Why shouldn't we abolish marriage?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by aelle

But this is already a possibility - having a party to celebrate your relationship without getting a marriage licence. This is what vow renewals are too. Why do you want to legislate in order to make it the only possibility?

Why not make it the only possibility? Who loses?
What benefit do you see in marriages being institutionalized by the gov't?

Originally Posted by aelle

Also, you haven't addressed my previous post - what about emigration issues? Are you ready to accept any migrant in your country, based only on their declaration that they are married to a citizen or visa holder, without legal proof?

Sorry didn't see it.
For immigration how about authorizing private companies to issue foreign marriage certificates? Or I'm sure you could think of some solution.

[Brutha]

Maybe with your national tax rate being so high you have enough gov't workers to manage people. In the US our tax system does not support this and the American culture rejects it.

I don't think that ALG national tax rate is higher than the US one.

try to drive out the culture of women changing their name

Why?
In some families both the mother and the father want to have the same surname as their children.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Why not make it the only possibility? Who loses?

... Everyone who actually chose to be married, because they prefer this possibility?

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Sorry didn't see it.
For immigration how about authorizing private companies to issue foreign marriage certificates? Or I'm sure you could think of some solution.

Who? You mean that the State, instead of authorising public institutions and churches to deliver marriage certificates, would authorise private institutions? Then where's the change?

Private institutions have a very poor international recognition. The oldest of them (industrial standards are what comes to my mind, but maybe there are older ones) have been around for centuries and still, they aren't universally recognised, they contradict each other and cause major problems in international transactions. I can't imagine the mess it would be to replace a public institution that works quite well by a private one. I also can't imagine the benefit it would bring.

No, as long as there are states and state borders, there will be a need - and a request from the people - for institutionalised, state-recognised marriage. If you really feel the State should have no say in anyone's private life, you need to work a lot higher in the causal chain and simply and purely work to achieve an anarchist world.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I am proposing that couples go to their church or to a company to get married. They get a certificate, they can exchange rings, have a wedding and do whatever they like. Under my proposal there would also be a flat tax and no need for the marriage tax discount. You are taxed on what you earn with no deductions. A small flat tax less than our current taxes we pay.

That is a possible proposal. And you could call that a "marriage" or you could call that a "civil union".

Now the question is - what happens if after some years, the couple decides to go their separate ways?

Who gets to kick who out of the house? Who gets the family dog? Who gets custody of the kids? Does the other parent get to visit the kids at all? If so, how often, when and where? What about the money in the joint account? Can either parent abdicate all responsibility, say, for paying for the kid's school fees, and just walk away? Etc etc.

That is where the law comes in. As you can see, all the above issues arise, whether the relationship is a "marriage" or a "civil union".

Now, the social costs of the state / the law not stepping in could also be very high. Eg if the state just stays out of it and allows couples to do what they like, you could have all kinds of situations such as a violent, abusive husband/father grabbing the kids and taking off with them to another state; or kids being entirely abandoned by one parent etc etc.

[Brutha]

Who gets custody of the kids? Does the other parent get to visit the kids at all? If so, how often, when and where?

Even now, you still have to deal with (hildren Who's parents don't marry.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that ALG national tax rate is higher than the US one.
Why?
In some families both the mother and the father want to have the same surname as their children.

So in Germany your average income amount is tax at 15%? Are you sure about that?

As for the name, those who want to go the extra steps and pay the additional cost could change their names.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by aelle

... Everyone who actually chose to be married, because they prefer this possibility?

I'm not sure you get it.
You'd still get to say you're married and still get the ceremonies, rings, etc.

I don't think that when people get married they say "Well now the gov't will recognize that we are married."

Make a list of why people get married and explain to me how it would change by what I'm proposing. I have yet to hear something that would really be different.

OK with marriage you could have a paper, have a certificate, have a ring, have a ceremony, raise a family, change your name and get tax advantages. With what I am proposing you could still do all of that. With the name change you could still do it but just pay a extra.

Originally Posted by aelle

Who? You mean that the State, instead of authorising public institutions and churches to deliver marriage certificates, would authorise private institutions? Then where's the change?

You're right, where's the change? People would still get married and have everything they did before.

So you're wondering why I propose to abolish gov't institutionalization and the reason is to cut the tax burden by billions.

Over half of all marriages end in divorce and the gov't is busy recording, tracking, erasing, legislating, re-recording, hearing cases, more legislation and so on. Private enterprise already marries people (churches) so the system is already there.

I know its hard to imagine but can you?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That is a possible proposal. And you could call that a "marriage" or you could call that a "civil union".

Now the question is - what happens if after some years, the couple decides to go their separate ways?

Who gets to kick who out of the house? Who gets the family dog? Who gets custody of the kids? Does the other parent get to visit the kids at all? If so, how often, when and where? What about the money in the joint account? Can either parent abdicate all responsibility, say, for paying for the kid's school fees, and just walk away? Etc etc.

Firstly there is a huge expense just recording information about who is married and who is not. There are entire departments, buildings, storage and so on just to keep track. This is all un-needed.

Now as to the court cases, a huge number of couples do and can work things out themselves as to the terms of separation. As I stated earlier, marriage contracts could be created whereby the couple agrees upon being married that should there be a dispute that the couple has to pay for private arbitration. Why should you and I pay for their divorce.

Some people have been married and divorced seven or more times.

C'mon this is an inefficient system and if you can't think of a more efficient one you're simply falling back on what you know.

I challenge you to think of a better system because it wouldn't be hard.

Rather than arguing for what we already have (you've got it) why not go through the mental exercise of letting yourself imagine what I'm proposing.

Humans have a hard time to imagine something different that goes against their core. But try.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Humans have a hard time to imagine something different that goes against their core. But try.

Ya know you're talking to ALG, the guy who believes people can levitate and all sorts of stuff. He's quite open-minded and imaginative.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Firstly there is a huge expense just recording information about who is married and who is not.

The same would apply to civil unions.

There are entire departments, buildings, storage and so on just to keep track.

The same would apply to civil unions.

Now as to the court cases, a huge number of couples do and can work things out themselves as to the terms of separation. As I stated earlier, marriage contracts could be created whereby the couple agrees upon being married that should there be a dispute that the couple has to pay for private arbitration. Why should you and I pay for their divorce.

The same would apply to civil unions.

I challenge you to think of a better system because it wouldn't be hard.

Sure. Here are some ideas from my jurisdiction.

1. Essentially, the legal costs for divorce are high, because the costs of lawyers and judges are high. So one way to lower the costs is to require the couples to go through mandatory counselling. Some couples then resolve their differences and therefore no legal costs are incurred.

2. The rest of the couples then go through a process of mediation. Again lawyers and judges are kept out of the picture, so no legal costs are incurred. Through the mediation, a trained mediator (who is not a lawyer) helps the couple to isolate and identify their issues. So for instance the couple mutually agree what they want to do with the family dog; the car; the house; the joint current account and so on. And let's say that after mediation, the only thing they cannot agree on is the custody of children.

3. Only at this point, do they enter the formal court process. Here the legal proceedings become shorter and much cheaper, because the couple have no further arguments/issues about the family dog; the car; the house; the joint current account. They only have an argument/issue about the children. The lawyers and the judge solve that one last matter, quickly and cheaply, and everyone moves on.

--------------

By the way, the court system in my country is regularly ranked World No. 1 in international surveys. One big reason is its speed and efficiency and low cost. And the reason for its speed, efficiency and low cost is that the civil servants who work in this system are constantly focused on ideas on how to make it speedier, more efficient and cheaper.

This applies not just to divorce cases, but to commercial and civil cases in general.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

There are entire departments, buildings, storage and so on just to keep track. This is all un-needed.

You're quite right. In my country, all the courts have moved away from paper. Everything is electronic. Lawyers submit their legal documents to the judge in PDF. Every courtroom is fitted with three computers, one for the judge, one for the plaintiff's lawyer and one for the defendant's lawyer. Rach computer has two or three screens. The three computers are linked, so that the judge can say: "I refer to Paragraph 56 on Page 25 of the Affidavit on Screen 2" and all the lawyers can immediately see what the judge is referring to. Lawyers no longer really need to bring big stacks of documents to court.

We also have video conferencing facilities, such that lawyers do not always have to attend court to see the judge in person. For example, when I was a Deputy Public Prosecutor, I could sit in a certain office in my own building that was fitted with cameras etc, and electronically attend certain court proceedings at the courts. That was years ago. Nowadays I understand that I woulod be able to even electronically hop from one courtroom to another.

Nationally, the entire government is moving away from paper records of anything. See, in my country, every citizen has this cute little thing called an identity card with a microchip embedded in it.

If I go to a hospital, the nurse uses a reader to scan my identity card, and my medical records show up on her computer immediately.

If I go to the library, the librarian uses a reader to scan my card, and my borrowing records show up on her computer immediately.

If I get caught for speeding, the policeman uses a reader to scan my card, and my entire history of driving offences show up immediately.

And any government body that needs to know whether I'm married or not simply needs to scan my card. No need to dig up any paper records from some dusty shelf of some dusty cupboard in some dusty basement archive.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Some people have been married and divorced seven or more times.

And some people could be in and out of civil unions seven or more times.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I challenge you to think of a better system because it wouldn't be hard.

The system is fine as it is to me.

Rather than arguing for what we already have (you've got it) why not go through the mental exercise of letting yourself imagine what I'm proposing.

Believe me, I've tried very hard. What's missing for me is what in business is called a business case. What are the pro's, what are the contras, how much would it cost, what would be the benefits. As much as possible in money terms.

Things like 'huge', 'a lot', ' a little' are way too subjective and refer to opinions rather than facts.

Humans have a hard time to imagine something different that goes against their core. But try.

It seems to me that you're not arguing very well for your case. It's up to you to convince us of a better system. Not up to us to do our damnedest to understand you.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The same would apply to civil unions.



The same would apply to civil unions.



The same would apply to civil unions.



Sure. Here are some ideas from my jurisdiction.

1. Essentially, the legal costs for divorce are high, because the costs of lawyers and judges are high. So one way to lower the costs is to require the couples to go through mandatory counselling. Some couples then resolve their differences and therefore no legal costs are incurred.

2. The rest of the couples then go through a process of mediation. Again lawyers and judges are kept out of the picture, so no legal costs are incurred. Through the mediation, a trained mediator (who is not a lawyer) helps the couple to isolate and identify their issues. So for instance the couple mutually agree what they want to do with the family dog; the car; the house; the joint current account and so on. And let's say that after mediation, the only thing they cannot agree on is the custody of children.

3. Only at this point, do they enter the formal court process. Here the legal proceedings become shorter and much cheaper, because the couple have no further arguments/issues about the family dog; the car; the house; the joint current account. They only have an argument/issue about the children. The lawyers and the judge solve that one last matter, quickly and cheaply, and everyone moves on.

--------------

By the way, the court system in my country is regularly ranked World No. 1 in international surveys. One big reason is its speed and efficiency and low cost. And the reason for its speed, efficiency and low cost is that the civil servants who work in this system are constantly focused on ideas on how to make it speedier, more efficient and cheaper.

This applies not just to divorce cases, but to commercial and civil cases in general.

You keep mentioning civil unions.... I'm not proposing civil unions to be managed by the gov't. I said initially you could call them civil unions or whatever but then people said "yea but we still want to be married" As I said the term "marriage" is loaded. You'd still have to tell the masses that they could still be "Married" because they won't accept any other term obviously.

OK, now on to your recommendations....

Very good, that you are proposing alternatives

Of course what you are proposing would be an easier sell than what I propose.

But I still don't see what we forfeit by the gov't NOT managing our marriages, OR forcing counseling.

The only reason to force couseling is to reduce the cost of divorces that the gov't then needs to pay for. What I am recommending nips the problem in the bud. Its like having something thats not needed which causes problems and then you put a band aid on that problem but the core solutions isn't solved.

Imagine if some churches created unique contracts that reduced divorce rates. There could be a cultural revolution that would decrease divorces.

Also, how many couples get married for tax benefits only to divorce because they don't get along? I know that studies show that many military people have gotten married due to pay raises. By creating a flat tax it would take the wrong incentives out of marriages.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

The system is fine as it is to me.

Believe me, I've tried very hard. What's missing for me is what in business is called a business case. What are the pro's, what are the contras, how much would it cost, what would be the benefits. As much as possible in money terms.

Things like 'huge', 'a lot', ' a little' are way too subjective and refer to opinions rather than facts.

It seems to me that you're not arguing very well for your case. It's up to you to convince us of a better system. Not up to us to do our damnedest to understand you.

With all due respect you obviously haven't bothered to read the posts. The pros are listed, the cons and the cost. So much for you trying your damnedest.

Our current system has 10.4 million divorces a year at a cost of $30 billion. (see page 1)

What I propose is: (page 1, 2 for pros)
1. We can still get married (via churches, etc). Marriage contracts stating the use of arbitration rather than courts.
2. We can still have wedding ceremonies, exchange rings and say we're married
3. We can choose to change our last name for a fee.
4. When divorcing it can be checked off as "no contest dissolving of divorce" or "arbitration required". Lawsuits can be used under certain rare conditions

I don't know if all $30 billion could be save but possibly $20 billion could I would image.

If you disagree with my view, thats fine but don't peruse half heartedly and then say its up to me to convince you when you haven't bothered to read the posts.

Now with my retribution attitude I'm sure you'll disagree with my point no matter. No worries though.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Our current system has 10.4 million divorces a year at a cost of $30 billion. (see page 1)

The total number of divorces annually, by any legitimate count, is about 1.5 million.

Here are the CDC tables:

N C H S - National Vital Statistics - National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends

The annual number of divorces per this chart is about 800,000-900,000. Because of issues of data collection, divorces in CA, LA, HI, ID, and MN are not included. However, those states comprise less than 1/2 the population: double the number, if you like, or triple it for good measure - you aren't going to be anywhere near 10 million. If you apply the rate per thousand throughout the county to the omitted states, you will arrive at a figure of less than 2 million.

Or approach it this way: the marriage statistics are fairly complete, excluding only LA. There are fewer than 2.5 million marriages every year. A divorce rate of 10 million would leave the entire population single in about a decade.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

The total number of divorces annually, by any legitimate count, is about 1.5 million.

Here are the CDC tables:

N C H S - National Vital Statistics - National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends

The annual number of divorces per this chart is about 800,000-900,000. Because of issues of data collection, divorces in CA, LA, HI, ID, and MN are not included. However, those states comprise less than 1/2 the population: double the number, if you like, or triple it for good measure - you aren't going to be anywhere near 10 million. If you apply the rate per thousand throughout the county to the omitted states, you will arrive at a figure of less than 2 million.

Or approach it this way: the marriage statistics are fairly complete, excluding only LA. There are fewer than 2.5 million marriages every year. A divorce rate of 10 million would leave the entire population single in about a decade.

Is the cost really $30 billion in tax dollars contributed these divorces? What do you see?

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Is the cost really $30 billion in tax dollars contributed these divorces? What do you see?

I think it comes from this:

Marriages that end in divorce also are very costly to the public. One researcher determined that a single divorce costs state and federal governments about $30,000, based on such things as the higher use of food stamps and public housing as well as increased bankruptcies and juvenile delinquency. The nation’s 1.4 million divorces in 2002 are estimated to have cost the taxpayers more than $30 billion.

State of Our Unions 2007

It seems like a vague number to me. There would be delinquent kids and bankruptcies without divorce. I don't know exactly how you separate an individual social ill or statistic and attribute it directly to divorce.

If you want creative ideas, maybe we could encourage divorce as part of a stimulus package, since divorce employs so many people - counselors, police, real estate agents, bill collectors, tow truck operators, pawn shop workers, plastic surgeons...the list goes on.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

With all due respect you obviously haven't bothered to read the posts. The pros are listed, the cons and the cost. So much for you trying your damnedest.

Touchy, touchy... Relax, it's only feedback. I know this is an important issue for you, I am telling you that (so far) your convincing us isn't working.

Our current system has 10.4 million divorces a year at a cost of $30 billion. (see page 1)

I asked you before where those figures come from, and how it relates to the total costs (the taxes paid). No answer on that from you, so how serious can I take you then?

What I propose is: (page 1, 2 for pros)
1. We can still get married (via churches, etc). Marriage contracts stating the use of arbitration rather than courts.
2. We can still have wedding ceremonies, exchange rings and say we're married
3. We can choose to change our last name for a fee.
4. When divorcing it can be checked off as "no contest dissolving of divorce" or "arbitration required". Lawsuits can be used under certain rare conditions

I don't know if all $30 billion could be save but possibly $20 billion could I would image.

I know this is what you propose. I personally don't see any benefits over the current system, where many people decide of their own free will to get married.

#3 is BTW already in effect in our country in the sense that the woman decides to keep her own name or take her husband's name. It would be nice to have the choice the other way around too, but for me it's not important.

#4 people will find other ways to sue each other. It seems to be the favourite sport in the US anyway.

Even if the 30 billion is correct, you don't give arguments for the savings of 20 billion. Based on what? How many judges will be fired? How many courthouses closed? Etc etc.

If you disagree with my view, thats fine but don't peruse half heartedly and then say its up to me to convince you when you haven't bothered to read the posts.

LOL! You're serious, aren't you? Blaming someone if you can't convince them is a lousy strategy. But hey, you choose the strategy. Good luck with it.

Now with my retribution attitude I'm sure you'll disagree with my point no matter. No worries though.

No worries at all. One point though. I won't disagree with you 'no matter what'. I'm willing to give up any of my opinions for a better one. I do need to be sure it is a better one though.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

The only reason to force couseling is to reduce the cost of divorces that the gov't then needs to pay for.

Not really.

My country (or its government) is very pro-traditional family unit. Not saying that it is a good thing or a bad thing. But the long-standing policy stance of my government is that they strongly promote the traditional family unit of heterosexual couple + children, maintaining close relationships with grandparents.

This plays out in many ways. For example, unmarried couples are not eligible for public housing, except in very limited circumstances. Same-sex marriage does not exist. Housing grants are given to married couples, if they choose to stay within a 2-km radius of their own parents. Tax incentives are given to married couples who have children. Etc etc.

And it also plays out in the policy on mandatory counselling, for couples who want to seek a divorce. It's not just about legal costs. The government is just keen to promote the traditional family structure, and that also means trying to keep the divorce rate down.

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh, here is another way that we do it in my country.

The usual path for divorce is that the married couple needs to separate for three years, before they get a divorce. (Of course there are a number of exceptions to this general rule - eg where one partner is physically violent - then divorce can be immediate).

But the three-year wait is the usual route.

I think that the three-year wait is quite long, compared to most other countries. The whole idea of the three-year wait is to make sure that the couple have three long years to think carefully about what they're doing.

There are actually many couples who get angry with each other; separate with the intention of getting a divorce; and then, after 3 months, 6 months or 2 years, discover that actually they miss each other, and don't want to be separated, and therefore get together again. So the divorce never happens.

[Aleksander Krstic]

Originally Posted by angela

happy anniversary, holistic star!!

qft.

[Still Growing]

Spirit,
1. Discussions are a two way street. You haven't convinced me that the gov't needs to manage marriage.
2. You could still be "married" under my proposition. We're 3 pages in now. Must I keep repeating.
3. Whether its $30 billion or $3billion anybody can see divorces cost the system money. Are we really debating that?
4. I'm not touchy and I don't take it personally. Spirit, its important to read posts so you can be apart of the discussion. I welcome new questions but really don't have patience for people who drop in to a conversation with negative comments when they haven't even read what everyone else has been saying. Thats akin to trolling.

[Still Growing]

ALG,

I definitely think 3 years is way too long. In Germany there is a huge amount of stress on the government caused by the system.

In my opinion the German government does such a much better job at managing social issues than the US but of course with a huge budget.

My fundamental qualm with Germany is that the overall taxes are just way too high (in my opinion).
I think this works well for German's culture at the given time and would not fit at all into the US at this given time.

I've noticed that the most vocal people on this thread happen to be from European countries where the gov't is more active in people's daily lives. The gov't has a huge safety net in Socialistic countries and they do a great job.

In the US there is a huge element of people who believe that less government is better.

To reach a common understanding its important that two people or entire communities have the same end goal in mind. If you are coming at the discussion that a larger and more controlling gov't is key for society and someone else is coming at the discussion that the gov't cannot manage efficiently then the basis for understand is too far of a bridge to cross.

It is ironic that we could both be right.

In the US we have huge divorce rates and far too many lawsuits. We have a gov't budget that has a larger deficit that all of the budgets in US history combined.

Sometimes less is more.

How on earth did we get here as a people before the gov't managed marriage?

[Brutha]

3. Whether its $30 billion or $3billion anybody can see divorces cost the system money. Are we really debating that?

You don't know what it would cost the system when those relationships would end without formal divorce. There might be still lawsuits about kids and about ownership of shared property.

You could also use the model of another European country where there are marriages but no divorces if your problem really lies in the fact that people divorce.

So in Germany your average income amount is tax at 15%? Are you sure about that?

I happen to live in Germany. ALG doesn't.

I've noticed that the most vocal people on this thread happen to be from European countries where the gov't is more active in people's daily lives.

Again, ALG doesn't live in Europe.
Additionally we would think that Europe will have a higher chance to abolish legal marriage in the next 50 years than the US. In the US you have nobody that has a real political interest in abolishing marriage laws and have the freedom to make marriage like contracts themselves (playing a game of guess a lobby ).
Our marriage debate in central Europe also isn't driven by the Christian church.

How on earth did we get here as a people before the gov't managed marriage?

No womens rights and the man just had the right to all property by default.

[Acting Like Godot]

I live in Singapore. Tax here is definitely very low, compared to the US and Western European countries.

The way it works here, though, is that the government provides much less in terms of social welfare benefits. People are taxed less, and are encouraged to save constantly and regularly for their own needs.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I've noticed that the most vocal people on this thread happen to be from European countries where the gov't is more active in people's daily lives. The gov't has a huge safety net in Socialistic countries and they do a great job.

I might be biased (honestly, I think I've lived around the world enough not to be that much), but you brought your fair share of ethnocentricism to this thread too. Unlike in the US where traditional family values are strong and the pressure to marry is widespread, people in Europe (France in particularly) aren't subject to that pressure. Actually, over 50% of long term couples here choose to remain unmarried, including when they have children. The ones who do get married do so deliberately, consciously and it is 100% their choice. And guess what? They do it because it benefits them. They do it because they want a legal frame to transmit inheritances, they want to empower their partner to take medical or financial decisions for them, they want equity on parental authority on the children, they want to have the same citizenship or be able to travel together on a spouse visa... All these instances and more are arbitrated by the State. Therefore, they will benefit from getting a State recognized union. Fitting them all in a single contract called marriage is by far the cheapest and most efficient way to do so (if you need convicing, take a look at the hardships gay couples who can't get married go through when they want to establish equivalent rights through contracts).

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You don't know what it would cost the system when those relationships would end without formal divorce. There might be still lawsuits about kids and about ownership of shared property.

I proposed that arbitration clauses in marriage contracts be given. Arbitration drastically reduces lawsuits.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I happen to live in Germany. ALG doesn't.
Again, ALG doesn't live in Europe.

There were times in the discussion when you seemed to speak for him and with you being from Germany I must have connected the two. My bad. BTW, I used to live in Singapore and yes their national tax rate is very low. Singapore is very unique and it would be hard to compare their gov't to others.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Additionally we would think that Europe will have a higher chance to abolish legal marriage in the next 50 years than the US. In the US you have nobody that has a real political interest in abolishing marriage laws and have the freedom to make marriage like contracts themselves (playing a game of guess a lobby ).
Our marriage debate in central Europe also isn't driven by the Christian church.

I agree. I would say that every nation will eventually abolish the gov't management of marriage. Don't get me wrong, I know that my proposal is way ahead of its time and I know that Germany will be there before the US.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by aelle

I might be biased (honestly, I think I've lived around the world enough not to be that much), but you brought your fair share of ethnocentricism to this thread too. Unlike in the US where traditional family values are strong and the pressure to marry is widespread, people in Europe (France in particularly) aren't subject to that pressure.

I don't think ethnocentric is the best definition to describe either of us. I do however, think that there are certain core beliefs that the average European has about the government's role in people's lives.

You mention the benefits that people get when they marry. Why can't some of these benefits be opened up in another fashion? Inheritances can be covered by wills, taxes can be flat and so on.

My argument that my proposal is more efficient is much different than me saying "it would be easy to get passed".

I've found that in life sometimes less is more.

OK so lets have the gov't manage Scuba licenses. First we can create laws, then we'll need buildings and departments to regulate safety then we'll need more laws governing those buildings then we'll need judges from all the Scuba accident lawsuits then we'll need staff working for the judges and then we'll need additional IRS workers to manage the Scuba tax deductions and of course they'll need offices and then we'll need insurance for the IRS workers and life insurance. Maybe we should give tax deductions to those who get a Scuba license and then we can even create more laws to enable Scuba license holders to train other wannabe Scuba divers. We'd certainly need laws that prohibit same sex people Scuba diving together, that would be against some people's religions. Maybe we should form a committee about that.

We all know that Scuba diving takes more training and skill than getting married, I'm not sure if the government could handle institutionalizing Scuba diving.

[Brutha]

I proposed that arbitration clauses in marriage contracts be given. Arbitration drastically reduces lawsuits.

Either you manage marriage top down from the government and you can control whether arbiration is involved or you let the free market decide.

I don't think ethnocentric is the best definition to describe either of us. I do however, think that there are certain core beliefs that the average European has about the government's role in people's lives.

I think that ethic arguments are the thing that's most likely to get the government out of marriage.
Nobody besides some ethinc groups really cares about the government laws interfering with marriage.

I always ask people of the US Gov't. Name one organization or budget they run properly.

I think that the US Coast Guards do a much better job than those in Somalia.

But if you want a government which runs properly you probably should go the Singapurian way and actually paying good salaries to the people who run the government.
If you speak about paying politicans more money you have a hard time in the West.

Since people could still get married under my proposal people would not loose any rights.

You can't simply created every right in a contract.
You can't make a contract as a American that gives someone from Iran the right to travel to the US.
You can't either make contracts that give someone the right to refuse to give evidence in front of a court.

For all those instances where it says marriage in the laws you need to find a replacement.
Those a dozens of different cases and in Germary we just had to add "or has a civil union" after every one of these.
If you however wanted to eliminate them you would to have think more about how that law should look like.