them as unnecessary. I’m also for letting a couple marry themselves, as in Pennsylvania. The license is the important part, not who says the words. ---
**Author:** ![Chase\_Ransom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@Chase\_Ransom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chase_Ransom)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/26 "2009-03-24T22:14:30Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I’ve seen so many failed marriages (my dad has two, my mom one, my uncles one each, my mom’s best friend one, etc.) and keep hearing about ever-increasing divorce statistics that I’ve long since lost faith in the concept, so granted I’m biased to begin with. AFAIAC, the high rate of divorce isn’t a direct portrayal of marriage as an institution. It is just a reflection of the amount of people who probably should have never been married to begin with, plus some that due to circumstances, just didn’t make it. To say that the institution of marriage is void of validity due to the rate of divorce is like saying that law school, or med school, is worthless because they have such a high rate of people who ultimately don’t finish the career or don’t pass the tests. That having been said, there really is not much disparity between being married and having a civil union contract. So basically, you would have a lot of defaulted civil union contracts. The vehicle has changed, but the passengers are still the same. Additionally, I don’t see why all people, as long as they are both consenting adults and of an age proper to make that choice, shouldn’t be allowed to participate in marriage, civil union, or what not. Poligamy = if it works for you, fine. Marrying my cat? No, my cat can’t be considered a consenting adult. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/27 "2009-03-24T22:18:33Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Woah woah woah - since when is marriage a religious institution? Sure, lots and lots of people solemnize it before their preferred god or gods, but what it basically _is_ is a social partnering of two individuals into a union in which they share their life, property, bed, and children (if any). Then why were the most vocal proponents of Prop 8 the religious? Don’t get me wrong- I think the best solution by far is to simply allow anyone to marry anyone (assuming, of course, that all parties are consenting and able to give consent). However, if that’s going to be fought tooth-and-nail, then I say we do the legal equivalent of taking our ball home. “You say that your God doesn’t approve of homosexuality, and because of that you won’t let gays marry? Fine. Nobody gets married- everyone now gets civil unions, which we CAN construct in a manner that’s fair to everyone.” So to sum up: Best solution- anyone can marry anyone. Second best solution- nobody can marry anyone, at least not in a state-sanctioned manner, so that theists can’t restrict it to only those people they agree with. Unacceptable- marriage for normal people, “civil unions” for you dirty perverted heathens. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/28 "2009-03-24T22:26:54Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Why are the ones arguing for the elimination of marriage precisely the ones that aren’t married? > > Ed Ah, I have been married for 45 years and I think the trouble is that the state cannot decide if it is a religious or civil institution. What I would advocate is that there be an institution of civil union, certified by the state in terms of a licence, an optional pre-nuptial agreement and so on. Abrogating this union (aka divorce) would be the same as abrogating any other contract. If the parties agree, fine, if not it could get very messy, as it can right now. Meantime, if the parties want a religious ceremony, that is their business, having nothing to do with the government. If their church forbids divorce, that is their problem, but the state can still recognize the end of the agreement. Currently no law in the US that I am aware of makes any provision for multi-party agreements and it is not clear how income-splitting (for tax purposes) would work in such cases, nor how intestate laws could accomodate this kind of thing. A problem, but not insuperable, I would think. Perhaps the state would require a pre-nuptial agreement and a will in such cases before recognizing the situation. ---
**Author:** ![wsbenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b38774/32.png) [@wsbenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wsbenge)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/29 "2009-03-24T22:34:55Z")
Marraige isn’t really doing so well, actually. My wife and I were the only parents not divorced at least once, in my daughter’s grade school classmates. All of my siblings have been divorced. My uncle was married 5 times, 3 times to the same woman. He was behind the pulpit when my brother declared himself for Christ. Religious affiliation, or lack there of, doesn’t seem to matter, in my near circle. Marraige does give children some legal stability. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/30 "2009-03-24T22:43:54Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Then why were the most vocal proponents of Prop 8 the religious? 'Cause some of them have a religious ‘problem’ with gay people. Which doesn’t make marriage a religious institution, any more than their opposition to abortion makes natural childbirth in mammals a religious institution. > [@Lightnin](#): > > Don’t get me wrong- I think the best solution by far is to simply allow anyone to marry anyone (assuming, of course, that all parties are consenting and able to give consent). However, if that’s going to be fought tooth-and-nail, then I say we do the legal equivalent of taking our ball home. “You say that your God doesn’t approve of homosexuality, and because of that you won’t let gays marry? Fine. Nobody gets married- everyone now gets civil unions, which we CAN construct in a manner that’s fair to everyone.” > > So to sum up: > Best solution- anyone can marry anyone. > Second best solution- nobody can marry anyone, at least not in a state-sanctioned manner, so that theists can’t restrict it to only those people they agree with. > Unacceptable- marriage for normal people, “civil unions” for you dirty perverted heathens. I’m curious about who you think the “we” are that are going to take our ball and go home - there are lots more people who would oppose that than who would vote for Prop 8, and prop 8 _passed_. And if you actually got the government to say “Nobody gets married”, those religious people would laugh in their face. They’d still consider themselves married, becuase they would still have their churches backing them and solemnizing them. They’d lose their tax benefits but would rapidly find ways to restore the rest of their benefits - assuming that hospitals and the like even _paused_ in recognizing religious marriages. The only people who you would hurt by disbanding marriage at the government level would be those with purely civil marriages, and those who wanted to be married civily - the majority of whom aren’t even the people you want to punish anyway. Such people would be forced to try and piggyback on some religion’s marriage recognition, further _cementing_ the seemingly religious nature of marriages that you’re trying to get rid of. I fully agree that “marriage for us, civil unions for them if we _must_” is a terrible way to do things, but what you are proposing is _literally_ throwing the baby out with the bathwater - to the degree that it didn’t actually backfire on you. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/31 "2009-03-24T22:46:03Z")
> [@wsbenge](#): > > Marraige isn’t really doing so well, actually. My wife and I were the only parents not divorced at least once, in my daughter’s grade school classmates. > > All of my siblings have been divorced. > > My uncle was married 5 times, 3 times to the same woman. He was behind the pulpit when my brother declared himself for Christ. Religious affiliation, or lack there of, doesn’t seem to matter, in my near circle. > > Marraige does give children some legal stability. I also have a family anecdote: There have been no divorces, ever, in my entire extended family. And no, we are not religious. Ed ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/32 "2009-03-24T23:09:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I fully agree that “marriage for us, civil unions for them if we _must_” is a terrible way to do things, but what you are proposing is _literally_ throwing the baby out with the bathwater - to the degree that it didn’t actually backfire on you. Fine, so YOU suggest a solution. Marriage for everyone won’t work- at least not for a while. It’s apparently too precious to allow just \*anyone \*to do it. Civil Unions? How do you avoid the “separate but equal” problem? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/33 "2009-03-24T23:20:53Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Fine, so YOU suggest a solution. > > Marriage for everyone won’t work- at least not for a while. It’s apparently too precious to allow just \*anyone \*to do it. > Civil Unions? How do you avoid the “separate but equal” problem? Dude, by the time you can get “Have the government ban all marriages” to work, I can get “Have the federal government legalize marriage between any concievable combination of willing adults” to work. Given that to ban the institution you will have to achieved mind control over the politicians, after all. (And it wouldn’t take but one activist supreme court decision to really change the playing field regarding gay marriage. What are the odds of them _banning_ marriage, do you think?) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/34 "2009-03-25T00:21:52Z")
> [@wsbenge](#): > > Marraige isn’t really doing so well, actually. My wife and I were the only parents not divorced at least once, in my daughter’s grade school classmates. > > All of my siblings have been divorced. > > My uncle was married 5 times, 3 times to the same woman. He was behind the pulpit when my brother declared himself for Christ. Religious affiliation, or lack there of, doesn’t seem to matter, in my near circle. > > Marraige does give children some legal stability. Anecdotes are not evidence. In fact, the divorce rate is going down: From [here](http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html#anchor1135037) > [@](#): > > Per capita divorce rates 1990-2002: > 1991, 0.47% > 1992, 0.48% > 1993, 0.46% > 1994, 0.46% > 1995, 0.46% > 1995, 0.43% > 1997, 0.43%, > 1998, 0.42%, > 1999, 0.41%, > 2000, 0.41%, > 2001, 0.40%, > 2002, 0.38% I think it must be due to the good example set by the Clintons. 😛 Please, we are in GD, right? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/35 "2009-03-25T00:25:43Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Fine, so YOU suggest a solution. > > Marriage for everyone won’t work- at least not for a while. It’s apparently too precious to allow just \*anyone \*to do it. > Civil Unions? How do you avoid the “separate but equal” problem? Sigh. The solution to school segregation was not to abolish the classroom and send everyone off to be home-schooled. It was a dual approach of improving the quality of the separate but unequal schools until the country got behind integration. And some parts of the country took a long time to get over it. ---
**Author:** ![wsbenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b38774/32.png) [@wsbenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wsbenge)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/36 "2009-03-25T02:14:35Z")
Anecdotes are … fun, I suppose. We all have some. I don’t think these types of issues are debatable so much as they are discussable. Marraige is rather easy to establish, and abolish. The emotional carnage is incredible. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/37 "2009-03-25T02:39:33Z")
Don’t sweat emotional carnage. It’s the currency of humanity. I think marriage can be salvaged, but only if we make it purely and exclusively about two things: a. money, b. power, or c. some combination of a and b. (I’m leaving out religion because I don’t think it’s relevant or meaningful any longer, and if it is, it probably ought not be.) ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/38 "2009-03-25T11:52:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Sigh. The solution to school segregation was not to abolish the classroom and send everyone off to be home-schooled. It was a dual approach of improving the quality of the separate but unequal schools until the country got behind integration. And some parts of the country took a long time to get over it. School desegregation is still a thorny issue and the solution has probably caused almost as many problems as it cured. Schools desegregate brought on or helped instigate: White flight Further ghetto-ization of minority groups fights over school vouchers and funding for public schools urban sprawl (bad traffic, air pollution, global warming) Atlanta is a prime example of these problems, but they hold true for many if not most urban areas. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/39 "2009-03-25T15:11:51Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > School desegregation is still a thorny issue and the solution has probably caused almost as many problems as it cured. > > Schools desegregate brought on or helped instigate: > > White flight > Further ghetto-ization of minority groups > fights over school vouchers and funding for public schools > urban sprawl (bad traffic, air pollution, global warming) > > Atlanta is a prime example of these problems, but they hold true for many if not most urban areas. Many cities with white flight never had official segregation, only de facto segregation, so government mandated desegregation can’t be blamed. I think there is a lot less ghettoization today than when I was a kid, in the sense there are more opportunities for those with money. As for urban sprawl, that is more a function of the interstate highway system and expansion into the suburbs thanks to the Baby Boom. Making marriage equitable is not going to eliminate discrimination based on sexual preference, not in the short run anyhow. ---
**Author:** ![runcible\_spoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc29f/32.png) [@runcible\_spoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runcible_spoon)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552/40 "2009-03-25T19:08:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You left out the most important one, in common property states like California, at least, which is the sharing of assets as befits a long term relationship. The readiness to do this, as the default, is the think distinguishing marriages from civil unions or less. It is not something to be entered into lightly, which is the point. Can you explain this, please? I couldn’t find anything that wasn’t way over my head on wikipedia. Is it just to do with how the state treats ownership of property? Anyways, I think the issue of whether marriage is religious is a red herring - the point (well, _my_ point, anyways :p) is that the government isn’t involved in legislating any other social relationships. Why marriage? I’m approaching this more from a utilitarian standpoint, with libertarian streaks: unless there’s a demonstrable benefit to society from the government being involved, I’d rather they just left it up to individuals. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-marriage-an-antiquated-institution-that-should-be-eliminated/490552.md?page=3)