Should the state be involved in marriages?

[otseng]

Should the state grant/register/define marriages? Why or why not?

What level of involvement should the state be in regards to marriages?

[Dilettante]

OK, I see what you mean. What you say is definitely true of the US, but I think this forum has a more universal scope. Besides, we are hypothesizing about how things could or should be, so we are not limited by present-day practice.

Also, as I mentioned before, marriage has also been around longer than civil laws and longer than the State, so perhaps there is no reason the State should have control over it. Perhaps marriage doesn't need the church or the State. Or, alternatively, if the only purposes of marriage are, as you wrote, the transmission of property and inheritance rights, it may well be a superfluous institution. After all, we could take care of property and inheritance rights through private contracts unrelated to marriage. At least in my country, children born out of wedlock have the same inheritance rights as those born of married parents, and marriage does not always entail communal property--each spouse may choose to keep their property to him/herself.

But marriage is more than that. It's about creating kinship ties (between previously unrelated families) and responsibilities. So I'd say that the marriage institution is still necessary and will probably continue to be in the future.

[Cephus]

OK, I see what you mean. What you say is definitely true of the US, but I think this forum has a more universal scope. Besides, we are hypothesizing about how things could or should be, so we are not limited by present-day practice.

That may be true, but I can only speak for what goes on in the US. Besides, if you want to start talking about religion controlling marriage, I have to ask... which religion? Yours? Why? Maybe we should start letting ancient pagan religions control it, they've been around a heck of a lot longer than Christianity.

Also, as I mentioned before, marriage has also been around longer than civil laws and longer than the State, so perhaps there is no reason the State should have control over it. Perhaps marriage doesn't need the church or the State. Or, alternatively, if the only purposes of marriage are, as you wrote, the transmission of property and inheritance rights, it may well be a superfluous institution. After all, we could take care of property and inheritance rights through private contracts unrelated to marriage. At least in my country, children born out of wedlock have the same inheritance rights as those born of married parents, and marriage does not always entail communal property--each spouse may choose to keep their property to him/herself.

If marriage doesn't need the church or the state, then why should anyone be able to deny others the right to marriage on religious grounds? And those are the only legal reasons to get married. Certainly people can decide, on their own, to do things outside of the legal norm and that's fine, but a marriage license does guarantee all of those things and those typically take precidence over other forms of civil agreements. As much as it is possible to do things through private contracts, those contracts are much easier to break through lawsuit than the marriage license.

But marriage is more than that. It's about creating kinship ties (between previously unrelated families) and responsibilities. So I'd say that the marriage institution is still necessary and will probably continue to be in the future.

Oh, I never said it's not necessary, I think it is essential, I just don't think that having one sectarian religious group telling everyone who can and who cannot get married based on their own religious beliefs is utterly ludicrous. Christians can decide what goes on in their church, they can decide who can and cannot get married within their walls. They can decide who can and cannot join. They cannot, however, impose their religious beliefs on those who do not share them, however, nor can they force society at large to live under their thumb. I don't care how strongly they believe homosexuality is a sin or whatever, they have no right to deny equality to all citizens.

[Dilettante]

Cephus, I never said that any particular religion should have control over the definition of marriage. After all, the definition of marriage is societal and cultural. There have been many types of marriage in history and marriage still varies across cultures. I wasn't suggesting we should impose uniformity worldwide.

[Cephus]

Cephus, I never said that any particular religion should have control over the definition of marriage. After all, the definition of marriage is societal and cultural. There have been many types of marriage in history and marriage still varies across cultures. I wasn't suggesting we should impose uniformity worldwide.

No, but you can impose uniformity nationwide, as should be done within each nation. I'm saying that marriage should not be under the control of any religious group because those groups do not speak for the whole of society, only for themselves. The only one really capable of speaking for society is the government under which the society exists.

[Dilettante]

Rather than nationwide uniformity, in many countries marriage is becoming diverse. There are civil unions, de-facto unions (not full marriages), generative marriages, non-generative marriages (homosexual marriages and marriages of elderly people who are no longer fertile). I'm not saying this is good or bad (time will tell). All I'm saying is that marriage could survive without the State, as it did in ancient Rome.

[Cephus]

Rather than nationwide uniformity, in many countries marriage is becoming diverse. There are civil unions, de-facto unions (not full marriages), generative marriages, non-generative marriages (homosexual marriages and marriages of elderly people who are no longer fertile). I'm not saying this is good or bad (time will tell). All I'm saying is that marriage could survive without the State, as it did in ancient Rome.

This isn't ancient Rome.

Seriously though, if not for the benefits given by the state, why get married at all? Why not just live with someone without the ceremony or the paperwork? Seems that's what a lot of people are choosing to do today.

[Dilettante]

Cephus wrote:
This isn't ancient Rome.

[Dilettante]

Cephus wrote:

This isn't ancient Rome.

You're right. Unfortunately, that's all history. Sic transit gloria mundi

Seriously though, if not for the benefits given by the state, why get married at all? Why not just live with someone without the ceremony or the paperwork? Seems that's what a lot of people are choosing to do today.

I can think of a number of reasons...

1. Public Commitment. You're more likely to honor a documented promise made in public than one made in private and not recorded on paper. (Verba volant, scripta manent--excuse my Latin)

2. Creation of kinship ties/alliance between previously unrelated families.

3. Creation of stable, comfortable sexual partnership/friendship/companionship which saves us the stress of having to court new mates.

And there are probably more.

[Cephus]

1. Public Commitment. You're more likely to honor a documented promise made in public than one made in private and not recorded on paper. (Verba volant, scripta manent--excuse my Latin)

More than half of marriages today end in divorce, so I'm not seeing people paying a lot of attention to public commitment, sorry.

2. Creation of kinship ties/alliance between previously unrelated families.

None of which makes a bit of difference if it's not ratified legally. I see no reason why you have to have a piece of paper to make ties to other people. Friends do it all the time. I know I didn't need to be married to feel kinship toward my wife when I got engaged to her. I just got all the legal benefits thereof when we got married.

3. Creation of stable, comfortable sexual partnership/friendship/companionship which saves us the stress of having to court new mates.

None of which requires a marriage certificate. Amazingly enough, people are capable of forming monogamous relationships without the help of religion or the state. Being married doesn't stop people from sleeping around. Infidelity seems to be a major component in the failure rate of marriages, in fact.

And there are probably more.

I'm still not seeing anything that requires marriage. All of them can be just as easily achieved between two commited individuals (of any sex, in fact) without the need for a religious ceremony or a state-sponsored license.

We get back to the fact that the only thing marriage is good for are the legal benefits.

[Dilettante]

1. Public Commitment. You're more likely to honor a documented promise made in public than one made in private and not recorded on paper. (Verba volant, scripta manent--excuse my Latin)

More than half of marriages today end in divorce, so I'm not seeing people paying a lot of attention to public commitment, sorry.

I imagine the statistical data you are using refer to the US, but the question topic did not specify any particular country. It would help if we could find international statistics. Marriage failure rates are not nearly as high in my country (not that I can guarantee they will stay low forever, of course). What your statistics prove is that something is wrong with American marriage, not necessarily with marriage worldwide. I bet this has to do with the fact that Americans tend to marry at a younger age due to societal pressures, and that they tend to have rather unrealistic expectations of marriage, probably because of too many Hollywood movies (the media romanticize and idealize marriage, so if it's not just as perfect in real life, people become disillusioned).

Besides, there are two caveats: one is that "50% of marriages end in divorce" is not the same as "50% of Americans will eventually divorce". Many of those divorces involve previously divorced partners who fall into a lifetime pattern of re-marriage and re-divorce. Those low-commitment personalities could be distorting the statistical data. One could make a case that making marriage more difficult would improve things.
Another caveat is that no statistics are provided on how many non-married cohabiting couples break up, so it's hard to compare the success rates of marriages versus de facto unions.

2. Creation of kinship ties/alliance between previously unrelated families.

None of which makes a bit of difference if it's not ratified legally. I see no reason why you have to have a piece of paper to make ties to other people. Friends do it all the time. I know I didn't need to be married to feel kinship toward my wife when I got engaged to her. I just got all the legal benefits thereof when we got married.

I was talking about in-laws. If my wife and I weren't married, I would feel no obligation whatsoever toward my in-laws.

3. Creation of stable, comfortable sexual partnership/friendship/companionship which saves us the stress of having to court new mates.

None of which requires a marriage certificate. Amazingly enough, people are capable of forming monogamous relationships without the help of religion or the state. Being married doesn't stop people from sleeping around. Infidelity seems to be a major component in the failure rate of marriages, in fact.

And there are probably more.

I'm still not seeing anything that requires marriage. All of them can be just as easily achieved between two commited individuals (of any sex, in fact) without the need for a religious ceremony or a state-sponsored license.

I must admit you're right about this. But that would be "common-law marriage", which is a kind of marriage after all. You're also right that too many people are unfaithful. But is that a character flaw on the part of those people or is it the fault of the institution? I tend to think the former is more likely to be true.

We get back to the fact that the only thing marriage is good for are the legal benefits.

But is that a fact? The legal benefits are very important in some cases (such as when the spouses have different nationalities), less so in other cases. People still get married even in cases when the legal benefits are negligible.