• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

  • Make some specific changes only

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    26
Marriage is a contract, and government oversees contract law, enforces contract, and settles disputes when a contract is broken or invalid... Many philosophers believe that one of the reasons humans need government and why government is useful to humans and government needs to exist in human society is to maintain social order by enforcing contracts between parties and settling disputes when contracts are broken.

I tend to find the argument that government should get out of marriage interesting for a few reasons.

1. As long as people value the meaning of marriage and want to marry, there will be a divorce rate (or breaking of the marriage contract). I really don't think it's feasible the believe that everybody in this country could settle a divorce dispute without lawyers or a court system. The government will get involved eventually, because as Locke, Hume, and other philosophers say, settling disputes between people and maintaining order is one of the most basic and fundamental roles of government.

2. If you eliminate marriage laws and benefits of marriage, it's radically changing our concept of a family in the eyes of the law. We would no longer have rights to our partner.. their property is separate, their retirement.. although our assets would really be tangled.

If my husband suddenly dies, I wouldn't inherit his property or military benefits, or be covered under any of his employer benefit programs? I mean, if I could... then anybody could, right? .. since I wouldn't be viewed as family in the eyes of the law.

Eliminating legal marriage wouldn't simplify property rights, survivor benefits, or inheritance laws, it will make them super complicated.

3. If you don't believe the government actually plays a role in maintaining order and people can do that themselves without government, then why aren't you an anarchist?
 
Last edited:
Marriage is a contract, and government oversees contract law, enforces contract, and settles disputes when a contract is broken or invalid... Many philosophers believe that one of the reasons humans need government and why government is useful to humans and government needs to exist in human society is to maintain social order by enforcing contracts between parties and settling disputes when contracts are broken.

I tend to find the argument that government should get out of marriage interesting for a few reasons.

1. As long as people value the meaning of marriage and want to marry, there will be a divorce rate (or breaking of the marriage contract). I really don't think it's feasible the believe that everybody in this country could settle a divorce dispute without lawyers or a court system. The government will get involved eventually, because as Locke, Hume, and other philosophers say, settling disputes between people and maintaining order is one of the most basic and fundamental roles of government.

2. If you eliminate marriage laws and benefits of marriage, it's radically changing our concept of a family in the eyes of the law. We would no longer have rights to our partner.. their property is separate, their retirement.. although our assets would really be tangled.

If my husband suddenly dies, I wouldn't inherit his property or military benefits, or be covered under any of his employer benefit programs? I mean, if I could... then anybody could, right? .. since I wouldn't be viewed as family in the eyes of the law.

Eliminating legal marriage wouldn't simplify property rights, survivor benefits, or inheritance laws, it will make them super complicated.

3. If you don't believe the government actually plays a role in maintaining order and people can do that themselves without government, then why aren't you an anarchist?

Those are really good questions. I think more of the answers, though, lie from the other end - what it gives people in terms of choice.

1. I think the entire problem here is the expectation people have about relationships, which is totally contrary to the reality of human relationships. The longer we are living, the more obvious this contradiction becomes. We only have this problem because people have a false idea of what they know about the future, propagated by the idea of marriage.

In addition, there are other ways to deal with this in a more flexible, customizable way. To desire a legal contract for any joint endeavor makes sense, but separating it from the connotation of marriage both allows it to be a more honest discussion, and creates flexibility in what sort of agreement the people want to enter into.

Many problems you present with non-married couples are currently addressed with commonwealth law, which I think needs to be tightened up and slimmed down.

2. Why do you need to have a right to your partner? Again, there's a philosophical component to this.

On the practical side, again, it's a similar matter to #1. It just requires the couple to spend a bit more time looking at what they're signing, which can't do anything but help. I also think people should be allowed to assign their inheritance, benefits, property, etc, to whomever they please or no one at all, regardless of what their specific connection is.

3. I think marriage is a false concept. And some societies are already abandoning it in large numbers. It clearly doesn't prevent people from being in relationships or having kids. It just allows them to start from a more honest framework.

EDIT: xpiher said it in far fewer words and without the philosophy wank. ;)
 
Last edited:
That would be all handled by personal contracts. The only role the gov would have is as an arbiter.

What's the difference between marriage now and a personal contract? We get married and agree to marriage based on our personal reasons, and we expect different things from our marriages. We get a divorce for different reasons, and when that happens... the court system may have to step in and settle a dispute, if we can't. The thinking behind allowing the court in as a third party, is that they are there to be unbiased and to protect us.

We don't write personal contracts and tell the government how to do their job... You can't tell the government to send your military pay, veterans pay, SS, or medicare benefits to xyz when you're dead. If the federal government doesn't recognize marriage, then military spouses would lose all their rights, even when their spouse is in a war zone. There would be no more military benefits for being married either.

The entire concept of a step parent or step guardian will be void and null... so this entire proposal is going to hit the family court system as well and radically change that too.

So are you anarchist?
 
What's the difference between marriage now and a personal contract? We get married and agree to marriage based on our personal reasons, and we expect different things from our marriages. We get a divorce for different reasons, and when that happens... the court system may have to step in and settle a dispute, if we can't. The thinking behind allowing the court in as a third party, is that they are there to be unbiased and to protect us.

We don't write personal contracts and tell the government how to do their job... You can't tell the government to send your military pay, veterans pay, SS, or medicare benefits to xyz when you're dead. If the federal government doesn't recognize marriage, then military spouses would lose all their rights, even when their spouse is in a war zone. There would be no more military benefits for being married either.

The entire concept of a step parent or step guardian will be void and null... so this entire proposal is going to hit the family court system as well and radically change that too.

So are you anarchist?

You're still thinking of this as though people wouldn't be able to choose to assign those rights to their partner if they want to. That's the entire point of getting rid of the institution, to me. It gets rid of all the pitfalls and allows people to allocate rights as they wish. Because obviously they still need to be able to - taking it out of the context of the marriage instiution allows it to be done better and more in accordance to the person whose resources they originally are.
 
You can't tell the government to send your military pay, veterans pay, SS, or medicare benefits to xyz when you're dead. If the federal government doesn't recognize marriage, then military spouses would lose all their rights, even when their spouse is in a war zone. There would be no more military benefits for being married either.

Why would all these "benefits" go away with the government stepping out of the marriage realm? Even if I'm not married, I can leave my life insurance policy to whoever I want. Why can't the same thing happen in other cases?
 
Why would all these "benefits" go away with the government stepping out of the marriage realm? Even if I'm not married, I can leave my life insurance policy to whoever I want. Why can't the same thing happen in other cases?

Who handles military benefits?? The government or Farmers Insurance??
 
I voted other because there was no option to simply say no changes should be made..
 
Who handles military benefits?? The government or Farmers Insurance??

The government, but I was talking about my military life insurance. My point was, there isn't any reason why these "benefits" wouldn't still exist without the government defining marriage.
 
Those are really good questions. I think more of the answers, though, lie from the other end - what it gives people in terms of choice.

1. I think the entire problem here is the expectation people have about relationships, which is totally contrary to the reality of human relationships. The longer we are living, the more obvious this contradiction becomes. We only have this problem because people have a false idea of what they know about the future, propagated by the idea of marriage.

In addition, there are other ways to deal with this in a more flexible, customizable way. To desire a legal contract for any joint endeavor makes sense, but separating it from the connotation of marriage both allows it to be a more honest discussion, and creates flexibility in what sort of agreement the people want to enter into.

Many problems you present with non-married couples are currently addressed with commonwealth law, which I think needs to be tightened up and slimmed down.

2. Why do you need to have a right to your partner? Again, there's a philosophical component to this.

On the practical side, again, it's a similar matter to #1. It just requires the couple to spend a bit more time looking at what they're signing, which can't do anything but help. I also think people should be allowed to assign their inheritance, benefits, property, etc, to whomever they please or no one at all, regardless of what their specific connection is.

3. I think marriage is a false concept. And some societies are already abandoning it in large numbers. It clearly doesn't prevent people from being in relationships or having kids. It just allows them to start from a more honest framework.

EDIT: xpiher said it in far fewer words and without the philosophy wank. ;)


I know you're advocating smaller government. My real issue is that I don't think it makes reasonable sense to advocate for small government in this sense, unless you want to eliminate it altogether. It only makes sense to me... because as I say, most people argue that government is need to keep order and philosophers argue that we need order because we form contracts. Philosophers such as Locke and Hume argue that government itself is a social contract.

Essentially you are agreeing to be governed by the government, but you're not agreeing with the government, in theory, as to why you need the government to exist and govern you.

So that begs the question, why does government need to exist at all? What need of yours does government serve you?

1. Not to be rude, but if you are advocating smaller government then why must tell individuals what to expect and not expect from marriage? We generally think that the government getting out makes life simpler and gives us more freedom... but in the case of marriage, stripping away all the federal benefits and leaving individual couples to worry about writing wills, signing over power of attorney to each other, worrying about if a job in the market will recognize their marriage and offer joint insurance and benefits, etc. is not simplifying. It's making it more complicated and more costly than simply going to the statehouse and signing a marriage cert.

A lot of times when advocating smaller government and more freedom, it involves challenging tradition and traditional thinking. The real obstacle here is that federal marriage laws are not coercive, so it's backwards. Anarchists tend to attack coercive institutions in the government and advocate freedom, but while tearing down the government, they will be tearing down the social institutions embedded in federal marriage protections.

However, federal marriage protections are not harmful to society. The only actual problem marriage laws are causing society is that they are restrictive to same sex couples. The real problem is homophobia and the traditionalists in society who are causing inequality, conflict, and coercion. Removing marriage laws won't solve the problem, as these people and institutions will still exist in society.

2. I think people who marry desire and want a right to their partner, or something extra. People want and expect a marriage to feel special. It's a life long commitment, it has meaning to people... asking somebody to marry you is symbolic. If people want to marry and have access to their spouses benefits, retirement, etc. then why shouldn't they? That isn't harmful to society... We all want different things in life.

3. There is no doubt that people show their love in different ways... it's partly culture and partly tradition. If two people want to show their love and desire to be together with a ring and wedding or matching tattoos, it's fine with me. As long as nobody is hurt in the process.
 
You're still thinking of this as though people wouldn't be able to choose to assign those rights to their partner if they want to. That's the entire point of getting rid of the institution, to me. It gets rid of all the pitfalls and allows people to allocate rights as they wish. Because obviously they still need to be able to - taking it out of the context of the marriage instiution allows it to be done better and more in accordance to the person whose resources they originally are.

Honestly, that's really confusing. Why get rid of legal marriage, if you just want people to have the same results when they are married? Why make something more complicated for the hell of it?

And if you think people should have the right to give their military benefits, death benefits, insurance benefits, etc. to ANYBODY else, then why not just change the law without nullifying a legal marriage contract?

In reality, it's going to be hard though... all the hoops and loops to jump through to get to the same place if you simply signed a marriage cert.

1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

and more....

1,400 is a lot of hoops to jump through. I'd especially hope they wouldn't miss the one where they'd get to make burial or cremation arrangements when their spouse dies.

Legal and economic benefits of marriage
 
SheWolf

I'm not advocating the elimination of any contractual rights at all. In fact, I'm advocating to make them more free and accessable to anyone. I think confining it down to marriage creates not only poor incentives for a behaviorally unsound institution, but makes people not realize a lot of what they're signing into in the likely case of divorce (which, as long as marriage is still around, I completely support - eliminating it does not solve for unhappy marriages).

I am merely asking the government to give me more control over how my rights and belongings (both physical and legal) are allocated.

I think the institution of marriage is harmful to a person's rights and relationships. I think it's dated and unneccessary. I think it's unfair and creates a false role for the government by making the arbitor of relationships.

1. I think there should be a streamlines process for any contractual process which is not tied to any particular pre-requist, apart the person holding the right to allocate them. Issues of insurance and benefit are kin-related. Married people are considered kin, but why can't households of any configeration qualify for that? Even if it's being shared by friends, everyone is still contributing.

I fully admit my idea is challenging, and I also admit it is probably not easily feasible in the current system. But I would like to see it become an eventual reality.

My main goal is two-fold. First, is that I don't believe personal affairs are the government's to validate or invalidate for any reason (and I agree with you, as per gay marriage). Second is that I think the construct of marriage is harmful. And third is that I do think it's fundamentally unfair - married people get more tax breaks even if both people are working and living is easier, and a married person qualifies for low-income in AZ and I, as a single adult, do not.

2. They can attain that access through other means (if we'd stop restricting it to marriage) and the concept itself is harmful because it always fails the majority of people and it rips lives apart. It didn't work even when people only lived 40 years, but now that we live twice that long it's even less realistic. Humans are not life maters. Trying to force ourselves to be results in suffering.

Nothing is stopping someone from having a symbolic marriage. But them having he monopoly on the control of their assets is discriminatory and kind of senseless besides, since marriage is a flawed institution.

3. Absolutely, but do they deserve a legal status for it?

Marriage is a dated, pointless, and discriminatory institution even outside of the gay marriage issue. I don't think it belongs as part of society. I agree this may not be immediately feasible, but I think getting rid of it is the ideal, and it is already becoming a social reality in some places.
 
My parents were born in the 20's. They married for love. They stayed married for life, despite various ups and downs. My mother was never the same after my father passed; when her friends told her she should consider dating, she said that she had never wanted any other man and never would. 57 years.

This used to be commonplace.

yes, it did.

My parents were married for 66 years, until they died within a month of each other. My wife's parents have been married nearly 70 years now, and still are. At 90, it's hard to see how either one would get along without the other. I've been married for 43 years now, and couldn't imagine cheating or leaving at this point.

I think it's a matter of putting someone else first in your life. If every child brought into this world were to be born into a relationship in which both each parent put the other first, our society would be drastically better than it is.

Could it be that most of our societal problems boil down to selfishness?
 
Honestly, that's really confusing. Why get rid of legal marriage, if you just want people to have the same results when they are married? Why make something more complicated for the hell of it?

And if you think people should have the right to give their military benefits, death benefits, insurance benefits, etc. to ANYBODY else, then why not just change the law without nullifying a legal marriage contract?

In reality, it's going to be hard though... all the hoops and loops to jump through to get to the same place if you simply signed a marriage cert.

1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:



1,400 is a lot of hoops to jump through. I'd especially hope they wouldn't miss the one where they'd get to make burial or cremation arrangements when their spouse dies.

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

Because then the legal contract is pointless, and it is absolutely nothing more than saying that the government gets to decide if you really love each other.

I think making it realistic will take time, and I admit that (as per my first post - I don't think it's immediately realistic). But that's only because of the precident of marriage, not because we need it.
 
Why would all these "benefits" go away with the government stepping out of the marriage realm?

Because many of those benefits are federally mandated. Marriage contains over 1,000 rights and benefits, recognized and enforced by the government.

Even if I'm not married, I can leave my life insurance policy to whoever I want. Why can't the same thing happen in other cases?

A life insurance policy is a tiny fraction of all the other rights and benefits married couples get. If you think some of the laws should be changed and extended to people outside of marriage, l generally don't have a problem with that. I guess it would just depend on which rights and benefits exactly.
 
That would be all handled by personal contracts. The only role the gov would have is as an arbiter.

But a legal marriage contract takes care of all those things with one simple contract, instead of several small ones that almost everyone who wants to have a real marriage, taking on those responsibilities, would want, at least for the most part.

Why have several small contracts that can be consolidated into one single contract to cover all those things?
 
The government, but I was talking about my military life insurance. My point was, there isn't any reason why these "benefits" wouldn't still exist without the government defining marriage.

In that case.. Absoplutely.. But the issue is that some benefites aren't handled through insurance.. If you are military veteran, both you and your wife will get benefits.. If the government doesn't recognize marriage.. The spouse of the veteran will no longer get any benefits.. What if the spouse is a widow?? Should the wife or husband of a KIA soldier be entitled to any benefits??

Those the questions that I have issues with.. I think spouses should have some recognition and some rights to benefits..
 
Last edited:
Because then the legal contract is pointless, and it is absolutely nothing more than saying that the government gets to decide if you really love each other.

I think making it realistic will take time, and I admit that (as per my first post - I don't think it's immediately realistic). But that's only because of the precident of marriage, not because we need it.

Not now. The only thing that should be changed is allowing either sex to marry either sex. That way the government has no say whatsoever on whether a person is in love or not, because their getting the legal contract of marriage is just them entering into a contract with the person they wish to fulfill the legal role of "spouse" in their life.

Marriage is also the only legal way, currently, to make an adult a legal member of a person's family when there is little to no blood relation. Family already has certain rights automatically granted by the government just due to blood ties or legal paperwork of adoption.
 
yes, it did.

My parents were married for 66 years, until they died within a month of each other. My wife's parents have been married nearly 70 years now, and still are. At 90, it's hard to see how either one would get along without the other. I've been married for 43 years now, and couldn't imagine cheating or leaving at this point.

I think it's a matter of putting someone else first in your life. If every child brought into this world were to be born into a relationship in which both each parent put the other first, our society would be drastically better than it is.

Could it be that most of our societal problems boil down to selfishness?

To get a bit more esoteric with this, I am going to challenge that. I'm not making a point, necessarily - just describing a differing position that I'm curious of your position on. To do that, I'm going to use myself as an example.

I obviously disagree with the institution of marriage. I also happen to be childfree (no kids, under any circumstances).

So what does that leave me with?

Well, first it leaves me with tons of time for other pursuits in life. Some of these pursuits happen to be very humanitarian. I want to positively change the world, and I work towards that. I haven't placed anyone higher than me, and yet that doesn't mean I act selfishly.

Secondly, it requires me to completely reframe how I see relationships. I do not focus on an end goal. The relationship lasts however long it does, whether that's forever or until next week. While I am more than willing to work out problems, I'm not going to beat a dead horse. But what is absolutely critical to me is true honesty and caring, intellectual enjoyment, etc.

I'm friends with all of my ex's, with the exception of one who turned out to be a crazy stalker dude. My partners and ex's tell me I am the least dramatic person they've ever been involved with, and we learned a lot from each other.

I am not placing them above me. I won't sacrifice my happiness. But that doesn't mean I'm being selfish. It just means I have different goals in a relationship. And that I use my desire to affect positive change differently. And I think more productively.

Do you think what I'm doing hurts society? Do you think I'm selfish, because I think marriage is, for me, a waste of time and a false road to accomplishment?
 
But a legal marriage contract takes care of all those things with one simple contract, instead of several small ones that almost everyone who wants to have a real marriage, taking on those responsibilities, would want, at least for the most part.

Why have several small contracts that can be consolidated into one single contract to cover all those things?

And if they get a divorce or breakup... OMG.. they'd have to go back and undo all those contracts. Talk about a migraine. If they screwed up and missed undoing one contract or didn't undo it soon enough, their ex would have them by the balls. Scary.
 
To get a bit more esoteric with this, I am going to challenge that. I'm not making a point, necessarily - just describing a differing position that I'm curious of your position on. To do that, I'm going to use myself as an example.

I obviously disagree with the institution of marriage. I also happen to be childfree (no kids, under any circumstances).

So what does that leave me with?

Well, first it leaves me with tons of time for other pursuits in life. Some of these pursuits happen to be very humanitarian. I want to positively change the world, and I work towards that. I haven't placed anyone higher than me, and yet that doesn't mean I act selfishly.

Secondly, it requires me to completely reframe how I see relationships. I do not focus on an end goal. The relationship lasts however long it does, whether that's forever or until next week. While I am more than willing to work out problems, I'm not going to beat a dead horse. But what is absolutely critical to me is true honesty and caring, intellectual enjoyment, etc.

I'm friends with all of my ex's, with the exception of one who turned out to be a crazy stalker dude. My partners and ex's tell me I am the least dramatic person they've ever been involved with, and we learned a lot from each other.

I am not placing them above me. I won't sacrifice my happiness. But that doesn't mean I'm being selfish. It just means I have different goals in a relationship. And that I use my desire to affect positive change differently. And I think more productively.

Do you think what I'm doing hurts society? Do you think I'm selfish, because I think marriage is, for me, a waste of time and a false road to accomplishment?

As long as you stick to the no children policy, it doesn't hurt society.

Selfish is when someone does enter into a marriage contract, then is not willing to give his/her partner equal status.

No, I don't think your selfish. I think you're missing out on an important part of life, though.
 
As long as you stick to the no children policy, it doesn't hurt society.

Selfish is when someone does enter into a marriage contract, then is not willing to give his/her partner equal status.

No, I don't think your selfish. I think you're missing out on an important part of life, though.

Even if I don't (which I'd put on a ridiculous scale of improbability, but nonetheless), why is that selfish without a marriage contract? Lots of couples cohabitate with kids. Some people even decide consciously to have kids on their own. As long as they have the emotional and financial ability to pull it off, what's wrong with it?

And what makes you think what's important to you is important to me? What if I think what you're doing is the most miserable life I could imagine for myself? You are aware that some people regret marrying and having kids, even if the situation is ideal, yes? Lots of middle-aged and beyond people are now saying they wished they'd taken a different approach to life.

There's no actual reason why by taking my approach I'm missing out on anything.
 
Last edited:
My question is, what should the government's involvement in marriage be?

None at all.

A marriage is a contract. It should be treated like any other.

People should be allowed to individually and mutually tailor their marriage contracts to suit themselves.

The only role for government is to enforce them like any other contract.
 
Government should be completely out of the marriage business. I don't see why you have to ask government's permission to be married anyway.
 
Marriage is a legal institution.
As such, the state must create said institution, and then define the legalities of same.
This cannot happen without the state, and so the state, by the very nature of the legal institution, must be intimate with said institution.
 
Back
Top Bottom