Interesting (if slightly tongue in cheek) idea from M. Kinsley at Slate. If conservatives are serious about less government inteference in private affairs why not start with marriage?
Part of article below. - Abolish Marriage - Let’s really get the government out of our bedrooms. By Michael Kinsley
[sub]
[/sub]
Because Republicans are also the party of ‘family values’. While I realize that the article is making a distinction between the religious aspect of marriage and the legal one I seriously doubt religious right types would see it that way and would crucify any republican who dared to try this suggestion.
Forget about what makes sense…we’re talking political realities here.
It sounds reasonable to me - state-legislated marriage is, after all, just another example of government imposing its ideas of morality on its subjects. Get the government out of there and allow people to marry who and however many partners they want. Marriage becomes a personal statement of commitment (with whatever bells and whistles each religious group may want to add).
we have another thread on abolishing state involvement in marriage. Like all the other threads that came before it there has been no compelling reason to get government altogether out of the marriage process.
Marc
So do you think that government should be involved in anything and everything unless there is a compelling reason not to? (Leaving aside the arguments as to how compelling the reasons are). Personally, I believe that the government should stay out of our lives unless there is a compelling reason for them to get involved. And I find very few reasons to be compelling.
The reason that government is involved in marriage is because, relegious stuff and love aside, marraige is essentialy a legal contract between two parties. Contracts requre laws and laws require government. That’s about it really.
I think the question is at what level. You can contract to buy a car or get the lawn re-seeded without direct government permission. With marriage the goverment fells it is it’s duty to certify which contracts are valid (heterosexual) and invalid (homosexual) when it’s really none of their beeswax how you decide to contract.
Don’t forget that the government makes a little money on these contracts, too. Getting a marriage license costs something, afterall.
Is there a valid MEDICAL reason for the government to be involved? I know that some, I don’t think all anymore, states require bloodtests, but I’m not sure why.
Bob
This idea would relly play hell with inheritance laws. A lot of folks die without wills. With no will, inheritance laws come into play to determine what goes to whom. Those laws currently take spouses into account. What happens in the world of “no legal marriage”?
Legal marriage also provides some financial security to women. Let’s say Jane gives up her career to marry Joe and bear his children (in your no-legal-marriage world). Twenty years down the road, Joe leaves her to be with a younger woman. You could have child support laws to pay for the upkeep on the kids, but what about Jane, who may have lost 20 years of potential career-building activity to her marriage to Joe? Does “no legal marriage” mean no alimony? Is she out in the cold, doomed to a life of poverty after the kids are grown?
** There have been two levels of “get government out of marriage” mentioned. One keeps the concept of marriage, but the government gets no say in who can marry. In that event, there is still a legal concept of marriage. In the more extreme case where there is no legal concept, you can either say that if someone wants their money to go to a partner, then they just have to make a will - that is people taking personal responibility for their own lives (and deaths), rather than leaving it to government to do it for them. I’m in favor of increasing personal responsibility.
This just puts everyone in the same boat as gays currently are, presumably.
I see no reason why the courts could not operate on similar lines to current palimony cases.
You might be able to work out the inheritance issues, though it would require very substantial changes to current law, but the alimony question is much thornier.
Amarone wrote:
Few states recognize “palimony.” (In fact, it may only be California.) Even there, as I understand it, “palimony” is only available if the paying party isn’t married to someone else. (Someone from Cali correct me if I’m wrong.) There’s no such check in a no-legal-marriage system. A rich man is liable to find out he has an awful lot of “pals” (polygamy not being illegal).
Your idea would increase litigation exponentially, in an already overburdened legal system.
If the government were completely out of the picture, I would expect there to be a “standard” marriage contract evolve. Just as there are real estate attorneys with standard contracts, so there would be marriage attorneys with standard contracts. These would presumably be largely based on existing pre-nuptial agreements (not that I’ve ever seen one), with additions to cover the normal situations currently covered by Federal or State laws. Then marriage really does become a contract between individuals, with no role for government beyond standard contract law.
I wish I knew how to post a link to another thread. I’m sure it’s easy, I just don’t have the patience to do it right now. Anyway, there was a thread that I was involved with titled “Frist Puzzles Me.” or some such, from last week.
The mutual point that was boiled down to, was that by having government sanctioned marriages, the government could say who could (heterosexual monogamous) and couldn’t (everyone else) get married, and thus deny the “miscreants” a long list of benefits. I don’t think marriage should have anything to do with who gets what benefits, and who provides those benefits. It’s almost like dangling a carrot in front of a horse. As if to say, “Behave the way we want you to behave, and you’ll get the benefits.”
I may be a little naive here, but the simplest answer is the best, get the government out of marriage altogether. Otherwise it begins to resemble a shell game.
What was it doing there in the first place?
Me, being a Libertarian and and Atheist, didn’t like the church (take your pick of the main stream religions: Catholic, Jewish, Presbyterian, Baptist, Protestant) or the state. But I feel that the government has no right to say who can and cannot marry, especially when benefits are at stake. The state may have a concern because of the “social contract”, but they cannot dictate the terms. The bottom line is dictated by the institution that invented marriage in the first place - religion.
Really?
The inequality alone isn’t enough?
That it is a monmey making venture by the state for something they should have no involvment in isn’t a reason?
Wait.
There’s no compelling reason to you.
Really?
The inequality alone isn’t enough?
That it is a money making venture by the state for something they should have no involvment in isn’t a reason?
Wait.
There’s no compelling reason to you.
The problem is that the very benefits which are at stake (ie the right to file joint tax returns, the right to inherit if there is no will (and the related right to take against the will if the spouse leaves his estate to his mistress instead of to his wife), the right to social security survivorship payments, the right to participation in a tax-qualified employer sponsored health care plan and a host of others) are themselves only creations of the state through statutes.
So what you are saying is that once the people through the state create a benefit that favors married people they can no longer “dictate” who receives such benefits, which doesn’t make sense. Of course the state can still regulate such things, since it created the benefits in the first place.
**
There was and is inequality in public education. I guess you want to get the state out of that as well.
**
Please explain to me how state involvement is simply about making money.
:rolleyes: Or millions of other Americans. Unless you think ending marriages in a legal sense is going to be a popular idea.
Marc
My point exactly. Just in case I didn’t state it clear enough the first time. The subtle point I was making was that the entire government sponsored institution of marriage, and all of the attachments, should be done away with. Leave it up to the clergy (or applicable synonym) who are actually doing the wedding ceremonies to dictate the terms. The state shouldn’t give a benefit one way or the other.
Don’t worry, I think we all got your point. So long as the majority of society wishes to be married and have such benefits as community property, power of attorney, etc. you’ll have to come up with a good reason to abandon the institution of marriage. I don’t even care about the religious aspects of marriage, sure, leave that up to individuals. I also don’t think the government should really be in the business of saying who should get married. Provided the people getting married are actually old enough to enter into a contract.
Marc
Wow. You must be parsing with the skill of Izzy of the Ryan.
It doesn’t matter who is affected or how as long as it serves your needs.
I never said to abolish marriage, that’s your schtick, not mine.
I really don’t think the rolleyes becomes you. On the other hand, with your indignation and desire to keep marriage only for some and deny others, I’m quite sure that your superiority fits better than feigned petulance.