If you want to discuss pchaos’ credentials, there is a very, very long Pit thread available. GD isn’t the place for it. And yes, pchaos, it’s not hard to stay current with a law that hasn’t changed in 118 years. Either don’t give legal advice or make sure you know what you are talking about - preferably the first one.
I don’t think marriage ought to be abolished, neither do I think adoption ought to be abolished. What I would like to see is a change so that people can legally constitute their families as they agree to, and not have quite so much restiction on what form that can take.
Marriage privileges people whose relationships and families take a conventional form (man/woman pair) and many people believe, unfairly so. I would like to see adults freed to create families in more ways that they might find fits their needs.
Calling any family-forming relationship between adults “marriage” would be fine with me, though others might disagree on the terminology. I’d like to see laws about sharing property (if you form a family with another adult, you agree to support that person emotionally and financially and they in turn agree the same about you; one’s debts are the other’s until and unless they divorce; one can’t sign a contract and have it fully binding without cosigning by the other, exceptions for cases of abandonment, and pursuit for support, etc). Adoptions would be the term for family forming when one party is a minor child.
Basically the difference between marriage and adoption would be that adoptions are supervised by the state and the adult(s) have a parental responsibility to the child, support and care requirements are one way (adult to children but not the reverse) and the relationship ends when the child reaches a certain age (21?) but can be transformed into a “marriage” (where the child wishes to remain part of the parent family officially and agrees to mutual support) if everyone involved wishes.
Marriage defined this way should not involve sex in its definition in any way. That’s the main difference from how it is now understood. I think most people currently believe that partners in a marriage should not be obligated to perform that way for their partner, nor should they be prohibited from doing so outside the family if both partners agree that is what they want to have happen. So it should be made official that such intimate aspects as fidelity are a convention and common preference, rather than a legal aspect of the bond.
Not likely some change like this will happen soon, but if I had a hand in designing a Utopia that’s the direction I’d aim in.
edit: I’m not any kind of lawyer but I read “Made in Heaven, Settled in Court” at an impressionable age. I think Marvin vs Marvin is about palimony, not common law marriage, and that’s the source of that confusion (obligation to non married cohabitant for support can easily be interpreted as a kind of common law marriage despite not being one technically)
My son-in-law is a new lawyer, who just set up a practice. If he ever said that to me, I’d disown him.
Nonetheless, even if what you said were true, why make people who want those privileges before 7 years wait that long?
Heck, expand on existing partnership law, adapting the rules for how a “spouse” can enter or leave the partnership/marriage, the legal obligations partners have to each other and to any possible offspring of partners, etc. It’ll likely never be as comprehensive as existing marriage law, but I can picture a group marriage being formed along these lines, comparable to a law firm. Somebody joins, with the majority vote of existing partners, bringing in certain assets… later on, somebody leaves, after negotiating what share of assets they can take with them… I daresay children complicate matters somewhat, but probably not insurmountably. You could, for legal purposes, treat them like assets needing optimal maintenance.
Meantime, the modification to marriage law to include same-sex couples is little more than a copy-paste operation. It’s only “difficult” because of people who want to make it difficult, for no reasons I can see beyond simple bigotry.
My husband and I have been married 56 years come June, we kind of like it and would feel really put out if marriage was abolished. Were things always rosy and wonderful, no but we persevered and things are now rosy and wonderful, we understand each other and with age have learned to think “Is this worth arguing about?”, usually it isn’t.
Have you actually heard or read a wedding vow? Does anybody remember that part about until death do us part? The idea of marriage was it’s forever. Also, to a certain extent it is a journey into the unknown. Although you may think you know somebody, but suppose there’s a hidden past. And of course, who knows what the future will hold?
Also after a while, people take their spouse for granted. A five year contract limits the unknowns.
The “til death do us part” is part of the ceremony, not the contract. The contract can legally be dissolved at any time.
Those are all fine examples. I’d argue that actual morality is measured by how one treats others, which is the morality that’s at a historical zenith in the U.S. Trappings of morality like modest clothes, or refraining from swearing, or going to church, aren’t actually moral. When people speak of moral decay, it’s these meaningless trappings that they pine for, not actual, meaningful morals.
Yes, I have.
One issue with this thread is that you haven’t clarified if your proposal to abolish marriage refers to the legal institution, the social convention, both, or something else. As DrFidelius pointed out, “til death do us part” isn’t part of the legal aspect of marriage, just the cultural/social part. Saying marriages should be til death sounds nice and all, but the fact is people change, people make mistakes, and locking someone into an inviolable, loveless marriage is the worst outcome for all concerned.
We can also keep marriage. But we could have other types of relationships also. In CA we have allowed Civil Unions also? But other types of relationships are possible also. In the past men have had mistresses. Also modernly we have friends with benefits. Do people have ideas on other possibilities?
Are you speaking of legally recognized relationships, or purely social ones?
Let’s legally recognize them. After all…we’ve legally recognized marriage. Why not have other legally recognized relationships. After all…friends with benefits is different than a marriage, however, it is still a type of commitment so shouldn’t there be some legal remedies in the event of a break-up.
Basically, I’m now looking at relationships from the other angle. Instead of abolishing marriage, let’s create other unions.
There are people out there that create varying forms of ‘contracts’ that are legally enforcable when needed - without having to do anything formal in the ‘create a new construct sense’ - are you actually suggesting that teenagers that are dating need to ‘enter into a formal agreement’ to date someone? how far does this go?
So, to your mind, what would compel a friends-with-benefits couple to go down to the courthouse and file some documents? What’s in it for them? What legal remedies would they be likely to need?
Well everybody is concerned with venereal diseases, the document could limit the no. of partners you could have. There could be an obligation to keep the relationship secret and you could put the documents under seal so that others would not know about the arrangement. There could be paragraphs on dividing up property in the event of a break-up.
I thought your country was all about equality and personal freedom?
If you rename it something, or create a separate category - that’s not equality. Equal is equal, same word for all. Doesn’t personal freedom fly out the window when some else gets to decide what grade of marriage you get to have?
It no doubt sucks when your view has been the majority, for so many years that it gets to feeling like it shall never be challenged.
Times change, societal opinions shift, ignore it if you wish, but it’s still coming, I think.
Abolish marriage? Short lived, shock value statement only, and not much of that, in my opinion.
You clearly don’t even know what ‘friends with benefits’ mean - waht you are describing the potential need for there is “shacking up”.
I’m confused. I thought the goals of the OP was to simplify civil/legal codification of relationships by abolishing marriage. The argument was, it would have a stress reducing effect on the court system. Now the OP is suggesting that we complicate it with additional formally recognized unions.
What are you after pchaos, the former, the latter, neither, both?
Are you suggesting that the married guy boinking his secretary should formalize his extra-marital activities by getting a “boinking the admin assitant” license?
You can’t be serious. :smack:
This is great. It’s like time travel where I’m talking to myself ten years ago. 
I will avoid the arrogance of saying “in time you will learn differently,” which implies a hierarchy, and just say, “in time you may see it differently.” 
Also: avoid the spinach on New Years Eve. You will know what I mean when the time comes.
Wonder if you have to get a ‘does the wife know’ rider attached, as well as an affidavit signed by the spouse stating his/her knowledge of the request for the ‘boinking the admin assistant’ license - I mean, we do have to protect ALL parties here, right?