nm
You know, I’d agree wholeheartedly as long as there was no governing body that proscribed monies and/or rights to these so called “marriage”. The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all.
So who protects the marriage rights of the married if government gets out of the business? Who protects the inheritance rights, the next-of-kin recognition, the division of assets if the relationship ends?
Uh, the parties in question.
Who protects the joint rights of an unmarried couple if they have never been legally married?
And to be sure, I was directly answering the question of “why it’s not anyone else’s business”
I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve been sitting around with my also-single also-straight good girlfriends and this has come up… “Hey, I know, we should get married! I would like to have some of your insurance!” “Oh, shoot, we can’t. Can’t wait til SSM is legal!”
Mmm-hmm. So many times.
How?
Nobody. This is the point of a marriage, at the base of it. That this point whooshed past you at speed is slightly incredible.
I’m guessing if governments get out of the marriage business, the spousal privilege regarding legal testimony will go bye-bye, too, right?
And I can make legal and medical decisions about my seriously ill non-spouse, I guess. Every hospital in the world will just take my word for it, no need to see a marriage license.
Now if you want to take away these privileges from everybody (as opposed to the current system in the U.S. where most people can get these privileges and some cannot), I guess that’d be fair, but I don’t see how it’d be better.
The point whooshed assuredly but not past me.
How many times have you, while making medical procedure decisions, pulled out your marriage certificate?
This is one of those sorts of things I’ve long thought would be one of the unspoken side benefits of SSM. It’s not unheard of now for a man and a woman who are not romantically entangled to get legally married for other reasons. For every reason that it might make sense for them, it would make sense for two men or two women.
As an example, a man could have a lifelong best friend, why shouldn’t I be able to use some benefit that marriage might give me because I’m not in a relationship and my best friend is a man instead of a woman? You have pensions, inheritance, health decisions, taxation, that’s a ton of things that, essentially, the unmarried person is punished by.
Now, personally, I’d rather see a better way to address those sorts of things, but for the near future, it might make sense, particularly for young people. I could easily see a pair of freshly graduated college roommates, with heavy career focus continuing to room together for a few years to save money until their careers pick up. Maybe they decide it makes sense to get married solely for benefits like taxation or health care or whatever. I’d rather see these sorts of legal benefits be separated into different types that apply more or less depending on the needs, like a domestic partnership for this sort of situation, where concerns about inheritance probably aren’t desireable.
Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised if, once SSM becomes more common if this concept doesn’t also spread as well.
Okay. If I’m the stupid one, explain your point to me.
I didn’t call you stupid, I just used the same language you attributed to me earlier.
You have not , as of yet, made a case for the need for the government to define marriage at all.
You gave some problems you thought may arise, I offered a different view. If you offer more, I’ll look at those as well.
I do not think there is any issue with a union of any two people that cannot be resolved without the government defining that union.
I asked you one question about your assertion that the two people involved in your non-marriage thing can defend their married rights without government intervention and didn’t get an answer. I ask again…how? How does one defend one’s rights without a government guaranteeing and protecting those rights? I thought that was the whole point of the smaller-government/libertarian crowd, that one of the very few legitimate purposes of government was to protect rights.
Defending rights by contract would indeed be a governmental duty. The assigning of those rights would not be a governmental duty.
The same issue with the non married couple comes up. Why do you see them differently because one is “married” and one is not even if they have exactly the same set of circumstances to deal with?
Because I’d rather have buy-in for an institution that currently exists instead of waiting for the libertarian dream to come true, which pretty much will not be in my lifetime? Do you really think that marriage is going anywhere anytime soon?
No, but I didn’t think we were arguing the actualities. My off hand comment that started this was based upon a completely different comment.
The comment was basically ‘…who cares why we are getting married, all you need to know is we are…’
I’d posit that anytime you are into the business of assigning rights to or for something then you damn sure ought to know why you are assigning them.
Me, personally? Never - I’m not married. If I was married, though, and my spouse was in a car accident and sent to a hospital on life support, the hospital staff isn’t likely to look to me to make life-and-death decisions unless I can show them that my spouse is actually my spouse and I therefore have next-of-kin authority.
I admit an actual marriage certificate might not be necessary, but some kind of government ID tending to verify my spousal claim would be useful.
What do you think will happen when government “gets out of the marriage business”, whatever that actually entails? I show up at a hospital, say “that person on the ventilator and I are life-partners” and I get to decide to pull the plug on them? What happens if I’m not that person’s actual life-partner/next of kin? Can the actual next of kin (a relative, I assume, since I gather marriage no longer legally counts for anything) sue the hospital? Have me arrested?
Every time I see the “get government out of marriage” argument, I never get any follow-up detail on what the arguer thinks happens next.
Incidentally, I invite people who have been in similar situations (if they’re okay discussing it in this context) to describe their experiences. Has anyone ever been called by a hospital and asked “are you the husband/wife of so-and-so?” as a prelude to being told about their injuries and being asked to make certain decisions? Has anyone ever just been assumed by a hospital staffer to have this authority because they kind of look like the injured person’s spouse?
If A has a contract with B, why does third-party C (not a signatory to the contract) have some kind of obligation to follow the contract’s terms?
I’d say it makes the least sense for young people, as young people are more likely than elderly people to meet someone they actually want to marry for romantic reasons. If you’re already married to your platonic roommate that means getting a divorce first, which takes time and can be expensive…even if roomie is fine with ending the marriage of convenience. If roomie likes having health insurance, etc., and doesn’t want that to change, things could get really nasty. Given how many college or soon-after-college roomate situations I’ve seen go horribly wrong, I think it would be a very bad idea for most young people to give the arrangement more legal weight or make it more difficult to get out of.
A young person who’s fine with the idea of a marriage of convenience between people who aren’t really committed to each other long term can already just marry someone of the opposite sex. For a straight person, this has the added advantage of avoiding the need for any awkward “No Mom, honestly, I’m not gay! It’s just for the benefits!” conversations. But marriages of convenience don’t seem to be very common, which suggests to me that most people are either romantic enough to have an aversion to the idea of marrying someone they don’t love or think it would be foolish to legally bind themselves to someone they don’t plan to spend the rest of their lives with.
A domestic partnership that’s not called marriage and is easier to dissolve might be more appealing for friends and roommates, but marriage has both a cultural and a legal significance that makes it badly suited to casual or short-term partnerships.