Is this bad? I understand marriage as a religious rite. I've never understood why the government cares enough to give tax, finance and legal incentives to married couples...
A married couple is a hell of a lot better than single parents for raising kids. The government wants functional kids because functional kids grow up, have jobs, don't revolt, don't engage in petty crime, have careers, pay taxes, etc, etc.
Americans seem perfectly normal in that regard. Maybe your part of the world is unusual?
Is this true? Perhaps is it that two-parent families are better for raising kids? Or is it a function of household income?
Is marriage just being treated as shorthand for a lot of things it isn't necessary for?
edit: misunderstood what the the parent meant.
It's hard to separate those, and there's plenty of intuition for why two parents might be better in addition to household income: e.g., availability of at least one parent at any given time.
> Is marriage just being treated as shorthand for a lot of things it isn't necessary for?
I agree that these benefits are more likely the result of two-parent families rather than anything to do with the ritual of marriage.
Plus, divorced parents coparenting is not the same as single parent - the large financial pressure on parent is much smaller.
In the case of two earners, it also significantly reduces risk in a world where most people are paid a single salary or wage rather than having many customers.
As a more concrete example, in the US we need a working population to support the Social Security of the retired population.
When these rules were being created, people assumed that children are better off in home with two married parents and that people are more likely to have children if they are married. So it made sense for the government to encourage marriage with the incentives you mentioned.
Of course, you may want to argue those assumptions now. But that is beyond the scope of my comment.
Now, you might argue that children can be born and raised outside of marriage, and that is true. However, until very recently that was considered extremely bad. Current consensus is still that children benefit significantly from two stable parental figures.
It would have been better in hindsight if the U.S. had done what other governments around the world had done and called every contract it deals with a ‘civil union.’
Then there would be no confusion that ‘civil union’ has nothing to do with religion.
For one spouse staying at home, they would now qualify for all forms of assistance and tax credits. Balance that against the single earner's reduced break points on marginal taxes and the status quo probably brings in more money to the government.
Of course it looks like big incentives when you don't look at the penalties from being married.
Pre-marital assets are generally not community property, so, no. You could lose half your during-the-marriage earnings, but you specifically mentioned pre-marital financial assets.
A prenup is fundamentally a discussion between two people, that love each other enough to marry, on how they will treat each other in the event of divorce. I would much rather have an uncomfortable discussion before marriage with the woman who loves me enough to marry me, than to leave my fate in the hands of a woman who hates me enough to divorce me.
A solid and fair prenup would be a hard requirement for me to get married.
No, only half your savings after getting married. If you started the marriage with 0, tough luck, I guess.
- I love her and want good things for her right now. That may change after years go by. But there's no reason to ignore how I feel now and make decisions based on how I might feel a long time away.
- Symbolism is important. It might not be tangible, but you can't deny it has effects in the world.
They generally don’t, and it’s shown in the data where higher earning couples marry each other. But it’s not strictly about money, the spouse can also be bringing outsized looks, family wealth, connections, or other achievements.
there are many other areas of life where it is useful to government to have a backup person responsible for your life. Note that if you are not married but living together that might be because you don't trust the other person with those decisions...
It used to be like that. Nowadays religions have little to no influence on marriage. Most people don't actually practice what the texts prescribe.
As if unmarried people cannot be couples and have kids.
Marriage is social institution that can have religious artefacts or governance, it's not specifically a religious thing per sey.
Marriage-like institutions (i.e. formalized cohabitation + commitment + usually children) is a social concept that transcends most cultures, traditions, religions.
'Religion' or at least the 'applied' or 'civic' parts of religion, in some places came to embody the social governance of that institution, particularly in the West.
There are no 'formal marriage rituals' in Buddhism at least in the way we'd understand that in other faiths - it's literally a 'secular institution' in their view [1]. (They have blessing rituals etc. they're not marrying you)
In some places, the Religious Clerics manage it, in others the Civic Cleric, in other places, both.
Someone mentioned 'it's a legal thing in the US' - which isn't quite right either.
A 'marriage contract' is a civic formalization of the social institution, used in some places wherein the civil state governs the rules about it.
Even language such as 'right to be married' is really misleading: 'the right to have a recognized marriage' would be more appropriate.
Edit: To help your understanding: 'Sweden' is the formalized state of the 'Swedish people' (historically ethnic group). But if there were no formal nation state, the area 'where the Swedes live' may still be referred to possibly as 'Sweden' ie a social construct exists without formal recognition. Some aboriginal communities to this use the the term 'Nation' to describe their people, even with there are no civic formalities involved. The point being 'a Nation' exists independant of formal recognition, which is a civic construct. Marriages are an ancient kind of social organization and existed long before we developed the civic (or religious) notion of 'law'.