“On what basis can society justify involving itself, through government, in marriage--and to what extent is that involvement necessary?”
Do we really need governmental sanction for the union between man and wife? What of gay marriage or other alternatives? Would this matter be best resolved by removing marriage from the government’s business altogether? Since marriage is a religious concept, why not leave it entirely up to churches?
Certainly this country was founded by a religious population (mainly Protestant) but the forefathers were smart enough to realize that Protestantism was invented (rebelliously) because religion was tightly coupled with government politics (namely European), and consequently wrote provisions in the U.S. Constitution to keep the two separated. However, removing religion from the government did not destroy the purpose of the government--only limit it. Government still functions to promote the general welfare of the people (un-religiously), define and enforce law (un-religiously), and secure Liberty to its citizens.
To answer that, let’s take a look at what the result would be if marriage abode by the laissez-faire, libertarian principle. What would happen if the government left marriage alone? Obviously, gay marriage would instantly become legal across the board. In fact, ALL forms of marriage would become legal. Polygamist marriages, consensual incestuous marriages, same-sex marriages, bisexual-polygamist marriages--even child marriages would be permitted by the state.
I agree. Government should be involved with marriage -- for legal matters. So should churches, family, friends, ..., everyone you can muster up that has a vested interest in marriage. The more the merrier. But some people just go to Las Vegas, file for marriage online, or just let Common Law kick in. After marriage, the government is just a party that is supposed to be unbiased when vows are broken. But everyone gets involved because its a lot easier to keep your vows (a kind of psychological protection or insurance) when you realize that it's not just a promise to your spouse, but also a promise to everyone else around you that you value, such as family, friends, workers, and if you wish, God, priests, et al. For my marriage, I've also included myself as part of the promise I made.
Put this proposition to the American people, and the first question they would ask would be: “Even child marriages?” To that, we’d have to answer: “Well, yes. We forbade the government from touching this issue anymore, remember? Government can’t get involved. We left it up to the churches--and there’s a separation of church and state, don’t ya know?” This will not be an acceptable answer to 99.99% of the American public. They will demand immediately that government get involved and put an age limit on marriage. And there you have it. With that, marriage moves from a religious principle untouched by the state, to a societal one with governmental supervision. Marriage becomes a state interest.
Again, I agree. Government should be involved in marriage; especially to prevent child marriages, and polygamy, which I assume exists for legal simplification (or logistics) of divorce, dispute settling, and filing joint taxes.
So I believe that the real purpose of marriage, historically, is to sanction sex by society -- not to promote children -- that side effect is an implied probability. Our conservative Catholic history originally defined marriage as "the only legal permission for having sex." You pretty much got one shot at it with one person, with the exception of death. Any violation of this rule was subject to the most harsh punishments--humiliation, excommunication, banishment, imprisonment, and often death. Later, annulment was invented for marketing purposes. Soon after, the Protestants discovered that they couldn't commit to a single person for a lifetime, and decided split off and change the religion (well, invent a new flavor) that kept all the previous tenets of marriage, but changed the implied meaning of till death do you part to till one of you decides to publicly call the whole thing off. The words in the vows remained unchanged, but the meaning changed. Marriage was still a sanction for sex. You were not allowed to have premarital sex, or allowed to have sex with someone that you were not legally given permission.
Today, modern countries have separated the laws for legal sex from the laws for legal marriage. I have yet to find a country in which the legal age for marriage does not match the legal age for sex. In the USA, its 18. Here are some modern US laws that prohibit sex: * you cannot have sex if you are under 18 * you cannot charge money for sex * if you are married and you have sex with someone other than your spouse and your spouse complains, your spouse can punish with divorce most economically in his or her favor. You see, we've gotten quite lax with our laws about sex. But the government gives other benefits for marriage. Your spouse has implied Power of Attorney, without having to visit a lawyer. If one dies, or is hospitalized, the other gets to make tricky decisions, inherit wealth and property, assume tax benefits, and continue getting retirement funds. None of this has anything explicitly to do with sex. It's all about property ownership. Some old couples get married just so one spouse can inherit tax-free and assume retirement funds. Children are another reason for marriage -- not solely to create them, but to have guardianship over them. The surviving spouse gets the children, regardless of whether the children are his or hers.
Do you accept this premise, when it comes to governmentally-imposed age limits?
Yes. But I think the big point that I was trying to make in this entire debate was that (1) Alan Keyes was trying very hard to convince me that marriage was all about children, and I could name many reasons (in previous posts) why this is not just the case, (2) I don't believe that it is right for the government today to discriminate against one's sexual preference in defining today's usage (not ancient definitions) of marriage, providing that two gay couples are in all other respects legally allowed to marry; i.e. at legal age, not already married, etc. I drive this point home by pointing out that today gays legally can * adopt children * get Power of Attorney * have sex with each other * kiss in public * hold hands in public * have television shows dedicated to their gayness * publicly announce that they are gay * sue companies and the military for discriminating against them, etc. (3) The government already promotes and subsidizes children by giving legal guardians tax benefits (and welfare) based on the number of children they have, and not on whether the parent is single, or married, or gay, etc. It is this point that George Bush (who I love) will never get a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as proposed.
In lieu of all these facts, common practices, and society mores, I find the argument against gay marriage hypocritical at least. Personally, no one else's marriage threatens my marriage. Mine is covenant with God and is therefore immune to all this fluff. If it were not, then certainly the concept of legal divorce would be a million times more threatening to my marriage than the concept of gay marriage.
I'm interested in where your line of reasoning will continue now that I have answered your questions. Your turn...
Let’s analyze that thought. Which legal matters do you mean?
Power of attorney? You don’t need marriage for that. You could legally grant anyone close to you that privilege.
Inheritance after death? Technically, marriage isn’t needed for this one, either. Look at Raymond Burr. After his death in 1993, his homosexual “partner” inherited the wine orchard and other properties. They didn’t need marriage for that. As you know, any person could be named in a will.
Medical decision-making? That’s what health-care proxies have been established for. Non-married persons can name a health-care proxy to make healthcare decisions in case of emergency. Again, marriage isn’t needed here.
Co-ownership of property? This can be easily drawn up in a contractual agreement, without marriage.
Social Security and welfare benefits? This might be one minor case in which marriage has a benefit denied to unmarried partners. However, if this is the purpose for marriage, can you imagine the romantic wedding proposal, “Marry me, and we’ll share our Social Security checks”? “Marry me, and I’ll put you on the government dole”? The persons involved might as well stay single, and collect their government checks independently.
It makes no sense to say marriage is instituted by society solely for financial reasons, when a romantic couple is better off financially without getting married. There are great benefits to being unmarried. Unmarried couples pay less in federal taxes, are not automatically responsible for one another’s debts or medical bills, and share a lower Social Security burden. In addition, concerns about shared income are resolved by legal contracts.
In the long run, unmarried partnerships are legally less messy than marriage, given the lack of responsibility involved. Once you split, you take what’s yours, along with your share of co-owned property--just as in any business relationship. Unmarried couples are more likely to enter into legal agreements concerning property, medical wishes, and legal authority. These benefits have contributed to the rise of unmarried cohabitation.
With all these benefits to being unmarried, who needs marriage, after all? What is the purpose of governmental involvement in marriage?
Government should be involved in marriage; especially to prevent child marriages, and polygamy, which I assume exists for legal simplification (or logistics) of divorce, dispute settling, and filing joint taxes.
Polygamy, along with child marriages and incestuous marriages, were outlawed before the “filing of taxes” existed. Prior to the 20th century, paying taxes was a simple affair with no correlation to marriage. Simplicity in filing taxes was, it’s safe to say, far from the minds of Congress when, in 1862, it outlawed polygamy in Utah. Divorce was also very rare at the time, and was not a factor in the debates against polygamy. The settling of disputes was also a non-factor in outlawing alternative marriages. Simplifying disputes hardly seems a justifiable basis for making laws that discriminate against whole groups of citizens. Discriminatory laws must have a basis greater than convenience.
That aside, let’s assume you are correct. Let’s assume that the only reason to outlaw polygamy is because it complicates legal disputes, divorce, and taxes.
If this is true, we are saying the most complicated kinds of marriages should be outlawed. Guess what? That doesn’t bode well for same-sex marriages. Marrying persons together of the same sex tops the list of complications. At least in polygamy, matters of child custody could be settled as in traditional, two-parent marriage. The dispute in polygamist divorce would center on the birth parents--a relatively simple matter for the court to decide. As we have seen in gay relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a lesbian relationship, there’s not just the two women fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father’s rights take precedence over his ex-wife’s gay ex-partner’s rights? (Can you even follow that statement?) What if that father has been absent in his child’s life? What if the biological mother was the bread-winner, while her gay ex-partner stayed home and raised the kids? Does the gay ex-partner have any claim to the children she has been raising, even though they technically do not belong to her?
Same-sex marriage is inherently messy legally--the most messy legally, in fact, of all potential unions.
Obviously, you can no longer believe your own proposition that the legality of alternative marriages depends upon the complications they present. You’ll have to drop that premise.
Can you think of any other legal basis for discriminating against those wanting polygamy, underage marriage, and incestuous marriage?
So I believe that the real purpose of marriage, historically, is to sanction sex by society -- not to promote children -- that side effect is an implied probability.
Implied only in the man/woman relationship, you forgot to say.
Our conservative Catholic history originally defined marriage as "the only legal permission for having sex."
As does the Word of God in scripture.
But that’s beside the point. Here you’re bringing religion into the argument, as though there was no inherent state interest in the union. Do you see a state interest, a societal purpose, for government to sanction marriage? If marriage is just about romance, and if financial issues can be resolved by legal contracts, government should get out of the way, as it does in all our other friendships and associations. Wouldn’t you agree?
Today, modern countries have separated the laws for legal sex from the laws for legal marriage. I have yet to find a country in which the legal age for marriage does not match the legal age for sex. In the USA, its 18.
You’re uninformed on this point. Several states allow marriage for 16- 17-year-olds, without changing laws against statutory rape. A number of states allow marriage at age 15, under court sanction. Missouri implies marriageable age can be even lower, with court sanction. South Carolina allows marriage for girls as young as 14, and New Hampshire at age 13. Texas allows it for age 14-17 under fairly lenient conditions, with no court sanction required.
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml
I don't believe that it is right for the government today to discriminate against one's sexual preference in defining today's usage (not ancient definitions) of marriage
Here, again, you will need to modify your premise. You have already amply established that, contrary to this statement, you do, indeed, believe that government can “discriminate against one’s sexual preference.” You give preferential treatment to same-sex unions, yet oppose plural unions, underage unions, and incestuous unions, even when you declare some of these unions do no harm. You oppose these marriages, all the while stating, “Personally, no one else's marriage threatens my marriage.”
I would like a non-contradictory, judicious argument from you explaining why gay unions can be supported, while other “sexual preferences” remain opposed by law.
I drive this point home by pointing out that today gays legally can * adopt children * get Power of Attorney * have sex with each other * kiss in public * hold hands in public * have television shows dedicated to their gayness * publicly announce that they are gay * sue companies and the military for discriminating against them, etc.
The point you make undoes your point. It shows that society has no need to offer homosexuals marriage. They already enjoy more rights than polygamists, who live in seclusion, and who have been subject to laws barring them from the right to vote and to run for office, and even from being aided indirectly by others.
Either we offer marriage to all who want it, or we have restrictions. If we have restrictions, there must be a ethically sound, justifiable basis for such discrimination. What is it?