NationStates Jolt Archive

Marriage, in most forms it has taken over the years, had little to do with love, and much more about rights...in the main, property rights. Yes, there are a plethora of pathetic religious arguments about the 'sanctity' of marriage that completely ignore the legal reality of the evolution of marriage over the centuries, but they aren't really all that interesting.

What IS interesting is the evolution of marriage, and definitions of 'family'. This evolution has very practical application because in the main, it's still about rights. Go beyond the 'equality' arguments, and start to examine the actual ramifications of say...legal polygamous marriages, or families that can include 'friends' who are not adopted in the usual sense, but who have nonetheless become part of a functioning family unit.

How would these legal relationships work? What rights could we comfortably allow people to have if we redefine marriage and family?

I for one don't think it's beyond the scope of the law to facilitate such an evolution...despite the fact that many people opposing such changes attempt to point to the law and say 'nope, it would break'. The real reasons for such an opposition are generally much less 'pragmatic' and rooted in personal bias.

So let's lay this one in the ground...let's think about how new definitions could actually work in practice.

Why not just treat a family as a legal person in its own right, and then allow groups of individuals to constitute families as they see fit. The property etc would belong to the family and not to any particular individual, although that too could be determined in the charter of the family.

I don't know if it would work, but it is a possible route forward.

Why not just treat a family as a legal person in its own right, and then allow groups of individuals to constitute families as they see fit. The property etc would belong to the family and not to any particular individual, although that too could be determined in the charter of the family.

I don't know if it would work, but it is a possible route forward.

Ahhh...treat the family like a corporation? I like the charter notion...there wouldn't be a set way that decisions would have to be made...it could be consensus based or not etc. Interesting...

Uh-oh. I remember there'd been a thread on, I think, polygamy and it's possible legalization as form of marriage, and I've gotten into a huge argument with I think Dempublicents1 about the realizability of such a legal project. I'm still of the opinion that this should and could be done, legal families/marriages including all sorts and numbers of people who want to take such responsibility for each other and possible minors, but I shan't get myself into a detailed debate about it right now.

Uh-oh. I remember there'd been a thread on, I think, polygamy and it's possible legalization as form of marriage, and I've gotten into a huge argument with I think Dempublicents1 about the realizability of such a legal project. I'm still of the opinion that this should and could be done, legal families/marriages including all sorts and numbers of people who want to take such responsibility for each other and possible minors, but I shan't get myself into a detailed debate about it right now.


I think that it makes a lot more sense to open things up and make it possible to create legal relationships within a 'family' paradigm, than to continue to exclude people who do not fall into the legal 'family class', and yet for all intents and purposes ARE members of the family in question.

In Alberta, we don't have common-law marriage (per se), we have Adult Interdependent Relationships (http://www.justice.gov.ab.ca/home/default.aspx?id=3550)...which can be between lovers, brothers/sisters, roommates...whomever. Anyone who chooses to enter into an interdependent relationship can then have certain rights to property etc. Rather than expanding common-law marriage, it simply validates various forms of interdependent relationships that might have nothing to do with romantic entanglements at all. Nonetheless, the rights conferred are still less than those granted to people who enter into a marriage...if you want to compare, AIRs have the same kinds of rights as common-law marriage.

If such a thing could be dreamt up in a conservative stronghold like Alberta, without raising so much as an eyebrow, I don't see why it couldn't be further expanded and made workable.

Uh-oh. I remember there'd been a thread on, I think, polygamy and it's possible legalization as form of marriage, and I've gotten into a huge argument with I think Dempublicents1 about the realizability of such a legal project. I'm still of the opinion that this should and could be done, legal families/marriages including all sorts and numbers of people who want to take such responsibility for each other and possible minors, but I shan't get myself into a detailed debate about it right now.

You must have a threshold, would you allow 100,000 people to all marry each other?

You must have a threshold, would you allow 100,000 people to all marry each other?

You can have corporations with more than 100,000 shareholders...

The rights each individual has are limited by the resources available. I cannot envision a 'family' with 100,000 members that would create a legal relationship wherein every person would have the right to 'pull the plug' on every other member, for example.

There could be a vote-based requirement however, in which case, it would not be so difficult to create a quorum requirement etc.

In Alberta, we don't have common-law marriage (per se), we have Adult Interdependent Relationships (http://www.justice.gov.ab.ca/home/default.aspx?id=3550)...which can be between lovers, brothers/sisters, roommates...whomever. Anyone who chooses to enter into an interdependent relationship can then have certain rights to property etc. Rather than expanding common-law marriage, it simply validates various forms of interdependent relationships that might have nothing to do with romantic entanglements at all. Nonetheless, the rights conferred are still less than those granted to people who enter into a marriage...if you want to compare, AIRs have the same kinds of rights as common-law marriage.

If such a thing could be dreamt up in a conservative stronghold like Alberta, without raising so much as an eyebrow, I don't see why it couldn't be further expanded and made workable.

That looks pretty awesome to me.

Hydesland' why not allow 1,000,000 people, who freely agre, to marry?

You can have corporations with more than 100,000 shareholders...

The rights each individual has are limited by the resources available. I cannot envision a 'family' with 100,000 members that would create a legal relationship wherein every person would have the right to 'pull the plug' on every other member, for example.

There could be a vote-based requirement however, in which case, it would not be so difficult to create a quorum requirement etc.

But why should the government recognise this marriage?

But why should the government recognise this marriage?

Better question is why it shouldn't.

If people want to create legal relationships with one another in respect of property, and personal rights, then why should the government not permit this to happen?

The onus should not be on the people seeking certain rights to prove their merit, but rather on the state to prove why allowing such rights would be contrary to public policy, or problematic in some other way.

Better question is why it shouldn't.

If people want to create legal relationships with one another in respect of property, and personal rights, then why should the government not permit this to happen?


Practicality?


The onus should not be on the people seeking certain rights to prove their merit, but rather on the state to prove why allowing such rights would be contrary to public policy, or problematic in some other way.

Thing is, I'm not really sure if marriage is a fundamental right that everyone must have. That doesn't mean I'm against gay marriage, discrimination based on orientation is still wrong.

In Alberta, we don't have common-law marriage (per se), we have Adult Interdependent Relationships (http://www.justice.gov.ab.ca/home/default.aspx?id=3550)

I'm sorry I don't have the time to look further into your link right now, but it does sound intriguing, and I'll follow it up later.

You must have a threshold, would you allow 100,000 people to all marry each other?

I do? I never knew. And yes, I would allow 100,000 people to enter into a legal bond that presents them with the mutual rights and responsibilities for each other that come with marriage, if they all agree to share and accept those with every other member.

Thing is, I'm not really sure if marriage is a fundamental right that everyone must have.

That might very well be the starting point of where we differ. I personally advocate a fundamental right to marriage for every consenting adult as long as said legal marriage consists of a balanced set of both responsibilities and rights, especially on the fiscal/financial aspect - I would, for example, consider modifications to the existing "free health care for all family members of one working family member" to be essential to keep the system alive.

(And this is where I refuse to enter in the abovementioned detailed morass of which provisions I'd like to see kept and which altered in the scenario of multi-person marriage, at least for now).

Practicality? We routinely constitute convoluted and complex legal relationships between multiple people all the time, and call them corporations.

I see no reason why, if there is enough of a demand, we could not expand 'family' rights to non-traditional participants. 'Practicality' is a lame argument.



Thing is, I'm not really sure if marriage is a fundamental right that everyone must have. That doesn't mean I'm against gay marriage, discrimination based on orientation is still wrong.

Again, if you look at marriage as a relationship that creates legal rights, then we don't necessary NEED marriage if we can still create said legal rights, capish?

There are existing legal frameworks for creating corporations or partnerships. Parties can also draft contracts if there are specific terms they want. I don't see what you're after here that doesn't already exist.

You must have a threshold, would you allow 100,000 people to all marry each other?

If all 100,000 of them agree, why not?

But why should the government recognise this marriage?

Yes.

There are existing legal frameworks for creating corporations or partnerships. Parties can also draft contracts if there are specific terms they want. I don't see what you're after here that doesn't already exist.

A corporation is not a family. The kinds of rights that are assumed, read in either by the common law or statute, or 'standard' simply don't match the needs of people who wish to be recognised as a family.

It isn't a family unless it can happen accidentally. I'm sorry, but gay relationships, adoptions and Adult Interdependent Relationships will never qualify.

It isn't a family unless it can happen accidentally. I'm sorry, but gay relationships, adoptions and Adult Interdependent Relationships will never qualify.

So a guy who fucks a chick, gets her pregnant and then gets married should have more rights then a gay couple that loves each other and makes a conscious decision to adopt and raise a child? Am I missing the sarcasm here?

So a guy who fucks a chick, gets her pregnant and then gets married should have more rights then a gay couple that loves each other and makes a conscious decision to adopt and raise a child? Am I missing the sarcasm here?
I don't even know if I'm being sarcastic anymore. I'm just so confused, scared of everything and angry at everyone.

It isn't a family unless it can happen accidentally. I'm sorry, but gay relationships, adoptions and Adult Interdependent Relationships will never qualify.

You could still get married during a drunken blackout in Vegas.

And you can enter into an Adult Interdependent Relationship by accidentally knocking someone up and agreeing that the kid is yours.

See? Accidents still possible!

Yes, there are a plethora of pathetic religious arguments about the 'sanctity' of marriage that completely ignore the legal reality of the evolution of marriage over the centuries, but they aren't really all that interesting.

I think this sentence assumes a whole hell of a lot right out of the gate, that's what I think. I don't know, personally, I'm a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' kind of guy, and I don't see the present definition of marriage as being 'broke.'

I think this sentence assumes a whole hell of a lot right out of the gate, that's what I think. I don't know, personally, I'm a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' kind of guy, and I don't see the present definition of marriage as being 'broke.'

No one is saying it's broken.

I'm saying it's a tiny little box, and a lot simply doesn't fit inside it, and there is no really compelling reason to keep it that way.

Time for a bigger box. That's not fixing anything. That's evolution.

And do you REALLY want me to whip out hundreds of years of commonlaw dealing with marriage to show you how it has always been about (mostl property) rights, and not some ephemeral 'romantic' or 'religious' reason? Marriage is about rights.

Neesika, you are proposing this for selfish purposes aren't you?

I'm saying it's a tiny little box, and a lot simply doesn't fit inside it, and there is no really compelling reason to keep it that way.

I understand that. All I'm saying is, regardless of the size of your box, or what fits in it, I personally see 'no really compelling reason' to not 'keep it that way'

And do you REALLY want me to whip out hundreds of years of commonlaw dealing with marriage to show you how it has always been about (mostl property) rights, and not some ephemeral 'romantic' or 'religious' reason? Marriage is about rights.

Not terribly. Given that this debate is(for the most part, for now, in the U.S., which is really the only place whose laws I'm concerned with)going my way, I can afford to not get all heated about it. Besides, my belief in the laws of God will always trump my belief in the laws of man.

My personal functioning definition of family:
Those who are raised, and those who do the raising.


the failing of this are families that do not have any form of offspring (though, I'm not entirely positive that I qualify a married couple alone as a family...not sure why). The success of it is the effective incorporation of every other family structure I can think of.

My wife and I consider ourselves, including our cats, a family. When we marry Neesika and her man, we'll be a bigger family.

A corporation is not a family. The kinds of rights that are assumed, read in either by the common law or statute, or 'standard' simply don't match the needs of people who wish to be recognised as a family.

I'm out of my depth here, but don't you run into thorny problems when you recognize polygamous relationships using the existing common law? Such things as property rights when you're talking about a union of, say, 10 people would strike me as rather knotty, and that's not even getting into the parental rights of such a union. Would a child be considered to have 10 parents?

Of course we'd probably have to rewrite all the tax laws as well, but that seems to be a secondary issue.

A corporation is not a family. The kinds of rights that are assumed, read in either by the common law or statute, or 'standard' simply don't match the needs of people who wish to be recognised as a family.

True, but corporations are not the only type of civil society that exist. Try looking at the structures and agreements that are used in the creation of cooperatives or friendly societies etc. There is plenty of precedence in the creation of legal persons to allow they type of agreements you seem to be arguing for, without necessarily having to enact new laws.

True, but corporations are not the only type of civil society that exist. Try looking at the structures and agreements that are used in the creation of cooperatives or friendly societies etc. There is plenty of precedence in the creation of legal persons to allow they type of agreements you seem to be arguing for, without necessarily having to enact new laws.

Ah, but the fundamental problem with cooperatives, societies and associations is that they are not incorporated, and have no legal 'personhood'.

As well, the entire point my quote was in response to a post that suggested a corporation could fulfill all the needs of an 'extended' family. Except it wouldn't BE a family, it would be a corporation, and as I just explained, there are certain things that you could not include, or that would not be assumed to be included in a corporation that a family would either get by default, or have rights to down the line.

Rather than bend corporation law all out of recognition, what is really so difficult about simply expanding the definition of 'family'?

I understand that. All I'm saying is, regardless of the size of your box, or what fits in it, I personally see 'no really compelling reason' to not 'keep it that way'
Yes, that's nice. I see no compelling reason to keep it that way.

Your reliance on inertia and the status quo is not even remotely persuasive when it actively denies people rights, and your only answer to that is 'well they were always denied those rights'.



Not terribly. Given that this debate is(for the most part, for now, in the U.S., which is really the only place whose laws I'm concerned with)going my way, I can afford to not get all heated about it. Besides, my belief in the laws of God will always trump my belief in the laws of man.
The laws are changing in your land, my friend. And your belief in the 'laws of God' are nice, but don't reflect reality. So unless you actively live in a fairy tale land where you can ignore the laws of man, you're bound by them.


But thanks for admitting you have no understanding of the history of marriage.

Neesika, you are proposing this for selfish purposes aren't you? Obviously...I want to marry you guys!

My personal functioning definition of family:
Those who are raised, and those who do the raising.


the failing of this are families that do not have any form of offspring (though, I'm not entirely positive that I qualify a married couple alone as a family...not sure why). The success of it is the effective incorporation of every other family structure I can think of.
Are children the necessary link? Do you really think that adults, living together, are not a family?

I think the definition of 'interdependence' works better for me. It doesn't make it necessary to have 'offspring', just people who are honestly interdependent, regardless of whether they are siblings, lovers, or spinster friends in a house full of cats (no, I don't count the cats as part of the 'family').

Considering that interdependence, as a legal term, is about rights AND responsibilities, I don`t believe it`s something entered into lightly.

My wife and I consider ourselves, including our cats, a family. When we marry Neesika and her man, we'll be a bigger family.
And a bigger house!
I'm out of my depth here, but don't you run into thorny problems when you recognize polygamous relationships using the existing common law? Such things as property rights when you're talking about a union of, say, 10 people would strike me as rather knotty, and that's not even getting into the parental rights of such a union. Would a child be considered to have 10 parents?

Of course we'd probably have to rewrite all the tax laws as well, but that seems to be a secondary issue.

It would take a reworking of the system, yes. But it wouldn`t break it. As I pointed out, in Alberta, we don`t have common law marriages....we have Adult Interdependent Relationships that can be between lovers, siblings, roomates...whomever (adults only though), and which grant the same sort of rights common law couples generally enjoy. All it took was an expansion of the terms.

Add more people into the mix...yes, you`ve complicated it. But the law loves complication, and there is no way that complication alone is a valid reason to deny this expansion.

But the law loves complication
Well, the lawyers love complication.

It would take a reworking of the system, yes. But it wouldn`t break it. As I pointed out, in Alberta, we don`t have common law marriages....we have Adult Interdependent Relationships that can be between lovers, siblings, roomates...whomever (adults only though), and which grant the same sort of rights common law couples generally enjoy. All it took was an expansion of the terms.

Add more people into the mix...yes, you`ve complicated it. But the law loves complication, and there is no way that complication alone is a valid reason to deny this expansion.

From the link you posted, though, the AIP relationship is an exclusive one that applies to exactly two people. That's exactly one relationship. With three people, you have three relationships, and with ten people...I hate math...45 relationships. It's all very well to have 45 (or 45K) relationships in an entity such as a corporation, but families don't work like corporations -- for one thing, they have involuntary members.

I've run into this argument before, and while I agree that complication alone may not be sufficient reason to deny the legal expansion of family, I also don't think that it's something to which the state can just expand the special status of family and hope things work out for the best.

Are children the necessary link? Do you really think that adults, living together, are not a family?

I think the definition of 'interdependence' works better for me. It doesn't make it necessary to have 'offspring', just people who are honestly interdependent, regardless of whether they are siblings, lovers, or spinster friends in a house full of cats (no, I don't count the cats as part of the 'family').

You know, I've really never had to deal with childless partners in any of my considerations untill now (part of having every class working into an education basis).

Did having my sister make my mother and father any more family than they had been before? Well, possibly, but no, I suppose that doesn't inherently mean they wern't a "family" before her conception.

My wife and I consider ourselves, including our cats, a family. When we marry Neesika and her man, we'll be a bigger family.
Really, that's about all the convincing I needed.


Sadly easy debate, eh?

Well, the lawyers love complication.

Yes and the law is populated by lawyers, and judges who used to be lawyers, and politicians who used to be lawyers.

It's a self-perpetuating love of complication.

From the link you posted, though, the AIP relationship is an exclusive one that applies to exactly two people. That's exactly one relationship. With three people, you have three relationships, and with ten people...I hate math...45 relationships. It's all very well to have 45 (or 45K) relationships in an entity such as a corporation, but families don't work like corporations -- for one thing, they have involuntary members.

I've run into this argument before, and while I agree that complication alone may not be sufficient reason to deny the legal expansion of family, I also don't think that it's something to which the state can just expand the special status of family and hope things work out for the best.

Let me ask you this.

You have a mother, a father, two children...and the adult brother of the mother, all living in a house together.

As the law stands, unless the brother is a 'dependent', he has no legal status as part of the family.

Is that just? Does it make sense? Is it really so complicated, in your opinion, to include him as a family member?

On the face of it, yes, it seems more complicated to automatically include the adult brother as part of the family than to have one or more formal, limited agreements which define his parental and ownership rights. The second option may be more difficult to set up but under current family law it would have fewer headaches than the first option.

Also, I believe it makes sense -- there could be a hundred different varieties of relationship that the mom & dad want to have with the brother (and vice versa) so their having more ability to customize their relationships makes more sense.

Is it just? I don't see it as being unjust. It's quite possible that I'm not seeing the obvious. If you see it as being unjust, could you explain further?

Again, please keep in mind that I'm neither a lawyer nor a student of law. My experience with family law is limited to trying to clean up the messes created by deceased or divorcing individuals who haven't properly expressed their wishes regarding their property. (Nobody wants to pay the lawyers, so a lot of things end up getting done by the money guys.) So my bias is towards a clear, formalized expression of rights and duties in instances where there may be a conflict.

Obviously...I want to marry you guys!

And a bigger house!



I could easily see that happening. :fluffle:



Really, that's about all the convincing I needed.


Sadly easy debate, eh?


Heh, you so easy. Were all related aren't we? If all life sprang from a single source anyway.

Robert Heinlein in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress)" defined his two principal purposes of marriage:

Preservation of capital
Protection of children

Along those lines, he proceeded to describe any number of arrangements that would work: Monogamous, polygamy, polyandry, clans, line marriage.

His protagonist, Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis, is a member of a Line marriage. Husbands and wives are opted in over time, usually alternating between male and female, but not rigidly so. The result was a stable family business with members aged from 18 to 80 and beyond. The preserved capital from the arrangement allowed each child to receive some financial support upon reached maturity, possibly to start their own business, possibly as dowry, whatever it took. While such a Line had 'children' much older than husbands and wives, the kids typically moved out around 18 or so.

The important fact for the Davis Line was that it worked for them. Neighbors in Clans or Polyandries were fine with them. Marriage is nobody's business but the participants.

While traditionalists here might think the emotional aspects would be unworkable, I don't think you can have a opinion until you've observed or practiced it yourself. I know that my own marriage didn't fit a traditional model, and it might have lasted longer if we'd been able to open it up to other people without society stomping over our approach.

Heinlein started on the Moon where there were no lawyers. I think getting the law out of the equation is an essential part of this discussion.

Your reliance on inertia and the status quo is not even remotely persuasive when it actively denies people rights, and your only answer to that is 'well they were always denied those rights'.

Firstly, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, being able to recognize an fixed and unaltering point of view when I see one. Hell, if I wanted to bang my head against a stone wall I could try and get The New York Times to admit that Joe McCarthy was a patriot and not the Devil Incarnate. Secondly, I'm not denying anybody 'rights' because getting married isn't a 'right.'

And your belief in the 'laws of God' are nice, but don't reflect reality.

Really. Well, it's a good thing you came along and told me that, otherwise I'd never have known that my entire life and world view was based on a lie.

So unless you actively live in a fairy tale land where you can ignore the laws of man, you're bound by them.

While it's true we have to 'render unto Caesar', where and when they conflict, the laws of God will always trump the laws of man.

But thanks for admitting you have no understanding of the history of marriage.

I did nothing of the sort, all I 'admitted' was a disinclination to enter in to a long, dry argument about legalities, which, given the difference in the American and Canadian legal codes, would have been an exercise in futility.