Eliminating the State's Role in Marriage

This topic originated from a side issue in the thread about that anti-gay group being required to close their bank account; it has, at this time, become a thread about whether or not gay marriages are advisable.My opinion is that the state should not be involved in the marriage business to begin with. It certainly should not be involved in the decisions about which marriages should or should not be recognized.Marriage is in large part a religious issue. Therefore, it should be up the the individual religious sects to determine what constitutes a valid marriage. Then the Catholic Church and certain individual Baptist churches and whoever else could decide they will not recognize gay marriages, while the Episcopal Church and others can recognize gay marriages if they choose. This will also allow, of course, Muslims and extremist Mormon groups to recognize polygamous unions. To me this is not only reasonable, but the notions of a secular state would seem to require this.To me, this should be the end of the matter; however, others will object on the grounds (and for other reasons) that there is the issue of maintenance of children, division of property in the event of divorce, and other issues. In recognition that our patriarchial traditional ideas of child rearing and such will not change very soon, I would advocate the following:Marriage is in large part a legally binding contract. This is not obvious to many of the people who, caught in the throes of romance, jump into it, but marriage entails legal obligations, and it is not easy to end the contract when it doesn't work out as initially planned. So, people who wish to be married should be required to enter into and sign explicit legal contracts to their union. These contracts should not only specify the obligations (like sexual fidelity, if desired) and rights (like how and under what conditions a new spouse can be taken), but also explicitly lay out the conditions how the contract can be dissolved, the division of joint property if that should happen, the care and maintenance of children, and so forth.The cost of these contracts shouldn't be too great. I would imagine that if this should become common practice pretty standard plans would be developed with pretty standard options; choosing which "marriage plan" to enter into wouldn't be too much more troublesome than choosing which health plan one should choose. The main expense would be the several hours it would take to carefully explain the provisions of the various options. The final contract would be basically a cut-and-paste from the standard options, with maybe additional minor alterations of wording to completely personalize the contract. I would expect that a paralegal, or even someone on the level of a notary public, would be able to handle this. A full-blown lawyer can be consulted if the couple does not find any standard plan on offer to be adequate.The state's involvement, then, is reduced to the role of enforcement of the legal contracts. Certain legal protections can be enacted, for example, the law can require that neither partner shall be compelled to give up his or her basic civil rights and liberties, and it can specify under what conditions a minimal support ("alimony") shall be granted by one partner to the other.To me, there would seem to be some benefits to this:The state is no longer required to support or interfere with any religious sect's marriage requirements, nor would it be required to impose the moral objections of the majority (or vocal minority) onto any religious sect.It would force couples to recognize that they are actually entering into a legally binding contract with very definite obligations.There would be in place explicit methods of determining when provisions of the contract are violated, as well as definite procedures on how either of the parties can leave the contract, which would hopefully make divorce less messy and costly.I can see the objections of those who feel that the state should be obligated to legally enforce their own religious morality, But I am also interested in hearing the objections from those who believe in a secular state.This is a coffee house topic, however because the debate could become rather heated and emotional I felt I should run this through the PNT process.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Firstly it must be recognised that the present institution of marriage does provide a number of benefits. At the least then there must be some state regulation of what can be considered a marriage to provide an orderly administration of these benefits (and I include those offered by commercial enterprises as well as state benefits).Secondly there is one significant virtue in having a standard form recognised by the state. It is hard for one party to gain an advanage over the other by clever selection of the contact. It does reduce the risk of abuse and on the whole it seems to work. (And there is less need to get the lawyers involved in selecting and examining a contract which I count as another benefit).

First things first is that marriage is simply a legal contract. That is really all it is. One can have it as extensive and complex as one wants or go with the basic form.The problem as it currently stands is that the legal contract was meant for "marriages", hence the name, and so people get their panties in a twist if it doesn't fit a specific religious standard.Essentially all we'd have to do is strip the title "marriage" off of the current legal contracts (though it should be mentioned they are all state by state), to have them serve as models for generic "relationship" recognition contracts for the govt. And then as Chiro is suggesting, churches can decide to do what they want as far as calling any particular couple or group of individuals "married".I am firmly behind this. Actually I do not see a reason to have benefits for people in specific relationships anyway, and so govt could very well get out of this business altogether. But if we are going to have them, then make them simple nonculturally problematic contracts which are neutral to historical or existing religious traditions regarding relationships.My guess is people who don't like gays are going to have a problem with this anyway because it will still sanction gay relationships as equal to marriages.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't see many benefits of a state sanctioned standard form -- this is precisely the origin of this thread, where the state standard only recognizes heterosexual unions. One of the benefits of removing the state from this consideration (I even meant to include it into my OP) is that it would allow the concept of family more freedom to evolve, without artificial restrictions imposed by ancient feudal customs.As far as lawyers are concerned, pre-nuptial agreements are not an uncommon thing these days, and their purpose is exactly to limit the legal expenses of a divorce. What the OP is really doing is advocating a more universal use of pre-nuptial agreements.Finally, I understand the risk of abuse, which is why I mentioned in the OP that one can place (and should) have reasonable limits on what is allowed in the contracts.

In much of Europe as I understand it the state is not involved in marriage at all. The state just recognizes civil unions and if the couple wish to get married they go to the church where the ceremnoy does not have legal standing.Why however, should the fact that a couple is gay enter into it. Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to have a state recognized economic union. It might be siblings or any other couple who have developed an economic interdependance. These could be considered as unions that are legally binding and if a couple want to have their union celebrated as a marriage they would then have a church ceremony.

I concur with holmes in being generally behind this concept, as this is a position I have stated before on other threads (usually having to do with gay issues, but also having to do with determining who speaks for a person who is unable to speak for themselves: parents or spouse or kids or ... but always family).Families are not defined by marriage contracts, but by the way the people live. Two (or more) people can chose to live together and share resources without necessarily having any sexual interaction, and there is no need for the state or nosy busybodies to look to find out. Using marriage to distinguish one group from another is thus a false division, and the current system is not logical, being derived from traditions rather than legal needs or logic.Take the recent example of Terri Schiavo: if this had been a gay man (1) I don't see the religious fanatics making a big fuss over pulling the tube, nor for such a political circus to develop and (2) the parents decisions would have been enforced by the courts in spite of the evidence of Terri's wishes.Such a different outcome should not depend on {who\what} the person is or whether the person is married or whether the marriage is legal.Perhaps what we need is a {Legal Coming Of Age} document, that upon reaching the (state set) age of adulthood a person signs a document declaring their fitness ("being of sound mind and judgment ...") to make decisions on their own, and also include who would have legal {custody\right of attorney\legal guardian} if one should become incapacitated and in specific one's wishes regarding prolongation of treatments and care if one is rendered (by whatever means) unable to make legal decisions, issues like being an organ donor (which are now kind of ad hoc added to driving licenses but don't cover those that don't drive) and things that are covered in a will and the like. This document would be signed by the young adult and the person(s) designated (in order) to act for them. It could also be changed at any time, even without the approval of previous designatees, by filing a new one.This should be part of any partnership agreement or at least always refiled at the time that a partnership agreement is made. This would also then require that all members entering a partnership agreement are adults of sound mind and judgment.This would then reduce the partnership agreement to issues of finance, property and child custody and rearing. Items of joint interest.I would look at a simple document that would be universal (to each state -- this is a state issue ... so far ...) and this would take care of PaulK's argument.People wanting embellishments can add that to their ceremonies, whether secular or religious. This would have a legal standing as a witnessed promise (isn't that the original basis of marriages?).I kind of agree with holmes about benefits, but also take issue at one level: if the partnership results in one person working and the other not (for whatever reason) then a situation can develop where one person is covered (medical, unemployment, etc) and the other is not. On the other hand, is it fair to single workers when spouses are covered for less than a full workers deductions?An obvious solution is that benefits do not depend on working, but are universal to all. A process that would also ensure that the children are adequately covered regardless of the economic well-being of the parents.enough for now.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

We could call it a bar(or bat) mitzvah.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

LOLWe could, but that would not be very secular or inclusive of all other cultures that have a {cultural\religious} {tradition\ceremony}.But that is part of the concept. Who knows, it might even get americans to behave like adults?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Marriage and kinship are key processes and institutions in the social structuring of human society. In modern industrial societies there is a lot of pressure to reduce the family to a man a woman and their children. For thousands of years marriage was a joining of obligations between families and the man and woman were pledges of that joining of kinship systems.The west has advanced the concept of the individual to the point that it doesn't sufficiently, in my opinion, recognize that individuals are dependent on their kin and the greater social group.We have to examine the changing role and function of family and marriage in modern society. Romance was never a part of traditional marriage, AND marriage was not a part of the original concept of romance. The knights the troubadors sung about who fought for the honor of their ladies weren't doing it for their wives nor for a betrothed. The favors their lady might confer on her favored might be carnal pleasures, hers, or one of her maids, or maybe a scrap of cloth or a smile.Now we have a confused blend of romance, marriage, and individuality. I don't think this is any worse than the traditional marriage but it is different.And just because I'm in a cantankerous mood I'll take a dig a St. Paul and Christianity. Because Paul and early Xtians mistakenly prophesied the imminent return of their Saviour and the ending of all social relationships they downplayed the importance of the family over the individual, thus it is Christianity itself that is weakening the family in America by promoting the crippled nuclear family over the viable extended family. Then they blame evolution or something for the problem they created by believing Paul's false prophecies and when those prophecies failed instead of admitting it they still cling to them after 2000 years have passed.lfen

If the state places rules on what constitutes a valid marriage then it is far from obvious that it would actually solve the specific ssue of homosexual marriage. It seems to me likely that there would be strong pressure - certainly in the U.S. - against such a move.Nor is it true that the only alternative to the system you suggest is the current system. I would be very much in favour of a major reform which broke the link between marriage as a legal state and marriage as a religious institution. A reform which clearly defines the purpose of marrigage as an institution and that sets up rules that support that purpose.

I don't see how Christianity promotes the nuclear family over the extended family. What is the source of your impression that this is the case?

How would you yourself define its purpose and the rules to support it?

This is already a possibility, I believe, as many kinds of legal covenants and agreements are possible between people, and should be sufficient in my opinion to solve the whole gay marriage flap.

Just have to comment that there hasn't been much real patriarchy around for quite a while. Kind of strange to see the word in print, struck out or not. I don't see that anyone desires this except the secularists who want to change the meaning of marriage. All the efforts of the Right have been to PRESERVE the common understanding of marriage against LEGAL GOVERNMENT-ESTABLISHED CHANGES of its meaning.I think your idea of various basic marriage contracts could be quite feasible myself and would eliminate the whole threat of government enforcement of the idea of homosexual marriage against the objections of most of the population.