NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, why do we need straight marriage as a legally recognised institution? I'm not even talking about downgrading it to civil unions, why do we need it at all?

First argument to come up will be... Children> Easy. We just reform of laws on parental rights and responsibilities. Writing from a UK perspective, if the father isn't married to the mother, he has no rights whatsoever over the child- though he may be liable for some costs. We just need to reform this law to allow the father legal rights in relation to the child, except in the case of rape.

Second argument: Sacred institution> Nothing stopping you having a poncy ceremony.

Third argument: Promiscuity> As if marriage has stopped heteros cheating on each other(!)

Fourth argument: Benefits for married couples living together> Why limit it to married couples? Why not allow anyone cohabiting benefits? This will encourage people to gather together and share resources. You get a greater sense of community and you need fewer cookers and other big appliances. What's more, the whole unit can and probably will pitch in together with childcare, so why not give the household Child Benefits, where applicable?

Any others I've missed, do point them out.

So, when do we need marriage? When we need to establish the primary guardians of the child, in the case of adoption, surrogacy and sperm donation. This isn't even strictly neccessary, we can just have the couple file for adoption together(straight or gay or whatever).

Fourth argument: Benefits for married couples living together> Why limit it to married couples? Why not allow anyone cohabiting benefits? This will encourage people to gather together and share resources. You get a greater sense of community and you need fewer cookers and other big appliances. What's more, the whole unit can and probably will pitch in together with childcare, so why not give the household Child Benefits, where applicable?

Interestingly, I'm pretty sure that laws relating to domestic violence and property are moving in this direction in Queensland. I wish I could remember where I read this, but the general idea was to afford some of the protections traditionally associated with marriage to couples cohabit but are not married/in a de facto relationship. For example carers of elderly/disabled people and people who live together for the companionship etc.

Also, somewhat depressingly, most of the legal benefits of marriage relate to the breakdown of the relationship. There are a few that don't, like citizenship rights etc, but most of the rights which marriage bestows relate to what happens to children & property when the relationship ends or one partner dies.

I imagine if we accept civil unions for homosexuals we really have to allow them for heterosexuals, otherwise it be just plain discrimination.

The big point is community property and the distribution of them in case of seperation. Seriously, when people cohabitate for a significant period of time this sort of thing has to be adressed.

I have no problem with not according any legal recognition to marriage beyond that of civil unions. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to only recognize civil unions. But when multiple people engage in a cooperative enterprise of any significance, be it marriage or forming a business, the government has to at least take cognizance of the existance of the cooperative venture as distinct from its participants.

Yes, the cognisance comes purely from the joint responsibility of the people in the household. If you're all together paying the rent or signatories to the mortgage, the government is aware of your household unity. Then, if someone leaves, they get their share, based on how much they put in.

Meh. I consider marriage to be an institution separate from mere co-habitation and resource-sharing. Marriage is a solemn , mutual promise to love and live with a person for the rest of your life, no matter what. Having said that, I don't consider that:


There is any reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry
It is any of the government's business anyway

Exactly: The legal benefits of marriage shouldn't be any different from those of co-habitation. Have whatever poncy religious ceremony you like, but it shouldn't and there is no reason for it to be legally distinct from simple cohabitation and/or shared parentage.

Yes, the cognisance comes purely from the joint responsibility of the people in the household. If you're all together paying the rent or signatories to the mortgage, the government is aware of your household unity. Then, if someone leaves, they get their share, based on how much they put in.But this ignores that a marriage, like a civil union or a business, has an existance beyond the mere sum of the participants.

Yes, because that existence is within the bounds of religion and should be ignored by the government.

But this ignores that a marriage, like a civil union or a business, has an existance beyond the mere sum of the participants.


I disagree. I consider that a marriage is merely an agreement between two people. Granted, it's a very special kind of agreement and should not be entered into lightly, but it is really a matter between the two spouses.

It's a fairly novel concept, that associations do not have an existance beyond the people who make them up. Does this only apply to marriage or to all joint endevors?

Fourth argument: Benefits for married couples living together> Why limit it to married couples? Why not allow anyone cohabiting benefits? This will encourage people to gather together and share resources. You get a greater sense of community and you need fewer cookers and other big appliances. What's more, the whole unit can and probably will pitch in together with childcare, so why not give the household Child Benefits, where applicable?

Divorce wasn't always near so common or easy. Even now, a person who is married is much more likely to try to work it out than someone who is just living with another person. If you're living with them, you can just up and walk off any time you feel like it. That doesn't grant any actual level of stability to a child.

That's the idea of benefits for marriage. Encouraging the 'ideal' family unit. Marriage is meant to be until death do us part, and is legally binding. Divorce is a hassle, one many people would rather avoid. Co-habitation doesn't have any of the hassle in breaking it off associated with divorce, and hence gives no reason to keep the family unit together.

That's kind of poorly explained, but it's nearly 4AM. o_o;

I get your drift, but marriage isn't the only way to do it, and it's fairly clumsy. You just give the parents rights and responsiblities over the child as a given, except in the case of rape. If you are owning/renting accommodation in conjunction with another person and receiving benefits, rather than it being in their name and you effectively acting as a lodger, you are more grounded. This would catch the large number of couples who live together but don't like the religious ovetones of marriage.

It's a fairly novel concept, that associations do not have an existance beyond the people who make them up. Does this only apply to marriage or to all joint endevors?

I actually misread your post slighty. However now that I've stuck my foot in my mouth, I may as well stick it in a bit deeper.

A corporation has a legal identity separate from that of its participants. A marriage, a partnership or a business does not. So what makes marriage (as a legal institution) so different that it should be treated differently?

Certainly, marriage has an emotional aspect beyond its legal implications, but couldn't the same be said of a joint venture or a partnership? And what right does a government have to interefere in this aspect?

I actually misread your post slighty. However now that I've stuck my foot in my mouth, I may as well stick it in a bit deeper.

A corporation has a legal identity separate from that of its participants. A marriage, a partnership or a business does not. So what makes marriage (as a legal institution) so different that it should be treated differently?

Certainly, marriage has an emotional aspect beyond its legal implications, but couldn't the same be said of a joint venture or a partnership? And what right does a government have to interefere in this aspect?In confused order.

I don't advocate government interference. What I require is government cognizance, or recognition of the existance of the venture.

Corporations, partnerships and businesses all have legal identity seperate from their participants - it is just that corporations have a greater sperate identity than others. So what makes marriage (as a legal institution) so different from, say a medical partnership, that it should be denied recognition?

As for the emotional aspects of marriage, I don't believe the government need take notice of them unless they become significant - much the same as they currently do for joint ventures.

I shall post more on this topic when I've had some more sleep and a chance to trawl through Halsbury's Laws of Australia a bit more.

Until then... :gundge:

I'm going to go get drunk now. OK?

I shall post more on this topic when I've had some more sleep and a chance to trawl through Halsbury's Laws of Australia a bit more.

Until then... :gundge:

I'm going to go get drunk now. OK?NP. Have fun and don't mix clear and coloured liqours.

I think that two people signing a legal document stating that they will stay together till death do them part will have a much harder time breaking up than two people who just live together.