Guard Dad said:
lotstodo said:
i strongly disagree on the origins of government's involvement in the act of "marriage". For centuries it was a word used for a private contract between families. Think ten goats and a donkey for a daughter's hand in marriage. In the United States, the concept of English common law marriage persisted until after the civil war when the new concept of a state license was employed not to promote the institution of commitment, but to prevent interracial marriages. At the turn of the 20th century, only about half of the states even had marriage licenses. The states licensure involvement in marriage is anything but an outgrowth of "promoting the general welfare". It was an intentional restriction. The proper places to promote what we might think of as traditional values would be the home and the church.
In a free market society it is not unreasonable to assume that in order for a partnership to receive any benefits afforded a partnership, that proof in the form of a contract be presented. As you know, that is the sometimes the case in business partnerships. I have no problem with the concept of private contract, but I do with the concept of government licensure. When the government declares one condition valid, it by default invalidates all other conditions. It picks winners and losers, usually with vast unintended consequences. Insurance benefits were originally a product of free market competition for quality employees. They are now ingrained in our society, and those benefits would likely continue upon proof of contract, no government involvement necessary. In fact, as I see it, right now the government through Obamacare is the biggest threat to private insurance benefits.
As for government provided "benefits", I personally think that there is no such thing as a government "benefit" because of the unseen costs, and that all so called programs should be eliminated in ways that would not penalize those already forced to participate. But putting that aside for the moment, write a simple law stating that for legal purposes, the word "marriage" be equated with any duly signed and witnessed domestic partnership agreement in all dealings with government.
I would leave private industry and religious groups to decide the matter for themselves. I would expect businesses to go along with the concept and religious groups to continue as they have.
Perhaps "origins of government involvement" was not the best phrase. But it seems pretty clear that the perks given to married people were to promote traditional families and reproduction. Whether or not that was successful could be another discussion.
But I do think we should consider the repercussions of government no longer licensing marriage. Some questions that come to mind;
-Without a marriage contract, dissolving a relationship would be no different than a dating couple breaking up. No legal binds to consider.
-Without marriage, what would be the standard or threshold to base things like spousal benefits, inheritance, or beneficiary on?
-Without marriage, would he illegitimacy rate not be worse still?
I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. This would significantly affect the basis of our social foundation. Yes, we could do civil unions instead; but I ask again, what is the difference? Government is still licensing them.
Allowing something to occur and licensing it are no where near the same thing.
I didn't say no contract, I said no LICENSE. Big difference. The government, through the civil courts, decides matters of contractual law every day. This has nothing to do with the possession of a license. Partnership benefits, inheritance, dissolution of the partnership, etc. can all be spelled out in whatever agreement a pair chooses to draft and sign. It's quite likely that a few boilerplate agreements would evolve.
The act of marriage usually consists of three parts:
1) A government license
2) A contract, implied through license, common law, or written.
3) A commitment ceremony either religious or civil.
The part that is causing all the hubbub is number 1. Do away with number 1 and poof, the problem disappears. You are "married" if you sign a domestic partnership agreement or meet the requirements of common law marriage. This applies to everyone equally. Those wishing the protection of contract law should sign an agreement.
The government does not decide what is right and what is wrong, society does. In fact, governments are the chief perpetrator of wrongs in the history of the world. If you are relying upon government to tell you what is right, you are certainly barking up the wrong tree. Government can be neither blamed for or asked to resolve what we might view as the downfall of the traditional family unit. A hundred years ago, extended families lived together. I remember my Grandmother telling us about how her whole family used to live together in a large house with her grandparents and how nice that was. That all changed, and her generation lamented the fact that they were unable to live with or at least very near her children and grandchildren.
I grew up in the 50's and 60's. I watched "Leave It to Beaver" and "My Three Sons". But America was changing, women were returning to work. Mobility, and technology was forever changing how we live. June Cleaver isn't home taking care of the Beve any more, and government isn't going to fix that. Government has no place in the marriage business. It serves no useful purpose.
) )