With all of this talk about the legalization of gay marriage, why does a goverment even need to recognize marriage at all? Two people can love each other just as much without marriage, but they sign a piece of paper that says they love each other and they get tax breaks? Can someone please tell me why a goverment needs to know if two people are together. If the bride and groom really love each other, they would get married and stay together on moral grounds, not on legal ones.
It’s exactly as you’ve already mentioned: legally married couples get benefits for taxation, and health insurance, and a bunch of other stuff. Love can keep you with somebody for a long time, but it doesn’t pay the doctor’s bills.
Well that explains why people want to be legally married, but what need does the government have to recognize it? Is this just a case of people selfishly giving themselves tax breaks and a pat on the back for tying the knot? Obviously, the government giving out lots of tax breaks for any arbitrary reason (like marriage) will not benefit the goverment. Why not just give out universal tax breaks that benefit everyone? Giving out tax breaks and other advantages for marriage is essentialy the government bribing you to get married. This just leads to more broken homes and juvenile delinquents.
People that say they are married should be married, regardless of any laws. Marriage should just be a promise between 2 consenting adults and not any of the Fed’s business.
Almost by definition, you can’t get the tax breaks for marriage unless the federal government recognizes your marriage. To claim otherwise is foolishness.
What, specifically, are you proposing?
The complete delegaliztion of marriage. Seriously, what is the point of the government knowing that you are married? The government has no reason to give married people more benefits than unmarried. If elected officials helped out everyone instead of just the married couples, then they would get more votes and be re-elected more easily, so why don’t they?
Marriage is far more about establishing a legal next-of-kin relationship than it is about tax breaks.
It’s a way of formalizing who, in fact is your next of kin for a variety of reasons, including taxes, legitimizing children, financial rights and responsibilities, and so on.
Hypothetical: Joe is living with Mary, sharing expenses, accumulating possessions. Unbeknownst to Mary, Joe is also spending significant time with Sally. Or he moves out one day and starts living with Sally. Unfortunately, Joe is seriously injured in a tragic train crash and lapses into in a coma. Both women hear about the crash and rush to the hospital. Who gets the unrestricted visits? Who gets to decide on treatment or lack of same? Who pays his bills? If Joe dies, who gets his bank account? If he has made a formal legal commitment to one of them (AKA married her) then she has the rights and responsibilities of next of kin.
On the tax issue: The idea of a tax break for married couples most likely dates back to the days when only one spouse worked outside the home, and the one income was providing for two people. In some recent years, there has actually been a “marriage penalty,” whereby two people paid MORE taxes if they were married than they would have as singles. IIRC there was a recent change in the tax laws to make it the same amount either way.
It has long been thought to be in the best interests of society for people to marry and to have their children publicly recognized as being their specific responsiblity and their legal heirs. Now, you may or may not agree with that, but in virtually every human society I know of there is some sort of formal process involved in deciding which women and men are joined together at any given time, and there is some sort of recognition of extra privileges for such recognized unions and their offspring.
I’ll give you a real life example that has some pretty important ramifications for my own family(and I would imagine many others). I am sponsoring my wife for permanent residency, she is not able to obtain sponsorship through an employer because she is busy with our eight month old daughter. The government recognizes our marriage as my legal responsibility that she and my daughter be provided for. Number B, through this sponsorship she will be able to obtain permanent residency or citizenship from the federalis. Step 3, she will be physically able to remain in the US and our family stays together, badabingbadboom. So for us at least, there is an excellent reason for the federal government to know we are married.
In general there is a difference between 2 people who have made a life long commitment to each other and 2 people who happen to live together. As has been suggested, the difference has to do with familial associations. Who is responsible for children, which individual is the presumed next of kin etc. I would only add that considering a couple and some children as a family unit rather than an arbitrary collection of individuals has a very deep traditional basis. government’s recognition of marriage is simply recognizing this fact.
I have problems with both sides of this debate. It seems silly to dictate who I can and cannot associate with. Even to the degree of association typically reserved for family. That is, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow people to assign whoever they want as a significant other.
At the same time, I’m not sure I understand what benifits are completely withheld from non traditional partnerships. Wills can be composed to address inheritance. Powers of attorney can be assigned to designate medical authority. Financial partnerships can be formed to share financial resources. Are there any of the traditional “benifits” of marriage which are not arbitrarily available already? Or is it just a convenience thing where they want all of these benifits without having to apply for each of them seperatly?
This is just repeating it all over again, but what the heck: recognition of the civil condition called “marriage” is about adjudicating legal and financial obligations and the division/distribution of property or income – so that when the court, or the assembly of elders of the tribe, sees the case of Fergus v. Fergus or hears the plead of Ooga against Mooga, they have a previously-agreed-upon basis upon which to find who is supposed to support whom, who gets the house, who can speak for the minor children, etc. Since it’s the state who enforces transmittals of property, child welfare and support, inheritances, etc., the state needs to know who forms a family unit.
pervert, see labmonkey’s post for an example of a case (immigration) where merely having your lawyer draw up a statement for both of you to sign that you want this person by your side will be worthless.
Also, for instance, here in PR, even if you draw up a will, the recognized “kin” have a guaranteed share of the estate and the will can only distribute what’s over that.
In any case, “married” or “civilly united” allows a “one-stop” process in most of those legal situations, as opposed to always having to have a file case full of documents, briefs, etc. detailing the validity of every single one of your family relationships within easy reach.
Governments have an interest to encourage responsible behavior. The motivation for legally recognizing romantic commitments is to encourage such responsibility. Marriage confers some benefits, yes, but it also brings with it some responsibilities. While the “stay at home” mother is being phazed out and latch key kids are phazed in, being in a relationship like marriage carries with it certain promises to be faithful in more than just the bedroom. Sharing fiscal burdens, for one thing. Because of the atmosphere of trust such relationships can foster, the possibility for emotional and financial damage increases. In order to recognize this factor, the state steps in so that restitution, if warranted, may be more reasonably imposed.
In short, the state has an interest in encouraging stable relationships, and beyond that, affecting behavior should a relationship prove unstable so that a person who was misled in their trust is not sold down the river.
Possibly. But where was the child born? Is the child offspring of an American? Does this not have a little to do with immigration status? If the child was born here, or is otherwise an American citizen, would not the mother have another way of applying for citizenship? Would not some of these things still be true (or could you not make a good argument for them) if the child were merely adopted?
Certainly merely signing a paper is not the same as marrying a partner. I’m really only asking if marriage is really a civil rights issue or a civil convenience issue.
Well, yes, but in the case of a non traditional spouse, I’m assuming that the paerson would not have also had a traditional spouse. He/She may have had children, and they may have legal benifits by that relationship. But as far as a partnership with another person otherwise not a blood relationship, a will probably covers them.
Right. I understand this argument. I agree with it BTW. I am trying to get at whether or not there is another more compelling one. Kind of like the OP. Whether or not there is a compelling reason for the state to define marriage.
Marriage is a fundamental social reality which is found in one form or another in virtually all societies and which long predates most contemporary government structures.
Government structures which ignore fundamental social realities tend not to serve their societies very well, and as a result tend not to last very long.
Your solution of just getting government out completely is not practical, as has been pointed out. The solution I thought of my own self, and others here have too, is to get government out of “marriage,” which is a social construct, but make available a set of legal terms in a package called “civil union.” You want to get married? Fine, go to your church, synagogue, or whatever your social group recognizes. You want rights of inheritance, etc? Go to the county courthouse and get a legal civil union.
I think this solution is not only the right way to do it, it would be acceptable to a majority of people, because the government is no longer calling a homosexual union “marriage.”
To pick up on what UDS said, a legal marriage is also an official social recognition of a union, partnership, committment, etc. on the part of the government and society in general. It is a milestone in human social existance that provides an opportunity for society to recognize it and confer advantages to the happy couple.
Or, it could be a subtly coercive means of maintaining an acceptable social structure. It depends on if you’re erudite or slightly paranoid.
Vlad/Igor
[QUOTE=pervert]
Possibly. But where was the child born? Is the child offspring of an American? Does this not have a little to do with immigration status? If the child was born here, or is otherwise an American citizen, would not the mother have another way of applying for citizenship? Would not some of these things still be true (or could you not make a good argument for them) if the child were merely adopted?
QUOTE]
In case it wasn’t clear, I am American, my wife is not we live in the States. The US federal government grants my daughter citizenship on this basis, regardless of where she was born. However, she could not petition for my wife’s citizenship until she was 21(she is 8 months). That’s a pretty long time for my wife to be out of status. For all intents and purposes, my daughter’s ability to petition is in our case a moot point and quite useless. The clause exists for adult children trying to bring their parents to the US. Also, do you have any experience with the BCIS? It’s a real hoot. Especially post 911. Try taking a IRS audit and multiplying by, oh about 1000 then attatching it to an anal probe. You definitely don’t wan’t to throw any curves, nice hanging fastballs right over the plate.