Let's cut out marraige

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Father Time, Mar 10, 2009.

  1. Father Time
    Offline

    Father Time I'll be Still Alive

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,130
    Thanks Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +438
    Before you post this thread is NOT about gay marriage, well at least that's not the main subject.

    I've seen an idea elsewhere on the internet that I thought was intriguing.

    What if we were to remove marriage from the legal system. The government cannot marry people, the government will not make any laws regarding married couples (such as tax breaks), the marriage license becomes extinct etc. Marriage becomes a contract that two people sign that dictates what will happen if one party dies or if they divorce or if they have kids or whatever. The state will only recognize the marriage as any other formal agreement/contract (disputes over it will be settled in civil court for instance).

    Now this would allow gays get married but as I said the state would only recognize it as just a specific contract (which anyone over 18 can be a part of), no different than a business arrangement.

    Now if we were to make this law tomorrow all those who are married or engaged will have all the same marriage laws apply to them but after a year or so it becomes a contract.

    One advantage of this would be that the state could no longer change the terms of marriage by changing laws. Judges will no longer get to decide who gets custody or how a divorced couple will end up, and of course common law marriages will be dead.

    The only time judges would get involved is if something happens that wasn't part of the contract but well-written ones should make that an impossibility.

    Also the terms of the contract can of course be different between couples.

    So anyone else think we should remove the state from marriage?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,626
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,971
    sure why not...the state should not enter your personal life any more than needed...but how do you protect the kids born into these contracts? that would be the only drawback
     
  3. Anguille
    Offline

    Anguille Bane of the Urbane

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    17,910
    Thanks Received:
    2,122
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,137
    I like the idea but I still think judges should decide custody. Kids are not property.
     
  4. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,790
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,303
  5. born rich
    Offline

    born rich Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +6
    We should put a government official by the bed of every consenting adult couple. Big Brother should absolutely be in the bed room.
     
  6. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    there is no such thing as a well written contract that would prevent lawsuits and disputes over alleged breech......
     
  7. Father Time
    Offline

    Father Time I'll be Still Alive

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,130
    Thanks Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +438
    Yes you're right, I was thinking of only specific circumstances when I wrote that and not the broader sense.
     
  8. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    The government should not be recognizing marriages at all.
     
  9. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    First of all, the marriage license is already a legal contract between two people that dictates much of what happens when the relationship dissolves or one party dies. All you're really talking about is requiring every couple to have a prenuptial agreement and forego governmental recognition of the relationship and the offspring in the form of tax breaks, automatic inheritance assumptions, etc. Which is my second point: Why should we? I don't see how that benefits married couples OR society as a whole. The only people it benefits are people who can't get legal recognition now, and people who want to feel clever for finding an all-new, albeit pointless, way to re-engineer society.

    I can tell you how society benefits from marriage as it is now. Can you tell me how society benefits under your plan?
     
  10. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    Get over yourself. Governmental sanction of marriages is not about anyone being morbidly fascinated with your pathetic little sex life or anyone else's. I sincerely doubt even YOU find your sex life interesting enough to stay awake for, let alone anyone else.
     

Share This Page