Why shouldn't we abolish marriage?

[Still Growing]

I propose we abolish marriage all together.

We should just have a civil union for all couples. Women should keep their last names and parents could decide if they wanted their children to have the last name of the father or mother.

Tax returns should be returned individually however couples could choose to incorporate and they could decide how shares would be divided; like in a S Corp.

I really don't think that the legalization of marriage really has any role in today's world. Over half the people divorce anyway and divorces are just complex arrangements with too little contract and too much social stigma.

Aren't marriages really something started by the gov't and by churches? Is there really a need for them in today's world?

I really don't think ending marriage would end families. People who do get along would stay together and those who don't would not. Just like today.

[Daffy Duck]

If you don't want a marriage, don't have one.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

If you don't want a marriage, don't have one.

Thats a cute one liner but my proposal was serious.

Its clear that with over a 50% divorce rate and with all the attorney's fees paid out yearly that there is something wrong with the system.

Also as a taxpayer certainly there is some cost associated to the current system I would imagine.

[Angela]

If you don't want a marriage, don't have one.

If you, and people who feel as you do, don't get married, the system will collapse of its own weight.

Meanwhile the people who value marriage (and apparently there are more of them than there are of you) are free to choose, just as you are free to choose. Those people are responsible for the consequences of their choice, just as you are responsible for the consequences of yours.

This seems to be a good "problem" in which you would best lead by example. Seems like fewer and fewer people see marriage as the default now, so perhaps you can help it reach critical mass.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

...
Aren't marriages really something started by the gov't and by churches? Is there really a need for them in today's world?
...

First question: no. Popular misconception. Governments and churches are not outside of people, they are people.

Second question: yes. Otherwise they wouldn't be there.

People marry because they want to, not because they have to. If you don't want to marry, then don't.

I agree with you that legal marriages can cause problems when it results in divorce. Yet it won't stop me marrying a second time.

[Holistic Star]

It's my wedding anniversary today!

Being married for me, is so much better than not being married. It's been a real growth experience.

I know it's not that way for everyone, and as a child of divorced parents I know how traumatic divorce can be if handled badly but I don't think marriage is the problem so much as immaturity and unrealistic expectations!

[Angela]

Happy anniversary, Holistic Star!!

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Thats a cute one liner but my proposal was serious.

My answer was serious. Don't let the happy face fool you.

Also as a taxpayer certainly there is some cost associated to the current system I would imagine.

Married people are shown to be happier on average than non-married people. I wonder if unhappiness has any taxpayer cost associated with it. More unhappiness = more health problems = more taxpayer money being spent? Possibly.

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

It's my wedding anniversary today!

Congrats!

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I propose we abolish marriage all together.

We should just have a civil union for all couples.

What do you consider the difference to be, and why should we abolish the first & keep the second?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Angela

If you don't want a marriage, don't have one.

If you, and people who feel as you do, don't get married, the system will collapse of its own weight.

Meanwhile the people who value marriage (and apparently there are more of them than there are of you) are free to choose, just as you are free to choose. Those people are responsible for the consequences of their choice, just as you are responsible for the consequences of yours.

Angela, I am all for people being "married" but I just think that we should abolish the legal form of institutionalized marriage. The gov't should not even pay attention, keep records of it, etc.

We can keep all the good and discard much of the bad.

How much energy and tax dollars are wasted in all the divorces?

The term marriage is a loaded word. There is the action that we take daily being married and then there is the legal form of marriage.

How bout' we use the word "committed". You could send out invitations to your Commitment Ceremony, still get your ring and have a huge party if you like. BUT, the gov't would still recognize you both as individuals as far as taxes go.

If people want to "separate" they can send in the paper to the church or wherever they were "committed" and then its done. If they wanted to get re-committed at any time they could.

You do realize that marriage is primarily a cultural and legal thing right? In the end we are all individuals. The institutionalized version of marriage however complicates things and as a society we've had to work around it.

When one spouse has bad credit why should it affect the other?
If one spouse runs up a huge credit card bill then why should the other be responsible?
Is it confusing for women to change their last names? Isn't this a barbaric ritual that strips her own identity?

If you think outside the box here and could design a brand new system that took all the good and left out most of the bad it could be an improved system.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

why does that need to be recognized, policed and managed by the gov't?

It doesn't have to be. Many people commit to each other without marriage. But for those that do want marriage in the way our legal system has it setup, they can pursue that as well.

I just don't feel the need or desire to abolish the whole system for everyone. I can easily avoid the system if I want to.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

...why does that need to be recognized, policed and managed by the gov't?

It doesn't. That's the beauty of it -- we each get to choose. If you don't want to enter into an institutionalized relationship that is recognized, policed, and managed by the government, you don't have to. And if you do choose it, that's fine, too.

Why would you want to reduce the choice for others, when all you have to do is make a choice for yourself? Would you want others to reduce your choice -- say, by forcing you into a marriage? Many people want their partnership to be "institutionalized" as you put it -- who are you to take that choice away from them? What does it cost you, who choose otherwise, for them to have the same freedom you have?

A married couple can choose to file their tax returns separately. A married couple can choose to divorce or not to divorce, and to pay all the consequences of their choice. How does their choice affect you, or anyone else?

Again, if you would like to contribute to the death of the institution of marriage, all you've got to do is choose not to get committed to that institution. You don't have to institutionalize the removal of that choice for others.

[StacyT]

My feeling is that marriage is just a piece of paper. I love my husband and I'm happy to be his partner, but the paper that says we are married means nothing to me.

I see marriage the same way I see baptism...it was a way for the churches to get people on "their team" and keep tabs on people. But it doesn't really make sense anymore.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Angela

What does it cost you, who choose otherwise, for them to have the same freedom you have?

Am I falsely assuming that the institution of marriage costs tax payer money? Certainly all those judges, larger IRS and divorces cost something.

What if everyone could choose to be "married" as you put it but it wasn't institutionalized. What if you got the piece of paper saying you were married but the gov't just ignored it from a legal perspective?

What would that harm?

[jeff3]

Why shouldn't we abolish marriage?


because that would remove a choice and thus reduce freedom, I like choices. You could add your ideas as choice, that would be fine with me.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

What if everyone could choose to be "married" as you put it but it wasn't institutionalized. What if you got the piece of paper saying you were married but the gov't just ignored it from a legal perspective?

What would that harm?

It wouldn't harm anyone, except for the people who would choose it -- looks like our friend Jeff3 here agrees with me that MORE choice is better. You are advocating less choice.

If, indeed, the institution of government-recognized marriage (and divorce) ends up costing the unmarried taxpayer, it seems like a better idea to me to change the tax laws, rather than the marriage laws. Presenting it either as:

Abolish marriage
OR
Pay for other people's marriage

...is presenting a false choice, as far as I can see. Is there some other price you pay for other people choosing marriage that I'm not seeing?

[Gabo]

I don't think abolishing the concept of marriage would do anyone good.
What I would argue is that the government should stop controlling marriage.

Right now there is such a heated debate over who should be allowed to marry, who shouldn't, etc. This would all go away if the government just got itself out of marriage altogether.

A marriage ceremony is a religious event, so let churches deal with that. For people that want to form a legal contract and live together, they have the unlimited right to contract and can create whatever bond they wish. I personally believe there would be a lot less problems if everyone created their own domestic partnership agreement, rather than relying on a generic "marriage" contract through the government.

In conclusion, marriage isn't bad. It's wonderful!
But state control over it is the problem.

[Still Growing]

Gabo,

I'm saying the basic same thing. I agree with you.

[spirit4711]

@SG, I think you may over-estimate the cost of marriage to the taxpayers. Compared with other costs it's peanuts, really. Look at marriage law vs all laws together. Divorce lawyers are not paid by the government. The size of the IRS is also not really impacted by the marriage laws I guess.

So is cost the real reason for you or is it something else?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Angela

It wouldn't harm anyone, except for the people who would choose it -- looks like our friend Jeff3 here agrees with me that MORE choice is better. You are advocating less choice.

Is there some other price you pay for other people choosing marriage that I'm not seeing?

How would abolishing marriage (from the legal form) give you less choice? You could still choose to commit your life to one person and still get some certificate or have a ceremony.

I think you and Jeff are hung up on the term "marriage". When people commit to each other for life the term and the paper mean nothing.

What is the other cost associated with marriage? Again, I am assuming that all of the divorce cases cost tax payers money... no?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

@SG, I think you may over-estimate the cost of marriage to the taxpayers. Compared with other costs it's peanuts, really. Look at marriage law vs all laws together. Divorce lawyers are not paid by the government. The size of the IRS is also not really impacted by the marriage laws I guess.

So is cost the real reason for you or is it something else?

The judges, additional courthouses paper work, space to hold the hearing, etc are all paid for by the tax payer. There is a huge administrative cost associated to the institution of marriage.

The size of the IRS is due to the enormous complexities of the tax return. I think we should have a flat tax based off of income in tax brackets without itemizations. Marriage is one of several things that add cost to the IRS institution.

FYI:
The United States nation's 10.4 million divorces are estimated to have cost the taxpayers over $30 billion.

[Daffy Duck]

I think it's important to point out that marriages are not expensive -- divorces can be.

I think there's a pretty good case for marriage.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Am I falsely assuming that the institution of marriage costs tax payer money? Certainly all those judges, larger IRS and divorces cost something.

What if everyone could choose to be "married" as you put it but it wasn't institutionalized. What if you got the piece of paper saying you were married but the gov't just ignored it from a legal perspective?

What would that harm?

Actually, I would like it to be the exact opposite. I cannot for the life of me feel the social role of marriage, I'm fine being partner to my partner - although I know the marriage symbolic is extremely important to many!

But I know that if I ever get married, it will be for the legal benefits of course! And the one that will most likely come up fastest is having the right to live in the same country - not a given right now.

I have a right to live with a husband, anywhere in the world. If he is just my boyfriend, I don't. Suppressing marriage would definitely reduce my freedoms. And as long as we don't live in a stateless world (world, not country), there legal frames will be necessary.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

How would abolishing marriage (from the legal form) give you less choice? You could still choose to commit your life to one person and still get some certificate or have a ceremony.

When you abolish a choice, you create less choice. You're right that you could still choose something else, but you'd be removing that one that you abolished.

It's okay, though... you go right ahead with your activism. I'm stepping out now and leaving you to it.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Gabo

For people that want to form a legal contract and live together, they have the unlimited right to contract and can create whatever bond they wish.

I would like for that to be true, without the need for a marriage contract. 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. It'd be nice if people could have their own contract written up, specifying both what is to be shared when they're together, and who what happens to their possessions, finances, and children if their contract is ever broken (and under what conditions it can be broken).

My girlfriend's parents were together for a decade before they married, largely because their lawyer felt their properties had become so entwined it made more sense to be married, and then they had her three years later. She is likewise of the view that it's best to remain unmarried until it makes no sense not to be, and I'm fine with that.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

The judges, additional courthouses paper work, space to hold the hearing, etc are all paid for by the tax payer. There is a huge administrative cost associated to the institution of marriage.

The issue is: do divorce proceedings cost so much extra? There are already judges, court houses etc.

The size of the IRS is due to the enormous complexities of the tax return. I think we should have a flat tax based off of income in tax brackets without itemizations. Marriage is one of several things that add cost to the IRS institution.

Yes, but how much?

Flat tax is a whole different issue that has nothing to do with marriage.

FYI:
The United States nation's 10.4 million divorces are estimated to have cost the taxpayers over $30 billion.

Based on what and by whom? And what is the total cost of the courts?

So it's mainly a cost issue for you then? I suggest you look at other ways to cut the US budget. 30 billion is how much %?

[jeff3]

Why would you want to influence the availability of an option just because you don't want to participate? If you don't want to get married don't. How does other people getting married affect you personally? Marriage is a social event, my guess is that it originated with the people within a clan wishing to make a public recognition of the desire to form a union which most likely would result in a family w/children being the outcome. The importance of witnesses was probably simply for documentation.


Eliminating a choice for another person is like making a choice for them, which is most definitely a form of control. So the real question is, "why do you feel the need to control other people?", the only person you should be concerned about controlling is the one immediately behind the tip of your nose.

[Brutha]

In some sense more complexity of rules always equals more choices.
Sure, a tax system with 100,000s of pages of laws gives you more choices to declare your taxes than a tax system with one page but that doesn't make it in itself better.
Laws should be as simple as possible instead of maximizing legal choices.

The issue is: do divorce proceedings cost so much extra? There are already judges, court houses etc.

If the judges would work on other cases the time it takes for a case would be reduced with would also be a good thing.

The United States nation's 10.4 million divorces are estimated to have cost the taxpayers over $30 billion.

Where does that number come from?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

The issue is: do divorce proceedings cost so much extra? There are already judges, court houses etc.

There are more judges and more court houses being built because there are too many cases to see. Read Brutha's statement above too.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Flat tax is a whole different issue that has nothing to do with marriage.

So you think.
In actuality a flat tax would cancel out the marriage deduction.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

So it's mainly a cost issue for you then? I suggest you look at other ways to cut the US budget. 30 billion is how much %?

Yes its mainly a cost. The % of the budget is irrelevant to me. Its just inefficient.

We could still have "marriages" with out the institution of marriages I think.

BTW, my proposal would never be passed; the populace aren't ready for it in society. Someday however, our culture will evolve past it.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

BTW, my proposal would never be passed; the populace aren't ready for it in society. Someday however, our culture will evolve past it.

I guess what you're saying is that our culture is... Still Growing...