So forgive me if this has already been hashed out a million times. I think it’s worthy of a discussion though. Maybe it’ll just peter out and dissipate for lack of controversy and inherent simplicity though.
I had an idea - I always thought that marriages should be automatic once you get pregnant, and automatically lasted until the kid was 18, and then automatically dissolved. Stay-at-home moms who never learn a profitable skill will become much less common I’d wager…but I foresee societal roles shifting to fill in the gaps. No need to complain about gay marriages…because there’s no unintentional kids in those. If they adopt, then they get married automatically too. Same time frame.
Problem solved! Families are held together for the benefit of the children (except in extreme circumstances like abuse or whatever) and people aren’t forced to live with their baby-daddy forever. Plus, if you want to stay with one person and remain childless, well that’s your prerogative…but their shouldn’t be any legal repurcussions for not sticking around. Keep finances separate and all that. “Partners” of rich people, who may not need to work for themselves while in the relationship will be motivated to maintain a safety net for the eventual downfall of the relationship.
So what’s your take? Is my plan full of holes? Would it be worse or better than the current state of affairs?
Similar to my of Facetious “Defense of Marriage Act”.
> Marriage is reserved for Procreation.
> Automatically dissolved if children are not produced within 3 years.
> Automatically dissolved 3 years after the last child leaves home. (Sometimes they come back)
> Unlawful (fraud) if there is no actual intent to have children.
> No such thing as Divorce, as the intent is Procreation, not companionship.
If this was seriously proposed, we’d see just how “family” centered Marriage really is among those who so loudly defend the idea… (muahaha!)
Families can’t be forced together by an act of government. Who would enforce such a thing? Marriage police? Seriously?
Simple rules for marriage:
Marriage may only be between two human beings. (This takes care of a few “concerns” of the loonies out there- no group marriages and no marrying animals or inanimate objects.)
The persons getting married must be above the age of… (It’s 16 here but this could be debated, not a big deal really.)
The government’s seal of approval on the deal is not a commentary on the “sanctity” or religious purpose of a marriage. The government has no position on those issues. Marriage, from the government’s POV is a contract for the purposes of dividing assets (at divorce or death) and for the purposes of things such as hospital visits.
If I had to add in a wacky rule, how about one that will make those who discriminate really put their money where their mouths are?
Religious authorities who refuse to perform any kind of marriage will be subject to a 10,000% percent tax, which will be divided up amongst various anti-discrimination groups.
Yeah that definitely wouldn’t cause parents to resent their children.
And then what happens when the wife gets pregnant again by someone else or the husband gets another woman pregnant, which of course will be extremely common since they don’t want to be married anyway. And then there will be all the false accusations of abuse or whatever else will let them get out of the marriage.
Actually what would probably end up happening would be that marriage would just rendered meaningless, and no one would care who the government declared them married to. Unless you’d also make laws that they have to live together and sleep together and pick out china together too, and they can’t do those things with anyone else.
Most human societies throughout history have been polygamous, and the idea of SSM being anything other than loony is a very recent phenomenon. There is no reason to label something loony just because you don’t like it. That’s what the anti-SSM crowd does to SSM.
It’s solely to combat the slippery slope. Maybe polygamy has a long and distinguished history in human society but it hasn’t exactly made a great name for itself in the latter days. So the rule is more to avoid getting caught up in a side issue than anything else, keeping the debate away from “anyone can marry anything” territory.
I think OP is operating under the premise that “family where parents are married=good for children and good all around” as well as “family where parents aren’t married=bad for children and bad all around”. Therefore, if all parents are legally married, all families will be good for children and all around.
Where is it that you live and who isn’t getting married? In the United States, the wealthier classes are still getting married and they’re not getting divorced as much as the poor or working class couples.
How do you prevent a displeased spouse from just walking out?
If one of the spouses produces a child with someone else, have you created a polygamous marriage? What if the other co-parent is already married to another person?
As stated above, what benefit does forcing a married relationship status convey in this situation?