What's a Good Marriage Law?

Great Debates
1

While there are a couple of posters here who hold the opinion that “government should butt its nose completely out of the idea of marriage altogether,” most people see the usefulness of having laws that validate what are the rights and privileges of married couples vis-à-vis property and income, provision for critical illness, and the like.

A wide variety of criticisms have been voiced in various threads about assumptions in the present laws as to who can marry whom and why.

So, for a generic topic, What in your opinion constitutes a good law on marriage – who can engage in it, what they must do to enter into it and, conversely, to terminate it, what their legal rights as regards each other and the property one or both hold during it may be…all that sort of question. Insofar as possible, give the reasons for your stance.

2

I feel that since marriage is essentially a religious rite, the government has exactly zero business in dealing with it. There should be no special benefits accrued to someone from the govenrment based on with whom they live and how those persons wish to characterize that living arrangement.

3

Nor even from the government. I’ll get back to you once I decide what a “govenrment” is.

4

When should a man marry?
A young man not yet,
an older man not at all.
Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)

Sounds like a good law to me :wink:

5

OK, there are two competing interests here. The first is the desire to spread as broadly as possible the individual and social benefits of marriage. The second is to prevent the abuse of marriage by those simply seeking the the individual benefits without regard to the social benefits.

Who may engage in it? Any couple or group who choose to intermingle their lives and affairs in a relationship of mutual trust, excluding immediate family members. This caveat is not out of a concern about incest, per se, but instead to preserve the societal benefit of the interconnection of “strangers” into larger groupings.

What must they do to enter into it? Intermingle their lives and affairs. Examples are a shared primary residence, shared assumption of burden for the upkeep and debts of the other member(s) of the marriage, sharing of assets, etc. This is the key to the prevention of abuse.

How to terminate it? Divorce, either for fault or no-fault. A key caveat I would add is that if divorce is no-fault, and the marriage lasted less than a set limit of time (to be determined later), the divorcing parties must disgorge any benefit they received from the marriage, such as reduction in taxes, immigration status, etc. For protection of innocent parties, a divorcing party may challenge the no-fault status of the divorce.

Legal rights of marriage (property) - Shared ownership of all assets acquired during the marriage. Some level of ownership in assets acquired before the marriage - not sure what level, but pre-nups absolutely excluding pre-marriage assets should be invalid. Again, to prevent abuse and also to make parties think before entering into marriage. Right to void any contract affecting shared finances made by spouse(s) without approval. (May have to alter this to majority or super-majority for group marriages).

Legal rights of marriage (each other) - right to make any decision that would otherwise be made by spouse if spouse is incapable of making decision (except where the spouse has pre-stated decision). Right to veto and/or not assume responsibility for reproductive decisions made by spouse outside of the marriage. In group marriage situation, right to no-fault divorce without penalty if other members of group decide to reproduce without consent of objecting marriage member. Shared burden for support of children of spouses, both in marriage and pre-marriage (but see above for out-of-marriage children).

That’s about it for starters.

Sua

6

For the most part the marriage laws are fine as they stand. I don’t think marriage is a strictly religious rite either. At least not from the standpoint of the state.

Marc

7

I would disagree on this ground, Monty. Marriage, more exactly, the intermingling of person’s affairs in a legally recognized and binding, (theoretically) permanent union, provides benefits to society at large. Putting aside psychological benefits for the moment, the pooling of two (or more) people’s resources reduces the odds that they will become wards of the state or society, and having someone with the legal right to speak for another, particularly in cases of incapacity, reduces uncertainty and societal costs. It does make sense to encourage this state of affairs.

Sua

8

Interesting points.

A fascinating aspect of the marriage contract is that the two parties have little freedom to define the terms of the contract between them. A marriage contract follows state law. (Of course, there can be a pre-nuptial agreement, etc., so there is some individual leeway.)

I have heard about covenant marriage. As I understand it, couples opting for this form of marriage cannot get divorced as easily. That’s all I know.

Some questions arise (to which I have no answer):

  1. To what degree should couples be able to tailor their own marriage contract?

  2. How dificult should it be to dissolve a marriage?

  3. Should there be several standard marriage contracts that a couple could choose from? Should they be able to move from one marriage state to another (like a Markov process)?

9

Yep, that’s me (though I bet I’m no the one Polycarp was thinking of. It’s nice to say that marriage “amounts to a contract” between two people, but, IMO, it ought to be a contract, written up, signed, notarized, and executed between two competent adults. (I am, of course, specifically talking about civil marriage here; I will not be addressing religious or social aspects of marriage at all.) IOW, the only involvement that the state should have in marriage is to set the basis of contract law, and any persons that are considered competent to sign a binding contract ought to be able to sign any binding marriage contract that they so choose. Likewise, any person or entity that isn’t party to the contract should have the square root of fuck-all to do with setting the acceptable bounds of the contract (which is my way of saying that I’m in favor of gay marriages, and polyamorous marriages, and open marriages, provided that everyone involved in the marriage has given their assent to such conditions.

Even if you don’t especially like that last bit, there’s a lot to be said for this sort of marriage, because it would make all conditions of the partnership explicit, rather than having them depend on where you happen to be living. That’s a definite problem today; just ask any lawyer who’s ever handled executorship of an estate with property in two different states. However, that’s a minor point; the most important one is that the state ought not to have any interest in such a private partnership, regardless of the circumstances.

10

I tend to agree with Monty on this one. The government really doesn’t have any business in deciding what commitments/ living arrangements people make, or punishing/rewarding those decisions with tax status.

11

Thanks, Barking Spider.

I’m also with Some Guy on this. If the government’s going to declare that the marriage is a legal partnership, then let’s treat it as such. Where are the partnership meeting minutes? The bylaws? The names and responsibilities of the officeholders? Etc.?

Currently, the government is pretending it’s not messing with a religious thing. But it’s treating it as a religious thing.

12

I’m all for the government butting out, or seriously reforming the current laws.

I don’t view marriage as a religious thing, having just been married and not one whisper of anything religious being uttered. It can be a religious thing, but it doesn’t have to be.

The only thing that has me thinking twice about the complete removal of the government from marriage, is in circumstances of illness/incapacity. Wills can be drawn up to establish who gets your property after death, but can you specify someone to be your guardian, so to speak ?

13

I’m with some guy more or less. I differ from Monty in saying that the government does have the right to encourage (within limits) behavior that is beneficial to society. Married people are more responsible, commit less crime, etc. Hence I think tax breaks and all the rest are good ideas.

My ideal solution would for it to be specialized contract with conditions drawn up beforehand, but with several standard clauses to protect both the signatories. People in love tend to believe “I don’t need a pre-nup, we won’t get divorced” and “he’ll never cheat on me.”

You go to an office, file the form with a clerk, and if approved, you’re “legally joined” to your “partner.” For legal purposes, this is not called a “marriage;” but people can of course tell the relatives anything they want. No discrimination for gays, but incest and age-of-consent laws stay. No ceremony.

If you want a religious wedding, take it up with your preist. He, however, may have altogether different terms for marriage, and any religion is free to excommunicate you or whatever if you have violated the terms of your religious wedding. They are also free to insist that they will only bless unions whose marriage contracts include certain clauses (i.e. divorce conditions).

14

HELLO What about children? Isn’t it better for children to live in a home with two adults (traditionally one of each sex)?
Rosie agrees with everything but the last part. Children require security and marriage should be a sign that the relationship is permanent.

Marriages should be harder to get into:[ul] [li]no one under 18 []waiting period after license (religion does not issue licenses so the government must have something to do with marriage) []classes or a test concerning the meaning of the contract.[/ul][/li]
Divorce should be made easier, like “In 10 days I’m outta here, read the contract.”

15

I beg your pardon? You can’t be serious! One of the biggest disgrace to hit the news in recent years was that married dude, Hansen (sp?) with the FBI.

16

Wait a second, kniz…you say that children require a home with two adult married parents and yet you want divorce to be easy?

Also, “religion doesn’t issue licenses” isn’t exactly true. Many faith groups require the celebrant to interview the prospective bride and groom prior to the nuptials. Heck, that’s more than the state does!

17

Actually it is exactly true. The state, or to be more specific the county, is the one who issues the marriage license. The fact that some religious institutions may interview or even refuse to marry a couple doesn’t change the states role. A religious group can prevent someone from getting married within their church. But they cannot prevent someone from getting married in Vegas by Elvis.
Marc

18

I don’t get it.
It’s a joke, right? :confused:

19

I realize that the civil government is in the business of issuing the civil marriage license.

What I was referring to was that some faith groups also have a form of licensing. For example, the LDS require a Temple Recommend for Ordinance for the Living prior to a couple getting married in their temples. That is certainly a type of license.
[/QUOTE]

There are also common law marriage states which don’t require any license whatsoever for that type of marriage.

20

I’d observe, in disagreement to the “government” should keep its nose out, that it is a form of partnership, in that the two (or more) people involved pool resources for mutually desired ends. (No pun intended in that last phrase!)

If I buy a stick of gum or a car from you, there are some implicit warranties built into that contract – and contract it is in law, though there’s no document spelling out the terms. The gum is warranted to be chewable, free from rodent hairs and poison, etc.; the expectations I may reasonable have about the car are detailed in state law (varying from state to state, and adjustable by terms such as sold “as is”), but they are present.

To have a law, whether adjustable by agreement of the parties entering into the marriage or not, which spells out the default expectations which each party may have, seems quite reasonable to me.

There are, in addition, also rights accruing to any children conceived or adopted in a marriage, which are significant to the terms thereof – because they are not freely contracting parties but are obviously strongly affected by the terms of the marriage, particularly if it is dissolved, and therefore they deserve protection by the law.