Why does the State control marriage?

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Drifterwood, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    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.
     
  2. B_Hickboy

    B_Hickboy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,730
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    That twinge in your intestines
    You're getting married?
     
  3. helgaleena

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,663
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Wisconsin USA
    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.
     
  4. OhWiseOne

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,493
    Albums:
    10
    Likes Received:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    Verified:
    Photo
    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.
     
  5. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    Do you think that the State should still be controlling us in this manner?
     
  6. helgaleena

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,663
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Wisconsin USA
    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.
     
  7. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    You can write your own contracts - as indeed you do with a will.
     
  8. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    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.
     
  9. monel

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  10. helgaleena

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,663
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Wisconsin USA
  11. dude_007

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    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
     
  12. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    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.
     
  13. monel

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  14. OhWiseOne

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,493
    Albums:
    10
    Likes Received:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    Verified:
    Photo
    I didn't take it that way at all. I was the one that went into a rant. :smile:

    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.
     
  15. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    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?
     
  16. monel

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted