Why Have Civil Marriage?

[Cassandro]

This question seems to escape most people, who can't see the forest for the trees. The ONLY legitimate government interest in civil marriage is the protection and welfare of children. That is why the marriage "contract" was invented; to create a system of rewards and responsibilities which encourages stable family units.

Unfortunately, this system has been compromised over the years by people who want enjoy the rewards without the responsibilities (no-fault divorce being a prime example.) Combined with a rising illegitimacy rate, this is making a mockery of marriage. Is there any reason to be married over than perceived tax benefits?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually, the question is, why have religious ceremonies?

The answer is, that some people want them.

The reason for civil, legally binding contracts is the ultimate protection of all those involved.

 

[sameech]

This question seems to escape most people, who can't see the forest for the trees. The ONLY legitimate government interest in civil marriage is the protection and welfare of children. That is why the marriage "contract" was invented; to create a system of rewards and responsibilities which encourages stable family units.

Unfortunately, this system has been compromised over the years by people who want enjoy the rewards without the responsibilities (no-fault divorce being a prime example.) Combined with a rising illegitimacy rate, this is making a mockery of marriage. Is there any reason to be married over than perceived tax benefits?

I suspect it has more to do with inheritances than protecting children. For much of human history, being that first born son was all that mattered.

 

[percysunshine]

This question seems to escape most people, who can't see the forest for the trees. The ONLY legitimate government interest in civil marriage is the protection and welfare of children. That is why the marriage "contract" was invented; to create a system of rewards and responsibilities which encourages stable family units.

Unfortunately, this system has been compromised over the years by people who want enjoy the rewards without the responsibilities (no-fault divorce being a prime example.) Combined with a rising illegitimacy rate, this is making a mockery of marriage. Is there any reason to be married over than perceived tax benefits?

I suspect it has more to do with inheritances than protecting children. For much of human history, being that first born son was all that mattered.

Sooo...the institution of marriage was invented by people like the Kennedys so that they could stay rich?

maybe...maybe not. Many species of birds find that a monogamous relationship between a single male and single female over a life span is the most stable form of existence.

Of course, birds don't have lawyers.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The contract law that is marriage is legitimate because it's written by the states, where no further 'justification' is required.

And the fact that couples incapable of procreation are eligible to enter into the marriage contract would tend to undermine the premise that marriage exists solely to “encourage[] stable family units,” where childless marriages are just as valid and legitimate as marriages with children.

Marriage is in essence a union of two equal partners recognized by the state, where the state is also a participant in the contract, and affords the couple certain privileges and immunities unique to that contract.

Persons marry for all manner of reasons both personal and pragmatic, and as long as one enters into the contract in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of the contract, no further justification may be required of the participants.

Marriage has not been so much 'compromised' as it has been challenged, it was clearly appropriate for states to amend marriage law allowing for dissolution when the marriage contract was irrevocably broken, as to compel couples to remain in loveless, toxic marriages would be unwarranted and cruel.

Marriage will ultimately endure and remain a fundamental component of society, representing the public commitment of two equal partners to seek a full and prosperous life together.

 

[sameech]

This question seems to escape most people, who can't see the forest for the trees. The ONLY legitimate government interest in civil marriage is the protection and welfare of children. That is why the marriage "contract" was invented; to create a system of rewards and responsibilities which encourages stable family units.

Unfortunately, this system has been compromised over the years by people who want enjoy the rewards without the responsibilities (no-fault divorce being a prime example.) Combined with a rising illegitimacy rate, this is making a mockery of marriage. Is there any reason to be married over than perceived tax benefits?

I suspect it has more to do with inheritances than protecting children. For much of human history, being that first born son was all that mattered.

Sooo...the institution of marriage was invented by people like the Kennedys so that they could stay rich?

maybe...maybe not. Many species of birds find that a monogamous relationship between a single male and single female over a life span is the most stable form of existence.

Of course, birds don't have lawyers.

.

More like noblemen so they could raid the fortunes of their wives' family.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This question seems to escape most people, who can't see the forest for the trees. The ONLY legitimate government interest in civil marriage is the protection and welfare of children. That is why the marriage "contract" was invented; to create a system of rewards and responsibilities which encourages stable family units.

Unfortunately, this system has been compromised over the years by people who want enjoy the rewards without the responsibilities (no-fault divorce being a prime example.) Combined with a rising illegitimacy rate, this is making a mockery of marriage. Is there any reason to be married over than perceived tax benefits?

Ooh an idealist. Unfortunately, government interest in marriage has nothing to do with the welfare of children, but rather the welfare of the state itself. Marrieds have economic and legal adjustments bestowed upon them. To do those, some legal definition of what it means to be married must be established so single people aren't getting tax breaks for marrying their imaginary friends and such. Has nothing to do with the welfare of offspring though. The laws governing when teens can have sex aren't about the teens having sex but the concern over single unwed teenaged mothers which are an economic drain on the state since they usually end up on welfare.

Proof of concept:

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269

"WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.

In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.

In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger."


Laws almost NEVER come about out of purely noble intentions. It's almost always about money.

 

[Katzndogz]

The ONLY reason for civil marriage isn't protection of the children. State recognition of marriage is a function of record keeping. It's the same as birth records and death records. Marriage is a Vital Statistic. At one time, before there was a Bureau of Vital Statistics Churches kept their records individually. Births, Deaths, Marriages and Baptisms did not exist beyond the records of individual Churches. If there was no Church, it was the function of the circuit preacher who kept records according to people's memory of what happened since the last time the preacher came by.

To ensure uniformity and security of record keeping, the state took it over as a ministerial function of the state. Rather than protect the children, records protect the inheritance rights of children and descendants. Marriage doesn't offer any protection to children. Parents protect children. The state does not protect children.

 

[Cassandro]

Nice platitudes, but what is the government's LEGITIMATE (no pun intended) in civil marriage? Adults are free to associate with one another in whatever manner they choose, regardless of whether they love each other or even live together. They can also participate in religious ceremonies and hold property in whatever manner they choose, so why should the government be involved? It is true that marriage was once used as a legal device to determine inheritance, but that time has long passed.

The answer is the protection and welfare of CHILDREN, who are legally unable to care for themselves. Experience has shown that stable two-parent family units are the best way to achieve this. They may be outdated, but the income tax provisions allowing married couples to file joint tax returns were based on the idea of mitigating the the tax/income effect of one parent caring for the children while the other was working outside of the home. Same thing for SS spousal benefits. The fact that childless married couples also got these benefits is due to the unpredictability of having (or adopting) children.

Why not simply maintain a registry of couples who wish to hold themselves out as being married? As long as they didn't have children, they would be free to dissolve this arrangement at any time (but would receive no special tax or SS benefits). Once children are in the picture, they would be eligible for a civil marriage certificate, which would confer traditional rights and responsibilities on the parties. Divorce would require a judicial finding of appropriate grounds rather than the whim of either party (legal separation would remain an option).

I know this sounds harsh by current standards, but we are witnessing the demise of the nuclear family and an increase in all of the social problems that entails. Intelligent discussion is welcomed, but please don't expose your vapidity by arguing that this is a beneficial trend.

 

[percysunshine]

Divorce is hardly ever civil, or so I am told anyway.

 

[Cassandro]

Divorce is hardly ever civil, or so I am told anyway.

Ironically, your jest points out the flaw in today's "no-fault" divorce laws. One parent (usually the mother) can unilaterally kick the other parent out of the house on a whim. "To hell with our children, it's all about me!"

 

[emilynghiem]

Divorce is hardly ever civil, or so I am told anyway.

Ironically, your jest points out the flaw in today's "no-fault" divorce laws. One parent (usually the mother) can unilaterally kick the other parent out of the house on a whim. "To hell with our children, it's all about me!"

If people were taught conflict resolution, and how to form and manage contracts by agreement/consensus, maybe we'd have a more responsible citizenry acting more civilized.

I would recommend that people agree to separate and divorce on MUTUAL terms, totally agreed without coercion, the same way an agreement to date or to get married is made -- by freely chosen agreement by both parties.

If you cannot handle that, you should not get married and have kids yet!
All the fights I've had with people involve someone changing the conditions, then pushing that on me without my consent. Because they didn't respect my consent, but I respected theirs, I'm the one who gets screwed at the end of the chain because I won't abuse anyone else and pass the loss onto them.

People need to learn basic conflict resolution, mediation and "due process" instead of projecting blame for conflicts from one person onto someone else to "make someone pay."

Most of the emotional garbage in divorce are control issues projected onto each other, so both parties try to win control that way.

If conflict resolution cannot be made required education and training for citizenship, which I would support to educate people about the costs of public resources on cases of abuses and crimes that could be prevented, I would recommend it for couples before getting married and especially before having children, to prevent abuses of people or resources.

 

[Cassandro]

Well stated, but you left out the most important party: The Children. Who looks out for their interests? Divorce is almost always detrimental to them, especially when their parents decide to go off an start new families. Legal Separation was created to address irremedial marriage situations, but that is considered too inconvenient nowadays.

 

[Nemo]

Marriage is a three-party contract between two natural persons of legal capacity (that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”).

 

[WinterBorn]

This question seems to escape most people, who can't see the forest for the trees. The ONLY legitimate government interest in civil marriage is the protection and welfare of children. That is why the marriage "contract" was invented; to create a system of rewards and responsibilities which encourages stable family units.

Unfortunately, this system has been compromised over the years by people who want enjoy the rewards without the responsibilities (no-fault divorce being a prime example.) Combined with a rising illegitimacy rate, this is making a mockery of marriage. Is there any reason to be married over than perceived tax benefits?

The idea that any old reasons for marriage to exist as a state licensed institution is, by definition, is still the only reason for marriage is simply ridiculous. Society changes, and the institutions reflect that change.

Marriage was, at one time, also about consolidating assets under the husband's name. The wife was virtually property, and all her belongings and assets became the property of the husband. Few seem to mind that facet of marriage going away.

And the idea that divorce somehow ruined society is plausible only if your view is from a distance and looking at numbers. The idea that two people should remain in a miserable relationship (or one remain in an abusive relationship) simply to satisfy people's idea that marriage is forever is ridiculous.

Yes, studies have shown that children do better in a stable, two-parent household. Studies have also shown children do better in a stable one-parent home than in a two parent home when domestic abuse is the norm. Children do better in 2 parent households with gay parents than they do in single parent households in which there is strife from abuse, addictions ect ect. So the point we should be pursuing is that children do better when they are the focus of their upbringing.

 

[Cassandro]

Typical liberal BS, talking about a subject rather than doing something something about it. Millions of children's lives have been ruined by divorce, yet you theorize about the possibility of domestic abuse. Haven't you heard of calling the police, CPS, restraining orders or legal separation? Nooo, we want to make as convenient as possible to destroy the basic family unit. Well done!