# Time to abolish state certified marriages? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310 "2003-07-04T23:31:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/1 "2003-07-04T23:31:39Z")
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](http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/) [sub] > [@](#): > > It’s going to get ugly. And then it’s going to get boring. So, we have two options here. We can add gay marriage to the short list of controversies—abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty—that are so frozen and ritualistic that debates about them are more like Kabuki performances than intellectual exercises. Or we can think outside the box. There is a solution that ought to satisfy both camps and may not be a bad idea even apart from the gay-marriage controversy. > > That solution is to end the institution of marriage. Or rather (he hastens to clarify, Dear) the solution is to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage. Or, framed to appeal to conservatives: End the government monopoly on marriage. Wait, I’ve got it: Privatize marriage. These slogans all mean the same thing. Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren’t implicated, what do you care? > > In fact, there is nothing to stop any of this from happening now. And a lot of it does happen. But only certain marriages get certified by the government. So, in the United States we are about to find ourselves in a strange situation where the principal demand of a liberation movement is to be included in the red tape of a government bureaucracy. Having just gotten state governments out of their bedrooms, gays now want these governments back in. Meanwhile, social-conservative anti-gays, many of them southerners, are calling on the government in Washington to trample states’ rights and nationalize the rules of marriage, if necessary, to prevent gays from getting what they want. The Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, responded to the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision by endorsing a constitutional amendment, no less, against gay marriage. > > If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying that its concern is not what people do in private, but government endorsement of a gay “lifestyle” or “agenda,” that problem goes away, too. > > Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are children, there are finances, there are spousal job benefits like health insurance and pensions. In all these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence or devotion to offspring. It would be possible to write rules that measure the real factors at stake and leave marriage out of the matter. Regarding children and finances, people can set their own rules, as many already do. None of this would be easy. Marriage functions as what lawyers call a “bright line,” which saves the trouble of trying to measure a lot of amorphous factors. You’re either married or you’re not. Once marriage itself becomes amorphous, who-gets-the-kids and who-gets-health-care become trickier questions. > > So, sure, there are some legitimate objections to the idea of privatizing marriage. But they don’t add up to a fatal objection. Especially when you consider that the alternative is arguing about gay marriage until death do us part. [/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/2 "2003-07-05T03:11:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astro \* > \*\*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? \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/3 "2003-07-05T13:41:27Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/4 "2003-07-05T13:50:23Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/5 "2003-07-05T14:02:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*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. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/6 "2003-07-05T14:18:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/7 "2003-07-05T14:25:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > \*\*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. ---
**Author:** ![urban1a](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47c2d/32.png) [@urban1a](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/urban1a)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/8 "2003-07-05T16:20:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astro \* > \*\*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 ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/9 "2003-07-05T16:34:20Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/10 "2003-07-05T19:52:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*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”? \*\* 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. > [@](#): > > \*\*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? \*\* I see no reason why the courts could not operate on similar lines to current palimony cases. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/11 "2003-07-06T01:06:44Z")
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: > [@](#): > > I see no reason why the courts could not operate on similar lines to current palimony cases. 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. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/12 "2003-07-06T02:47:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Faucet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chicago_faucet/32/13910_2.png) [@Chicago\_Faucet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Faucet)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/13 "2003-07-06T15:38:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/14 "2003-07-06T18:02:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*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 \*\* 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_. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/15 "2003-07-06T18:04:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*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 \*\* 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_. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7feea3/32.png) [@PatrickM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickM)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/16 "2003-07-06T18:37:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chicago Faucet \* > \*\* > > \ 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 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. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/17 "2003-07-07T01:04:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mockingbird \* > \*\* > The inequality alone isn’t enough? \*\* There was and is inequality in public education. I guess you want to get the state out of that as well. > [@](#): > > \*\* > That it is a money making venture by the state for something they should have no involvment in isn’t a reason? \*\* Please explain to me how state involvement is simply about making money. > [@](#): > > \*\* > There’s no compelling reason to _you_. \*\* :rolleyes: Or millions of other Americans. Unless you think ending marriages in a legal sense is going to be a popular idea. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Faucet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chicago_faucet/32/13910_2.png) [@Chicago\_Faucet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Faucet)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/18 "2003-07-07T01:24:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/19 "2003-07-07T02:57:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chicago Faucet \* > \*\* 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 ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310/20 "2003-07-07T03:17:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > > * * * > > 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 \*\* 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-abolish-state-certified-marriages/186310.md?page=2)