Why does the State control marriage?

[Drifterwood]

Did you know that State marriage licenses were only introduced after the US civil war as a way to control an apartheid on mixed race marriage? And then only in 1923 did the need for a license become universal.

Campaign For Liberty — Decrease Government Control of Marriage

I agree with this guy. Why the fuck should the State dictate my personal relationships? In the UK they will impose their laws on my relationships even if I haven't agreed to a marriage or any other contact. Just living with someone long enough means that the State can seize my assets etc etc.

This is crazy isn't it? Does anyone know of anywhere in the world where the State keeps it's fat face out of your private business.

 

[B_Hickboy]

You're getting married?

 

[helgaleena]

It's called 'common law' and in the USA it differs from state to state quite a bit.

Marriage as a legal institution is all about safeguarding property rights and/or producing a workforce. Biological and emotional attachments are lesser considerations.

 

[OhWiseOne]

I'm confused, decrease gov. control here, increase gov. control there. How bout this just have the gov. get the fuck out of my life all together. I'm a big boy ya know.

 

[Drifterwood]

It's called 'common law' and in the USA it differs from state to state quite a bit.

Marriage as a legal institution is all about safeguarding property rights and/or producing a workforce. Biological and emotional attachments are lesser considerations.

Do you think that the State should still be controlling us in this manner?

 

[helgaleena]

I am all for freedom, and unlicensed alliances of all varieties. But at the same time, the historic connection between inheritance and property rights cannot be entirely abolished. Let's all write our wills at age 21 and keep them updated monthly until we die.

 

[Drifterwood]

You can write your own contracts - as indeed you do with a will.

 

[Drifterwood]

I'm confused, decrease gov. control here, increase gov. control there. How bout this just have the gov. get the fuck out of my life all together. I'm a big boy ya know.

I appreciate that this could look like a rant, but I really do wonder why we allow the State to dictate the terms of our private lives. It is why I have always been completely supportive of gay marriage rights.

 

[monel]

In order to encorage what it has deemed to be good for society, the State has decided to bestow certain benefits on married persons including tax incentives, heredity, security. Once it did these things, it became necessary to ensure that couples were actually married before they could avail of these benefits. Thus the marriage license.

I'm with you and believe that the State should get out of the marriage business. However this will require changes to the tax codes and probate laws among others. It would, though end much of the same sex marriage fight. It is interesting that in Massachusetts, gay marriage was legalized because of the licensing requirement. If the State is handing out licenses it can not do so discriminatingly.

 

[helgaleena]

Abstruse Goose

 

[dude_007]

I'm confused, decrease gov. control here, increase gov. control there. How bout this just have the gov. get the fuck out of my life all together. I'm a big boy ya know.

Then I guess you won't need social security or Medicare, police, fire dept, military, clean environment, regulation of banks, parks to go to, roads fixed, or

 

[Drifterwood]

If the State is handing out licenses it can not do so discriminatingly.

This seems a very simple and conclusive argument given your constitution and my personal view of life. Perhaps we should have a system which allows people to choose. You can take the State contract, the Religious contract of whatever type or simply make your own contract. If you have a Satae or a Religion which wishes to discriminate then you have an issue that you may wish to try to change, but this wouldn't stop you from having a marriage contract recognised under law.

 

[monel]

This seems a very simple and conclusive argument given your constitution and my personal view of life. Perhaps we should have a system which allows people to choose. You can take the State contract, the Religious contract of whatever type or simply make your own contract. If you have a Satae or a Religion which wishes to discriminate then you have an issue that you may wish to try to change, but this wouldn't stop you from having a marriage contract recognised under law.

To some degree this is what we already have. A couple can get married in their church and never obtain a license. They will be recognized as married by their religious institution but the State would not recognize it. The problem starts when the State decides to recognize marriage. Then it gets to choose what criteria it will accept as constituting a valid marriage and discriminating policies ensue.

 

[OhWiseOne]

I appreciate that this could look like a rant, but I really do wonder why we allow the State to dictate the terms of our private lives. It is why I have always been completely supportive of gay marriage rights.

I didn't take it that way at all. I was the one that went into a rant. :smile:

Then I guess you won't need social security or Medicare, police, fire dept, military, clean environment, regulation of banks, parks to go to, roads fixed, or

My statement was addressing the regulation of personal choices and what I feel is best for me. The examples you gave except for the first two are completely different.

 

[Drifterwood]

To some degree this is what we already have. A couple can get married in their church and never obtain a license. They will be recognized as married by their religious institution but the State would not recognize it. The problem starts when the State decides to recognize marriage. Then it gets to choose what criteria it will accept as constituting a valid marriage and discriminating policies ensue.

I think the State has it the wrong way round. It should have nothing to do with the private contacts that its citizen make between themselves, but it should be involved in subsequently protecting people's rights and property.

We have a very British attitude to Pre Nups. You can have a pre-nup, but a court will only take note of it so long as it agrees with what the court would have decided anyway.

I presume that people who opt for a religious only and non licensed by the State marriage don't then get the inducements that the State offers for licensed marriages?

 

[monel]

I think the State has it the wrong way round. It should have nothing to do with the private contacts that its citizen make between themselves, but it should be involved in subsequently protecting people's rights and property.

Many of the property rights of the couple could be contractually agreed to prior to marriage and the court's could then enforce them like any other contract. This would take the State out of the marriage equation somewhat. However, the State's involvement has much to do with the benefits that the States provide to married couples and this, the couple cannot address themselves.

We have a very British attitude to Pre Nups. You can have a pre-nup, but a court will only take note of it so long as it agrees with what the court would have decided anyway.

This seems to make the pre-nup a pointless endeavor. If the court will not recognize the contractual agreements of the parties, why bother. Not that pre-nups avoid litigation disputes in the US either but it is usually over interpretation, breach and other contractual issues. The court would not disregard the agreement just because it didn't concur with the terms to which the parties' agreed.

I presume that people who opt for a religious only and non licensed by the State marriage don't then get the inducements that the State offers for licensed marriages?

That, for the most part, is correct. To reiterate, I think the time has come for the State to get out of the marriage business and that applicable laws, tax, property, probate, etc. should be re-written so they are nont marriage based.