Why shouldn't we abolish marriage?

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

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.

The flat tax opens another can of worms. If that is required for your argument, then you're proposing a complete overhaul of US government as a whole, not of only marriage.

Again, I don't see what benefits there are. Setting aside the tax issue for a moment, folks will still want to have agreements about their life situation. They will still be aggrieved when relationships go wrong. They will still fight over children. They will still fight over who deserves what when a relationship ends. They'll bring up implied contracts, quasi-contracts, verbal contracts (all valid to some degree in my state). They'll discuss what each spouse's services were worth to the marriage. They'll discuss the degree to which a spouse relied on the other's promise of life-long support and companionship and the extent to which that reliance precluded their own work. They'll discuss living arrangements for the child and the best way to provide a good life for the child. All the same issues divorce lawyers deal with will still apply. The courts will still have to consider all of these issues whether we call it a marriage, civil union, divine partnership, or exclusive long-term relationship of monogamous intent. If folks are still having lives and having kids, we'll still have to deal with the issues.

We can, perhaps, find better ways to do so. Collaborative law is making headway, as is mediation and arbitration.

Doing away with marriage would have a profound impact. Laws would be extinguished. They would either have to be re-written to exclude marriage, or they would have to be replaced in the disputes. If they are replaced, common law principles would step in (in the US, at least). Either way, it would be extremely expensive to make that transition. The legal fees for new divorces would likely increase rather than decrease, so long as children or assets became involved.

As it is, the expense for divorces is heaviest on the parties themselves. The courts are burdened with divorces, yes. I see that daily. But the expense is small in the scheme of things. The salaries of all court personnel are defrayed by fees and court costs that litigants are charged. I do not have figures for how much tax money is required to continue court authority over divorce, but I would assume it is relatively small compared to the cost to run criminal courts and jails. If your concern is saving money, you're looking at the wrong kind of case... but other than that, I don't see any argument against letting the cultural tradition remain.

[Still Growing]

Thought Addict,

I agree that the flat tax would open up a huge can of worms. I also agree that the gov't needs a major overhaul however it may not need to be done all at once.

One of the great things about a democracy is that we don't end up with a dictatorship and secondly nobody can seize ultimate control or power over the gov't. One bad things about limited power is that its hard to create huge changes or overhauls. Big change requires a "Vision".

If you look at the tax system, companies have so many tax deductions the itemizations are enormous. If you know much about business you know who easily it is to deduct your company's tax burden at the end of the year. Warren Buffet once commented that he payed 17% in income taxes where his secretary payed a higher percentage.

You can be certain that the gov't in 100 years will look much different than today. It will either be larger in terms of its authority or smaller.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Spirit,
1. Discussions are a two way street. You haven't convinced me that the gov't needs to manage marriage.

I don't need to convince, nor do I want to. I'm fine with the system as it is. It is you who wants to change things. I am merely replying to what you want to change. Not to troll, but to support.

2. You could still be "married" under my proposition. We're 3 pages in now. Must I keep repeating.

Rhetorical questions aren't really powerful in a discussion. Better to read what I wrote and reply to that.

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

Yes. Remember that you said it was mainly a cost issue to the tax payers? But so far you didn't state what the exact costs were, or how much your proposal would save (you stated figures, with without any evidence). For me that is important. I choose my priorities on what I think serves best. Unclear figures don't make me enthusiastic to support a cause. If the costs are peanuts (relatively to other things we pay for) I'd rather focus on things that would make bigger changes.

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.

Ah, difference of interpretation. I've said what I wanted on this but you seem more focused on saying I am wrong than in strengthening your statements so they become more convincing.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I don't need to convince, nor do I want to. I'm fine with the system as it is. It is you who wants to change things....

I disagree. I think that a discussion is a two way street where both parties should contribute.

If you would like to debate the subject with me you must :

1. Read whats already been written in this thread so that I don't have to repeat.
2. Contribute in some way yourself about the subject.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

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

Its my view that the gov't shouldn't operate or run most things but should police the private sector. The government does have the authority to authorize private companies to be able to marry and they can require that arbitration clauses be given.

Originally Posted by Brutha

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

There are some things like the military that really should remain ran by the government for numerous reasons.

Originally Posted by Brutha

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.

Singapore is such a small country and the proportion of white collar jobs to the population is drastically skewed when compared to most countries. This means that they have a larger budget per capita than their neighbor Malaysia for example. I don't think government workers in the US are under paid either. Government jobs in the US typically can earn a comfortable living and they have great benefits. I do agree, however, that American teachers should be paid more due to their individual importance.

Originally Posted by Brutha

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.

Maybe the private issued "marriage certificate" could still give these type of rights. Why couldn't it ?

Originally Posted by Brutha

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.

I don't think its impossible.

I do think that the biggest problem would be people's perception or fear of that change.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I do think that the biggest problem would be people's perception or fear of that change.

Maybe. But that's your problem, not theirs. People who choose marriage, or who are in favor of people having that choice, don't have your problem. They're (we're) fine with things as they are, as spirit4711 put it.

For people who don't have a problem, your problem occurs like Chicken Little -- "the sky is falling!" What feels like a huge tax costs and government intervention, etc. to you just look like an acorn falling on your head to others.

Maybe your problem is an inroad for you to change things -- by improving your own effectiveness at altering people's perceptions, or helping them feel less fearful of change. (although for me personally, I have no fear of the marital system changing, I just don't feel any need or desire or preference for it to change. My guess is that that's so for many others, as well, so I can't see where lessening fear where there is none would make a whole lotta difference. For some people it might, though.)

Until and unless someone comes up with a compelling or inspiring approach otherwise, my "contribution to the discussion" of "why shouldn't we abolish marriage?" is: Because I'm fine with it as it is.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Angela

Maybe. But that's your problem, not theirs. People who choose marriage, or who are in favor of people having that choice, don't have your problem. They're (we're) fine with things as they are, as spirit4711 put it.

I'm a big believer that when people speak they use words repeatedly to tell how they really feel. I do my best to listen to what people are really saying. Let's examine:

The words you choose were:

"your problem" "you change / your effectiveness": you said this 5 times
"you're fine with as it": 2 times
"fear": 3 times

So what do you want to say?

I am the one with a problem, I have a problem and I need to change. You are very fine with things the way they are and although you say you would not be fearful of change I feel that you REALLY WOULD.

One person on this blog stated that in their country they are required to be separated for 3 years before having a divorce. I can't imagine being someone who wanted to divorce and then being tied up for 3 years with someone. Ugggh. But its clear that they that making this change was smart to reduce the financial and social cost that divorces have.

You can be sure that marriage was completely differing 50, 100 or 500 years ago. So are you fine with marriage the way it was created or the way it has changed? I assume that you are happy with the "current" way marriage because it did improve over the years. If there are ways for more improvements why shouldn't we discuss them? Certainly you would agree that a divorce rate at 50% is too high.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I am the one with a problem, I have a problem and I need to change.

I don't think Angela would tell you that you NEED to change. You can continue to dislike marriage in its current form if you want to. Angela's point is that many people, like herself, are fine with it as it is for now.

Certainly you would agree that a divorce rate at 50% is too high.

My personal opinion about why the divorce rate is so high is that people who shouldn't get married are getting married. It's not a problem with marriage itself, it's a problem with the people choosing to get married.

A lot of people have so little control over their own life and when they choose to go into a marriage with someone else, not only are they still putting up with their own crap, but now they're dealing with someone else who is highly integrated into their life as well.

If you're an unhappy person, you will probably create an unhappy marriage. In my opinion, unhappy people should not get married. You need to be happy and content with yourself before you enter into a marriage.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

So what do you want to say?

Erm, I said what I wanted to say.

I am the one with a problem, I have a problem and I need to change.

Okay, if you say so. I don't think you need to change; I'm fine with the way you are. But if you want to, go for it! I think that would be a good way to make a difference, if making a difference is what you're up to. If you want to make a difference, taking the Chicken Little approach ("Everybody be afraid! The way things are is wrong! YOU have to do things differently!") is a pretty ineffective way of going about it. As a person who is neutral on marriage, but pro on more choice, I would activate with your opposition. But as I mentioned (at the risk of activating your counter! ) I'm fine with it if you want to choose that approach.

...although you say you would not be fearful of change I feel that you REALLY WOULD.

Nah, why would you think that? We've never even met. I don't care if marriage changes or goes away, as a matter of personal choice; it makes no difference to me. If people choose government-run marriage or they don't -- fine with me. My suspicion is that people are choosing it less and less, and that eventually it may just pooter out as a social standard; but I'm not invested in that happening (or not).

So are you fine with marriage the way it was created or the way it has changed? I assume that you are happy with the "current" way marriage because it did improve over the years. If there are ways for more improvements why shouldn't we discuss them? Certainly you would agree that a divorce rate at 50% is too high.

No, I don't agree that 50% divorce rate is too high. I think it's just fine.

I'm fine and happy with marriage (and divorce) as it is, because I get to choose whether or not I participate, and I'm fine and happy with other people having that choice, too.

[Brutha]

Singapore is such a small country and the proportion of white collar jobs to the population is drastically skewed when compared to most countries. This means that they have a larger budget per capita than their neighbor Malaysia for example.

Im not comparing Singapure to Malaysia but Singapure to the US or Germany.

Singapure pays it ministers salaries that are comparable to the private sector.

If those people who try to evade the regulations are payed 100 times the salary that the people who set up the regulations are payed that leads to the smart people being on the private sector side.
Those people who think that having a safe job is more imporant than salary end up with the government and don't innovate.

Maybe the private issued "marriage certificate" could still give these type of rights. Why couldn't it ?

If you want to create extra laws that precisily regulate the private 'marriage' contracts you aren't really removing government regulation of marriage and questions of whether gays can marry and polygamists can marry stay the same.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I disagree. I think that a discussion is a two way street where both parties should contribute.

Contribution on your terms only...

If you would like to debate the subject with me you must :

I 'must' nothing. What if I tell you you 'must' something? Would you like that?

1. Read whats already been written in this thread so that I don't have to repeat.
2. Contribute in some way yourself about the subject.

Well I did, in my perception. Clearly not in your perception. No problem, perceptions are just perceptions. Problems arise when someone declares his perception as truth.

Also notice you still don't address my question for the foundation of the costs and the savings that you stated...

[Still Growing]

Angela,
Chicken Little Approach? Have I warned of an impeding disaster? No.
You don't think that 50% divorce rate is too high? I disagree
You don't think that all these divorces contribute to the courts being too busy or are wasting tax dollars.? I disagree.
OK so you don't think the existing system can or needs to be improved. I disagree
Its OK that we don't agree that there is a problem. I can accept that. Its not a big deal that we disagree.

Brutha,
Your argument is that if you want to run the gov't properly then you should pay salaries to gov't workers like they do in Singapore. Not counting teachers, I would say that the US gov't workers do get paid properly. I can't speak for Germany. Secondly my point about Singapore being different is true. Singapore is like an Island with 4.4 million people and there are more white color jobs per capita than in the US. I used to have an office in Singapore and used to live in Malaysia. I am familiar with the country. I think we probably agree really.

Spirit,
Contribution on my terms only? I completely disagree.

You said to me yourself that you don't have to contribute by saying its up to me to convince you.

As I said before, I think its "trolling" to drop in on a thread several pages and to make comments like "I'm not convinced" and then ask a barrage of questions that have already been answered several times throughout the thread. You then proceed to choose language such as "touchy touchy" which is instigating in my opinion.

The truth be told, I can understand. Its hard to read all of the posts and certainly the title "Should we abolish marriage" is very inciting. Should I be surprised if I get the reaction I manifested? Probably not.

I think I expected for people to debate the subject seriously, which some did. However many people said "People should still have the option of getting married". You're not the only one who really didn't read what was being said.

I should know that in life its not always a matter of what is said but how its heard. I know this more than anyone yet I think I didn't follow that on this thread.

Furthermore I'd like to tell you that I've been married happily for almost 20 years. We got married very young and we get along so great even today. I've never been divorced and really have no problem with the current system. I just think that it can be improved.

If anyone has followed my postings they know that I never get personal, I have sometimes unusual viewpoints but I'm a very open minded person. I think that gay couples should have the same rights that heterosexual couples have for example.

I don't want to argue with you. I want to debate with you. I hope that on a future subject we can disagree very strongly and give our sides without making instigating comments. I want you to read the blog so that you can rip apart my ideas. Please do.

I think we're both being petty right now. Lets get past it. Friends?

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I just think that it can be improved.

I think everything can be improved. How to improve it is always the question.

[Lauxa]

SG, I just went back over the entire thread to try and pick out your arguments for ending marriage. Here is what I am hearing:

• It's not necessary
• It's expensive for society
• Privatizing marriage would produce a better system

Did you have others?

People have been debating the necessity and expense and pointing out all the issues that a well-thought-out private system would need to address. You seem to have a free market fundamentalist attitude, a faith that free market will always devise a better solution than government, but not everyone shares your faith and without a more detailed proposal as well as a better analysis of the costs of the current system it's hard to debate whether a free market solution would be "better" (cheaper, more efficient) or not.

[Brutha]

Your argument is that if you want to run the gov't properly then you should pay salaries to gov't workers like they do in Singapore.

I spoke about leadership positions.
The president of Singapore gets five times the salary that the US president gets.

You could pay every top 1000 leader in the federal government a million more in salary each year and the added billion wouldn't be that big when you look at the size of the US budget. The problem rather lies in the public reaction to paying politicians money.

As a result most innovative people or who are good at management don't take government jobs. That results in crappy public institutions.

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
Ahh, I see the top leadership. I see your point.

Lauxa,

Let me try to elaborate.

As I mentioned, I've been happily married almost 20 years and I love being married. What I value about being married is expressed in daily life and feel that she is my best friend.

I don't feel or ever think about the fact that the US gov't says we're married. Before I got married I didn't think "Well finally the gov't will recognize us as a couple". So my point is that everything I value with marriage has nothing to do with the gov't from my perspective.

In my view of the gov't they are there to police the private sector, to reallocate tax dollars and to maintain a safe society. Whenever the gov't is involved in anything else they over complicate and over legislate matters. Also with the gov't institutionalizing marriage it creates a type of sterility to the institution and that may be part of the problem that we have today.

If you take the benefits of being married one by one there is a way to enact them without the gov't institution of marriage.

1. Taxes: You could file jointly if you claimed to be married may be a solution.
2. Inheritance: We all know that wills are required even if you are married. So wills or children or marriage certificates issued privately would still be valid
3. Name Change: You could still choose to change your name if you wished.

Many gay couples want to be married for two reasons. One reason is for symbolism and the second is for the tax benefits and some other benefits.

From my perspective I think that the gov't should recognize marriage certificates issued even for same sex couples. However by taking out some of the tax benefits and moving inheritance to wills and so forth it does take out some of the financial benefits of being married.

Keep in mind that these financial benefits were created to incourage marriage many years ago and to incourage population. When countries are growing its commonly known that increasing the population is one goal. Some countries such as Canada have more liberal laws regarding immigration because they need more people for their economy. At this point for the US, for example, there really isn't a need for creating tax incentives for people to start families.

Many years ago the divorce rates were less than 10%. Couples were guilted into staying married due to religous reasons. One reason dowries were paid was that in lean times it was viewed that the man was taking on the burden of a wife to support. Before when women were only housewives they were seen as needing a man to support her.

In today's times marriage is more of a choice for a couple to be committed together. Times have changed and marriage means something completely different to most people today than it did hundreds of years ago.

As a society the way humans interact here on earth is changing. Globalization and Modernization of the world is re-shaping the way we live, the reasons we marry.

In my view if the gov't was not involved in marriage we may see improvements to the institution that we never expected. By people looking to their church or company that they chose to get married by would be looked at more critically. I can imagine that some companies may even offer for a fee a service of instruction before marriage and then advertise their lower divorce rates. Others may advertise that their divorces were resolved more amicably and they boasted the lowest amount litigous divorces. By having marriages being universally managed by the gov't the actual ceremony at the church looses its importance or focus. If the gov't no longer managed marriage then people's focus would turn to custom marriages. I can even envision someone asking "So where did you get married" and by answering the question you would tell so much about what your view of marriage was. "Wow you got married by the Catholic church" I hear you guys have to go to 100 hours of couselling before marrying. "So where did you get married?" Well we got married by E Marry. "Wow I heard their contracts really keep things simple if you should ever get divorced".

In summation, I hope that as you read this that you don't pick at the details. Certainly such a system would need more people giving it thought and there would be some trial and error.

The big idea, however, is that the gov't really isn't capable of instituting marriage and the cost of divorces to the system are too high. The sterility that the gov't brings to marriage currently is part of the down fall of marriage quite possibly.

[Still Growing]

Lauxa,
Here are some other sites speaking about the privatization of marriage.

Privatize Marriage - By David Boaz - Slate Magazine

Free Forty Million Americans: Privatize Marriage by Stephen Safranek

Marriage privatization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Channing]

The laws clearly are a restriction to "marriage" since you can only marry one person at a time. I see the current situation being that of less freedom, since I have to go through the burden of getting a divorce before I can "marry" again.

So, what about the polyamorous people?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Channing

The laws clearly are a restriction to "marriage" since you can only marry one person at a time. I see the current situation being that of less freedom, since I have to go through the burden of getting a divorce before I can "marry" again.

So, what about the polyamorous people?

We spoke about that in an earlier thread.... I wonder if polyamorous people will organize and lobby. It might sweep the nation if you do!

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

If you take the benefits of being married one by one there is a way to enact them without the gov't institution of marriage.

1. Taxes: You could file jointly if you claimed to be married may be a solution.
2. Inheritance: We all know that wills are required even if you are married. So wills or children or marriage certificates issued privately would still be valid
3. Name Change: You could still choose to change your name if you wished.

See, this is where I just don't understand. Why is getting rid of marriage a benefit? For 1, couples opt-in to either joint or single filing. By filing, they have to choose one or the other by checking either "married" or "married, filing separately". How would it be any different without government sanctioned marriage?
For 2, would we do away with the elective share that a spouse receives despite an adverse will, usually a percentage based upon the length of marriage? If so, that is a significant change, but you haven't mentioned it.
For 3, nobody is forced to change their name. It isn't even assumed. You have to go to file the appropriate papers to have your name changed. Again, it is already opt-in.

In my view if the gov't was not involved in marriage we may see improvements to the institution that we never expected. By people looking to their church or company that they chose to get married by would be looked at more critically. I can imagine that some companies may even offer for a fee a service of instruction before marriage and then advertise their lower divorce rates. Others may advertise that their divorces were resolved more amicably and they boasted the lowest amount litigous divorces.

I like this line of thinking, but it is a bit speculative. We don't know how the private sector would react. Your ideas, though, need not wait for the government to do away with marriage. Pre-marriage counseling could already start picking up on these ideas and running with them.

By having marriages being universally managed by the gov't the actual ceremony at the church looses its importance or focus. If the gov't no longer managed marriage then people's focus would turn to custom marriages.

The focus is on custom marriages, I think. A bunch of my friends are getting married. None of them plan a justice of the peace wedding. They all want to get married in traditional ways, at their house of worship, with their life-long priest, the bride wearing the traditional color (usually white around here), their families present. They want to exchange vows. They dream up all the details of the wedding, the reception, and the honeymoon. The government part of it is routinely an afterthought.

Is the government really all that involved in marriage as it is? By this, I mean marriage itself. There are a number of laws where government considers marriage as an element to be considered. Is the issue with the laws that consider marriage, or with government actions certifying marriages?

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

...
You said to me yourself that you don't have to contribute by saying its up to me to convince you.

That is your conclusion. I did state that if you want to change things, you better make sure that you convince people, not judge them for not immediately agreeing with your point of view.

As I said before, I think its "trolling" to drop in on a thread several pages and to make comments like "I'm not convinced" and then ask a barrage of questions that have already been answered several times throughout the thread. You then proceed to choose language such as "touchy touchy" which is instigating in my opinion.

You answered questions vaguely, without any foundation. My questions were meant to get more clarity on that. I failed miserably.

The truth be told, I can understand. Its hard to read all of the posts and certainly the title "Should we abolish marriage" is very inciting. Should I be surprised if I get the reaction I manifested? Probably not.

I think I expected for people to debate the subject seriously, which some did. However many people said "People should still have the option of getting married". You're not the only one who really didn't read what was being said.

You seem to think I was not serious? Mmmmm.... Be assured that 98% of my responses in this thread were serious.

Again, 'accusing' someone of not reading rarely gets you the results you want. You might ask yourself if you were clear enough. That works for me.

Your initial post and the title certainly intrigued me. I was very curious to find out what arguments you would put forward. For me they were not convincing enough, but that is OK, I don't have a problem with that.

I should know that in life its not always a matter of what is said but how its heard. I know this more than anyone yet I think I didn't follow that on this thread.

...
I don't want to argue with you. I want to debate with you. I hope that on a future subject we can disagree very strongly and give our sides without making instigating comments. I want you to read the blog so that you can rip apart my ideas. Please do.

I think we're both being petty right now. Lets get past it. Friends?

I've honestly never considered you an enemy. I like to discuss things sharply and am aware that sometimes I step on people's toes in the process (as I presume I did with you).

So friends it is. No doubt our opinions will clash more times in other topics too. But that doesn't stand in the way of us respecting each other.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

One person on this blog stated that in their country they are required to be separated for 3 years before having a divorce. I can't imagine being someone who wanted to divorce and then being tied up for 3 years with someone. Ugggh.

No, you have to be separated from your spouse for three years, not tied up with your spouse for three years. Eg the usual way is to stay in different homes, for three years.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Channing

The laws clearly are a restriction to "marriage" since you can only marry one person at a time. I see the current situation being that of less freedom

How so? If marriage was abolished, then instead of being able to marry one person at a time, you would be able to marry zero person at a time.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

No, you have to be separated from your spouse for three years, not tied up with your spouse for three years. Eg the usual way is to stay in different homes, for three years.

So you're not allowed to remarry for at least 3+ years? That's a bit... limiting.

[Still Growing]

ALG, if you are separated you're still technically married. I mean tied up legally from marrying anyone else and also a person really wouldn't have closure until 3 years later. It would weigh on your mind that you're still legally married to someone who you have chosen not to associate with any more. Thats a bit of a damper on your future dating life I would imagine.

I am assuming that when some people get married they still don't want to be connected to that other person legally, socially or other wise. Thats tied up.

Singapore has had an increasing divorce rate over the past years. People say that there is no tax burden to all the divorces yet Singapore obviously disagrees. I wonder how people will feel here in the US when such modifications are made to the US system. Something has to change, its just a matter of when.

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

If you take the benefits of being married one by one there is a way to enact them without the gov't institution of marriage.

1. Taxes: You could file jointly if you claimed to be married may be a solution.
2. Inheritance: We all know that wills are required even if you are married. So wills or children or marriage certificates issued privately would still be valid
3. Name Change: You could still choose to change your name if you wished.

There are others you haven't addressed, openeyes pointed out a few earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by openeyes

For now, for one to be able to share insurance benefits, go together on a peace corps mission, or possibly many other things such as immigrating to other countries, adopting children and such, a marriage contract does what no other contract can do.

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Many gay couples want to be married for two reasons. One reason is for symbolism and the second is for the tax benefits and some other benefits.

From my perspective I think that the gov't should recognize marriage certificates issued even for same sex couples. However by taking out some of the tax benefits and moving inheritance to wills and so forth it does take out some of the financial benefits of being married.

Does the federal gov't not recognize marriage for same sex couples? I thought they recognized any marriage sanctioned by any state but I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Still Growing

In my view if the gov't was not involved in marriage we may see improvements to the institution that we never expected. By people looking to their church or company that they chose to get married by would be looked at more critically. I can imagine that some companies may even offer for a fee a service of instruction before marriage and then advertise their lower divorce rates. Others may advertise that their divorces were resolved more amicably and they boasted the lowest amount litigous divorces. By having marriages being universally managed by the gov't the actual ceremony at the church looses its importance or focus. If the gov't no longer managed marriage then people's focus would turn to custom marriages. I can even envision someone asking "So where did you get married" and by answering the question you would tell so much about what your view of marriage was. "Wow you got married by the Catholic church" I hear you guys have to go to 100 hours of couselling before marrying. "So where did you get married?" Well we got married by E Marry. "Wow I heard their contracts really keep things simple if you should ever get divorced".

Perhaps, but one thing people LIKE about marriage is that it glosses over the contractual details. Perhaps some people will appreciate getting to research dozens of different marriage contracts and marriage companies before taking the plunge, but we're already overloaded with information and I'm guessing most will see it as a hassle.

Originally Posted by Still Growing

In summation, I hope that as you read this that you don't pick at the details. Certainly such a system would need more people giving it thought and there would be some trial and error.

The devil is in the details.

Originally Posted by Still Growing

The big idea, however, is that the gov't really isn't capable of instituting marriage and the cost of divorces to the system are too high. The sterility that the gov't brings to marriage currently is part of the down fall of marriage quite possibly.

You still haven't addressed the possibility that court costs could be HIGHER without a standard marriage contract...

Anyways, I don't disagree with you, per se. I just don't think you're making a very strong argument yet.

[Still Growing]

Lauxa,

As for sharing insurance benefits what do you mean exactly? You can't share health insurance and with life insurance you list your beneficiary and you don't have to be married for that.

As for going on a peace corps mission I don't see how the gov't marrying you versus a church or private corp make any difference. There are plenty of people who are single who go on peace corps missions no?

As for the details, I agree that the devil is in the details. You mistook my context.

As for standard marriage contracts, I'm not so sure your standard marriage contracts now really do much good. I am saying that a private system would open the doors for improved marriage contracts that would be superior to our current system.

And finally for not making a good argument..... I don't see you or anyone else making a better argument for the current system. I'm not saying that their are not good arguments for the current system but I just don't see anyone really making any points that are solid and couldn't be answered with a private system.

Also I think that really big ideas are usually not accepted by the masses in the beginning. In life you sometimes know you've hit upon a great idea with there is a lot of resistance from people. No doubt my argument is ahead of its time and would never be passed today in most countries. The current system is the best system we can imagine. Without being able to imagine a better system in the mass mentality then its impossible to improve upon it. I do envision a better way and I do see huge flaws in our current system.

You have to remember that government institutionalized marriages are all our generation knows. If our society didn't have gov't managed marriages and they were done only by the church or organizations then people would fight like hell if the gov't wanted to take over the operation.

Whether the gov't knows I'm married or not does not stop me from saying I'm married or committing to one person if I chose. The only thing up for debate are the benefits, taxes and things of this nature. Humans are humans and if they want to apply for a visa they can, if you want to have insurance you can, if you want to create a will you can, if you want to have a contract you can. I see nothing that precludes privatization of marriage.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

...
Also I think that really big ideas are usually not accepted by the masses in the beginning. In life you sometimes know you've hit upon a great idea with there is a lot of resistance from people. No doubt my argument is ahead of its time and would never be passed today in most countries.
...

Maybe your idea is indeed a big one ahead of it's time. But maybe it's a lousy idea. How will we find out? By trying it out and see if it improves the quality of our lives. So how do we try this out? By getting enough support for your idea. That is your job, if you want to see your idea become reality. Better start working .

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Maybe your idea is indeed a big one ahead of it's time. But maybe it's a lousy idea. How will we find out? By trying it out and see if it improves the quality of our lives. So how do we try this out? By getting enough support for your idea. That is your job, if you want to see your idea become reality. Better start working .

Its really subjective Spirit. An idea can be great however that doesn't mean they can really be implemented.

Even if certain ideas were more efficient or did improve things it doesn't mean people would be ready for them.

In this thread, for example, over a half dozen people posted "But people should still have the choice to be married" We clearly identified that you could still be married however people couldn't get past the title of the blog AND they haven't been conditioned by the media.... yet.

To create change you have to have a mass awareness of a problem first before people are ready to focus on creating real solutions. If public opinion is not seeing a need then people aren't conditioned.

If you really listen carefully you'll find our mass media conditions people for upcoming changes before companies or the gov't implements them.

First things get discussed on capital hill or in the board rooms and then the media (who is owned by some of the same corporations) start having things pop up on Dateline, 60 minutes and so on. Ever notice that all the media stations talk about the same things? Thats the power of mass thought and it is all started by some initiative. Then somebody will come on a blog and make a post and people have been preconditioned to seeing a problem or a need. Certainly a 50% plus divorce rate is a problem worth discussion but there isn't enough money it the problem for a corporation to then start spinning the wheels in the media and then move mass opinion.

But thanks for throwing in one last "thats your job" and another "snarky wink".

For someone who doesn't think a subject is worth attention you sure do follow this thread closely.

Hmmm. Something about this subject must have touched a nerve. That wasn't my intent.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

To create change you have to have a mass awareness of a problem first before people are ready to focus on creating real solutions.

I would agree. And after reading everything you've said, I still don't have any awareness of there being a problem,* I don't see masses of people being convinced and inspired by your arguments; I don't see any intelligent and convincing arguments by individuals or "the media," I don't hear too many people clamoring for government-institutionalized marriage to be abolished in favor of privatization, and I can't see where compassion is needed for anyone *suffering* from the problem of G.I.M. Who knows, maybe a trickle will become a stream, and two years from now people will look around and wonder how we could have kept such an archaic tradition in place for so long. It seems unlikely, but it's possible!

I just think arguing against having a choice in place (people who enjoy G.I.M., and prefer it to a privatized version) is a good way to create resistance against whatever merit your idea may have. That's why I, and others, I think, were suggesting that it might be more effective to be the change you want to see, and allow old, outdated traditions to die out simply by not participating in them -- or to get better at convincingly presenting the "problem" and inspiring solution.

Not that I'm saying you should stop pushing for the change you want -- I don't care about that. I'm just not interested in reducing choice, and you don't seem interested in the idea that for many people, G.I.M. is a preferred choice (I don't happen to be one of them, by the way, but I'm still pro-choice.) I say that because you argue that people could STILL choose to get married, it just wouldn't be the marriage that they know -- but that ignores the preference of so many people to be able to choose marriage as they know it -- warts and all. As I mentioned, I like MORE choice -- old, outdated ones that don't work anymore tend to fall by the wayside as folks notice they don't work well anymore. But for lots and lots of people, the kind of marriage you'd like to see abolished still works well for them, just as it is.

In fact, it works well for you and your wife, doesn't it? You haven't abolished G.I.M. in your own life, and reverted to a private arrangement, have you?

*except for your problem, of course -- that you want marriage to be other than what it is.