What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

Many times during SSM debates it comes up whether the government should be involved in marriage at all or whether certain financial benefits should be offered for being married.

So my question is, what should the government's involvement in marriage be?

What should be provided with marriage? What parts should stay/go/be added? How would taking the government out of marriage affect our lives (be realistic)? What would happen if some/all financial benefits were taken from married couples, in regards to affecting the economy (please provide some backing for claims)? Some examples of financial benefits of marriage would be helpful.

Personally, I believe that there is little that should be changed as far as the government's financial involvement in marriage goes because I don't believe that people getting governmental financial benefits from being legally married really affects our economy in any significant way. From what I understand about the marriage tax breaks they are actually balanced by those married couples who have to pay more together than if they were separate.

There might be a couple that could easily go away and not have much affect at all, but nothing that would actually make a significant positive difference in our economy. And I believe that many big changes are likely to make a significant negative economic difference.

And I do believe that there is a relevant difference in allowing benefits based on marriage vice giving those same benefits to single people due to the responsibility and commitment that comes with being legally married, that provides benefits to our economy and our society, such as taking on responsibility for each others financial obligations, combining incomes that provides more buying power to the economy, and agreeing to make decisions of life and death for a person that would otherwise be left up to the government to make.

In my opinion, nothing.
There is no real compelling reason for it, aside from welfare and tax benefits.
Which I don't agree with from the federal level anyway.

The way it's handled now is fine, marriage is just a civil contract anyhow. It should be expanded to include all adult unions regardless of gender.

Should we be allowed to have a union of 3 or more?

No involvement other than minimum legal age and that should be, as it is today, determined by each state. I don't care if a guy marries 5 women as long as doing so doesn't give him any legal or financial advantage. Of course that means he'd have 5 people complaining because he didn't put the lid down on the toilet, but that would be his burden.

ecofarm said:

Should we be allowed to have a union of 3 or more?

Click to expand...

Why not, 3+ is a party. :devil:

Now, to convince my wife.....

Fine as it is, but all adults should be able to get married.

ecofarm said:

Should we be allowed to have a union of 3 or more?

Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me, so long as you can work out some of the problems inherent in the system. Have fun.

I voted other. I think that the government should make marriage more permanent and make divorces much harder to obtain. I think that they should remove financial benefits to being married as well.

None. I would remove the government from marriage completely and give it no legal status whatsoever. If people want to have a ceremony and call themselves married, fine by me, and I couldn't care less what gender or sex they are, or how many people want to be "married" to each other, but I don't think it should have anything to do with government.

No financial benefits. In terms of legal benefits, again I think it should have nothing to do with marriage. When it comes to things like medical proxies and other extensions of personal rights, I think a person should be able to assign those to whoever they want regardless of whether they co-habitate or are romantically involved. Telling someone they can't decide to designate whomever as their advocate in, say, end-of-life care, since being in control of their own medical decisions is part of their right to life, is fundamentally wrong.

I think marriage is a dated, pointless, and discriminatory institution. I don't pretend to think doing the above is practical at this particular moment in time, but I'd like to see this happen eventually. I think we'd be financially and socially better off.

Cephus said:

some of the problems inherent in the system.

Click to expand...

What do you mean?


Aside, I've met people who are ok with multiple wives but not multiple husbands (with one or multiple wives).

MistressNomad said:

When it comes to things like medical proxies and other extensions of personal rights, I think a person should be able to assign those to whoever they want regardless of whether they co-habitate or are romantically involved. Telling someone they can't decide to designate whomever as their advocate in, say, end-of-life care, since being in control of their own medical decisions is part of their right to life, is fundamentally wrong.

Click to expand...

One can give power of attorney and the other can sign one's name legally. Any documents needed to establish whatever can be signed by anyone in the union.

digsbe said:

I voted other. I think that the government should make marriage more permanent and make divorces much harder to obtain. I think that they should remove financial benefits to being married as well.

Click to expand...

I agree with making it harder to get a divorce when there are children involved in the marriage. I could care less if two adults alone want to get a divorce with little effort because they are only affecting their own lives. And there would be certain times when a divorce should be given easily, with or without children, such as abuse.

As for the financial benefits, I want to know what people mean specifically by this. I realize that there are tax benefits to some married people, but there are also penalties for other married people, and the budget department's estimate is that the government actually makes a small amount more money from those who are married over what is lost to those who benefit from it.

The social security issue isn't really fair, since for many couples, as I explained in an earlier thread, one spouse makes significantly more than the other spouse during most of the marriage but that is usually balanced by taking on other, non-financial responsibilities for the couple and/or their children. Also, during marriage, money is legally considered to belong to both spouses, yet the government would still be taking out money for SS from a person when they are married, regardless of whether the person's spouse is paying into their own SS or not. So that SS accrued during a marriage would technically belong to both members of the marriage. Anything accrued after a marriage or before a marriage, that would be fair to not include when determining SS for a spouse/former spouse.

What other specific financial benefits are there/are you referring to? I am just asking so I know what I need to address or if it is reasonable to take it away.

Keep it as is, where is.
And I cannot disagree with MistressNomad more.

digsbe said:

I voted other. I think that the government should make marriage more permanent and make divorces much harder to obtain. I think that they should remove financial benefits to being married as well.

Click to expand...

I don't think they should remove the benefits, I think they ought to impose serious financial penalties in a divorce. Make it hurt.

ecofarm said:

What do you mean?

Click to expand...

There are inherent problems, particularly with financial dealings, in multiple marriages. When one person leaves, how do you determine what percentage of the community property they are entitled to? Since these relationships tend to be more fluid, with people coming and going, there needs to be some comprehensive system to determine who gets what, who gets child custody, etc. Until these issues are dealt with, polygamous marriages are going to be much more legally difficult.

Aside, I've met people who are ok with multiple wives but not multiple husbands (with one or multiple wives).

Click to expand...

I don't really care what anyone not directly involved in the marriage is okay with. None of their business.

Cephus said:

I don't think they should remove the benefits, I think they ought to impose serious financial penalties in a divorce. Make it hurt.

Click to expand...

So you want to make people pay for optimistically taking a risk and trying to build a life together, even if it turns out not to work? That's just kinda douchey.

The main benefits of marriage come from the ability to co-own things, like a house. Linking people together financially for the purpose of shared property. Also things like inheritance, medical privacy, and custody of children are an issue. There really is no ethical way to justify tax benefits for marriage, and then deny marriage to some people because society deems them "icky". Any two people should be able to form this union, and build a family together. And, as long as you can sort out the paperwork, more people could be added.

Cephus said:

I don't think they should remove the benefits, I think they ought to impose serious financial penalties in a divorce. Make it hurt.

Click to expand...

Are you aware that divorce often improves the child's life? It was certainly the case with me. Even when there is no explicit "abuse" going on, living in a home where your parents obviously don't like each other sucks. Kids aren't stupid. They can tell.

You can have whatever your personal morality to the sanctity of marriage is, but enforcing it on others to the detriment of their own lives is pretty selfish and short-sighted.

I don't care what their role is as long as they impliment that role equally. Regardless or race, gender or religion. And by that I mean that homosexuals can marry the partners of their choice, even of the same sex.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Why not, 3+ is a party. :devil:

Now, to convince my wife.....

Click to expand...

Just ask. She might enjoy a few more dudes around to choose from.

.

arbiter in disputes.

MistressNomad said:

Are you aware that divorce often improves the child's life? It was certainly the case with me. Even when there is no explicit "abuse" going on, living in a home where your parents obviously don't like each other sucks. Kids aren't stupid. They can tell.

You can have whatever your personal morality to the sanctity of marriage is, but enforcing it on others to the detriment of their own lives is pretty selfish and short-sighted.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with sanctity, there is no sanctity in marriage. If you make marriage harder to get into and harder to get out of, more people are going to stop and think about the issue seriously before they get married, thus reducing the number of divorces and bad marriages to begin with. The reason there are so many bad marriages is because anyone with $50 in their hand can go get a license and get married tomorrow and get divorced the day after.

A marriage is a contract entered into by two adults. Why would the government have to be involved at all?

Dittohead not! said:

A marriage is a contract entered into by two adults. Why would the government have to be involved at all?

Click to expand...

Arbitration in court

Eliminate all government goodies you get from being married and get the state out of marriage entirely because its not the business of the state nor the business of scumbag busy bodies what two consenting adults do with each other.

Dittohead not! said:

A marriage is a contract entered into by two adults. Why would the government have to be involved at all?

Click to expand...

Government is involved in *ALL* contracts, how do you think contract arbitration and enforcement is done?