What would happen if there were no legal consequences to getting married?

[Aimless]

I know there are at least two people among our regulars who believe that getting married should have no legal ramifications wrt benefits, obligations etc and I've been trying to figure out what life in a modern Western country would be like for regular people if marriage were suddenly done away with as a legal institution. Whatcha reckon?

[Veldan Rath]

Lawyers that draft wills would become very popular.

[Loki]

One obvious outcome would be that there would be fewer marriages, which means more couples breaking up for lesser reasons, and people being less willing to make long-term decisions involving their partners.

[Enoch the Red]

I know there are at least two people among our regulars who believe that getting married should have no legal ramifications wrt benefits, obligations etc and I've been trying to figure out what life in a modern Western country would be like for regular people if marriage were suddenly done away with as a legal institution. Whatcha reckon?

I'm not sure I understand your premise. I certainly could be wrong, but don't know of anyone here, and very few elsewhere who believe marriage should not, or perhaps more accurately, could not have legal obligations or ramifications, but quite a few that don't believe it should be up to the government to determine what those obligations or ramifications should be, or how they are applied. If you removed government from the process I'm sure there would be a number of boilerplate marriage contracts that could fit most any situation, and lawyers for any other scenario.

[Hazir]

I see no reason as to why we should do away with a very useful institution that saves the bulk of the people from having to draw up complicated legal documents at hight costs.

[Lewkowski]

I see no reason as to why we should do away with a very useful institution that saves the bulk of the people from having to draw up complicated legal documents at hight costs.

Do you think people should gain legal benefit from marriage? And if they do benefit doesn't that by default people who choose not to be married are being penalized? At least in the states there are a ton of things outside of inheritance laws that people gain for being married (and in cases in the past were penalized in some ways).

[Loki]

Don't you think society benefits by having more families and more people being in the position to make long-term plans? Or do you think we'd be better off by even more poor people having children out of wedlock?

[Hazir]

Do you think people should gain legal benefit from marriage? And if they do benefit doesn't that by default people who choose not to be married are being penalized? At least in the states there are a ton of things outside of inheritance laws that people gain for being married (and in cases in the past were penalized in some ways).

People who live in stable relationships are less likely to become a burden on the state. I see nothing wrong with expressing that in their fiscal treatment. Taxation should have no relation to married status. Otherwise marriage is a useful standardized contract so I repeat; there is no reason whatsoever to abolish. Abolishing it because some religious folk think it's some sort of sacred gift of their god would be the mother of all stupid reasons.

[Lewkowski]

Don't you think society benefits by having more families and more people being in the position to make long-term plans? Or do you think we'd be better off by even more poor people having children out of wedlock?

I think having kids raised by two parents is the best type of environment. If the state suddenly no longer recognized marriages those kids in those currently married homes aren't going to be better or worse off. The change would be neutral.

[Lewkowski]

People who live in stable relationships are less likely to become a burden on the state. I see nothing wrong with expressing that in their fiscal treatment. Taxation should have no relation to married status. Otherwise marriage is a useful standardized contract so I repeat; there is no reason whatsoever to abolish. Abolishing it because some religious folk think it's some sort of sacred gift of their god would be the mother of all stupid reasons.

Do you think people currently get married now because of the fiscal benefits? Divorce is a very messy and is a net drain on society. Don't overlook the costs of something simply because you like the benefits of it.

[Loki]

Do you think people currently get married now because of the fiscal benefits? Divorce is a very messy and is a net drain on society. Don't overlook the costs of something simply because you like the benefits of it.

With that kind of logic, death is a drain on society, which means we should be discouraging birth. Having a two-parent home is a major predictor of economic success.

[Lewkowski]

With that kind of logic, death is a drain on society, which means we should be discouraging birth. Having a two-parent home is a major predictor of economic success.

Of course having a two parent home is a predictor of economic success. Not having a STATE benefit for marriage won't eliminate the benefits of a two parent home.

[Hazir]

Do you think people currently get married now because of the fiscal benefits? Divorce is a very messy and is a net drain on society. Don't overlook the costs of something simply because you like the benefits of it.

I don't know if people get married because of fiscal benefits in the USA. It would not surprise me with your ridiculous approach to the issue of marriage. In the Netherlands there is no such incentive because not being married or not is deciding your tax-status, but your actual living arrangement. Marriage is not more and not less than a civil contract binding third parties in some very practicle issues like custody, inheritance and things like that.

[Enoch the Red]

I see no reason as to why we should do away with a very useful institution that saves the bulk of the people from having to draw up complicated legal documents at hight costs.

Eh, I suppose I just don't see why it would require an expensive, complex legal document any more than certain marriages today require expensive, complex legal documents. The vast majority of marriages would be some variation on a boilerplate agreement that would probably cost less than a marriage license costs today.

[Ominous Gamer]

I don't know if people get married because of fiscal benefits in the USA. It would not surprise me with your ridiculous approach to the issue of marriage.

Its common, maybe a little to common, but a lot of local governments here have begun to offer life partner benefits to appear more gay friendly. So marriage (for financial reasons) is becoming less appealing.

[Hazir]

Eh, I suppose I just don't see why it would require an expensive, complex legal document any more than certain marriages today require expensive, complex legal documents. The vast majority of marriages would be some variation on a boilerplate agreement that would probably cost less than a marriage license costs today.

You trust lawyers not to overcharge for their services?

[earthJoker]

Do you think people currently get married now because of the fiscal benefits? Divorce is a very messy and is a net drain on society. Don't overlook the costs of something simply because you like the benefits of it.

I will pay more taxes this year because I got married, so much about that

[Enoch the Red]

You trust lawyers not to overcharge for their services?

I trust that lawyers would not need to be actively involved in the vast number of marriage contracts.

[Hazir]

Still significantly higher numbers than the close to zero of today. Any reason why I should defend the non-abolition of a perfectly satisfying institution by the way?

[Enoch the Red]

Still significantly higher numbers than the close to zero of today. Any reason why I should defend the non-abolition of a perfectly satisfying institution by the way?

I don't see why. If you're looking for the legal protections, rights, responsibilities, expectations, etc... outlined in the marriage laws of your country why would you need anything aside from a boilerplate marriage agreement that spells out what those terms are? Such an agreement only needs to be drawn up once, and then it could be reused without issue. Different religions may want to draw up their own marriage contract, and it could be provided to their adherents freely. Those who are looking for alternate terms may have to hire a lawyer to iron out the specifics, but that's true of marriage today as well. I just don't see the complexity you seem to.

Further, I don't believe I've ever advocated abolishing marriage, I'm just not sure why the government needs to be involved beyond contract enforcement. Doing away with government involvement means that marriages between consenting adults no longer needs to be guided by the uncertain winds of a formal social sanction. Gay marriage would no longer be an issue, nor would bigamy or polygamy, or any other number of non-traditional marriage arrangements.

[Hazir]

Government is always involved in contract enforcement. Also with family law we aren't just talking about contracts that bind the contracting parties but also third parties.

The problem with marriage isn't and has never been that government gets involved, but that churches got involved and tried to monopolize marriage. I still don't get why you take church ceremonies to be actual weddings.

[Enoch the Red]

Government is always involved in contract enforcement. Also with family law we aren't just talking about contracts that bind the contracting parties but also third parties.

Yes? And?

The problem with marriage isn't and has never been that government gets involved, but that churches got involved and tried to monopolize marriage.

That must be why gay marriage is legal in China, Vietnam, Cuba and why it was legal in the Soviet Union. All those pesky churches.

Right?

Pull the other one.

[Lewkowski]

I will pay more taxes this year because I got married, so much about that

I'm not an expert on taxes but that doesn't make sense.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm not an expert on taxes but that doesn't make sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

[Lewkowski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

Then file separately?

[earthJoker]

Then file separately?

Not possible in Switzerland. If you are married, you file together. And as we both work, we get into higher progression level.

[Hazir]

Yes? And?



That must be why gay marriage is legal in China, Vietnam, Cuba and why it was legal in the Soviet Union. All those pesky churches.

Right?

Pull the other one.

To bind third parties you need the state to sanction your contracts. As for your wonderful 'atheist' argument; religion has been around significantly longer than any of those states and has imprinted society. Besides which; why should I take those countries, none of which are part of 'the West' as example for anything.

[Enoch the Red]

To bind third parties you need the state to sanction your contracts.

If you are specifically referencing children as the third party I can't say I'm following you. Do you believe children born out of wedlock are wards of the state, and their parents have no rights to them?

As for your wonderful 'atheist' argument; religion has been around significantly longer than any of those states and has imprinted society. Besides which; why should I take those countries, none of which are part of 'the West' as example for anything.

I think you have something of a self defeating argument here. Unless you believe that religions carry with them some sort of divine weight, you are talking about institutions devised by man. To say that it is religions that have caused all of the problems with government sanctioned marriage is ignoring the fact that religions were created, accepted, and perpetuated by humans. That their beliefs and teachings are not divine, and yet they persist means that they have resonated with people for thousands of years. The problems are not with the religions themselves, the problem is with the understanding and thinking that led to the laws and teachings in the first place. In short, the problem is with human nature. Things that are different from me are bad. Things that agree with me and my feelings are good. That these prohibitive marriage laws span societies, religions, cultures, and civilizations should point more to the ubiquity of the belief than to the fault of religion. This is why giving government a monopoly of a contract between two consenting adults is not only unnecessary, it can in some cases be harmful. I simply don't believe there will ever be a perfect law that could adequately account for the diversity and breadth of the human experience, especially when it comes to matters of the heart.

[Hazir]

Whoa, I think it's a bit useless to talk about family law if you don't grasp the concept of binding third parties.

[Enoch the Red]

Whoa, I think it's a bit useless to talk about family law if you don't grasp the concept of binding third parties.

Honestly if you are wanting to talk about specific legal terms as opposed to broader legal concepts, it is probably useless to discuss law at all with me. I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be.

If you are hanging your hat on family law, why not do me a favor and explain what exactly you are getting at, and what it has to do with the discussion at hand.