If you don't care about any of that and love another person, place, thing, or idea, you can just announce you're married to him/her/it without recognition from the government and just sort of be together.
If you don't care about any of that and love another person, place, thing, or idea, you can just announce you're married to him/her/it without recognition from the government and just sort of be together.
Isn't your body your body as opposed to requesting the government permission to marry?
I understand that it's required for recognition, but isn't it time we at least imply marriage is just a matter of recording instead of a formal permitting process?
There are green card marriages.
In the case of the first, we have decided that we will still give the kid citizenship. In the case of the second, we don't allow it (if we catch it).
I'm pretty sure you can marry without a marriage license. You just aren't legally married, i.e. you don't get all the legal benefits.
Why do we let the government deny our marriages in the first place? The law should be changed so that we record and acknowledge marriages, not have a bureau officer approve or deny it.
When you buy real estate, you simply record it. You don't need governmental approval to buy property as far as I know. You will, though, have to pay property tax.
It wasn't the fact it was an "application" that was the problem - you could just say "previously some states refused to register same sex marriages" instead of "previously some states refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples" and it means the same thing.
The Lovings (of Loving v Virgina) were arrested for getting married in DC.
I can apply for a liquor license and the state ABC can refuse to give me a liquor license or refuse to register a liquor license and it means the same thing.
- Only 1 marriage at a time.
- Must be old enough.
- Must not be too closely related.
- Etc..
The marriage license handles the step of verifying those things. It's mostly a formality.
> A marriage should be recognized in the same manner that we issue a birth certificate
In the case of a birth there is a clear indisputable fact: a child is born, therefore a new human being that must be taken care of and have rights as a citizen is added to the world.
That's a pretty clear event to which a birth certificate can be attached. Is there such an equivalent for marriage?
Edit: I would like to know why you might disagree if you are down voting me. yellowapple and I have similar sentiments, I think.
Why just two? Why people?
And what exactly is the reason for the State to recognise that two folks like to bump uglies? At lease in the case of traditional marriage, there's the creation of children to contend with.
Huh? Sterile people have always been permitted to marry. Always. Everywhere. Under all circumstances. Ever. Sometimes inability to bear children has been grounds for divorce or--in the case of royalty--annulment, but there has never anywhere been a test for non-sterility prior to marriage. So what does "the creation of children" have to do with "traditional marriage", given "traditional marriage" could and did trivially take place between sterile individuals.
And whose tradition? One man, one woman, the man's concubines, the odd houseslave, and perhaps a sheep or two? Is that the traditional marriage you're talking about? It's by far the most common kind over most of the world before industrial capitalism.
"Why just two people?" is of course trivially easily answered: humans are a socially pair-bonded species. This seems to be basic to our biology, and is the case in every society ever observed. While bonds between more individuals are possible, they are rare and complicated (the modern poly community is small, for example, and most frequently consists of multi-pair-bonded networks).
Not just royalty. An annulment means that there was never a marriage…because a marriage which cannot produce children wasn't regarded as a marriage (or as less of one), which suffices to demonstrate a strong connexion between childbearing and marriage.
> "Why just two people?" is of course trivially easily answered: humans are a socially pair-bonded species.
We are also, you may have noticed, two-sexed. This is even more basic to our biology.
Is walking into the courthouse hand-in-hand stating "We're married now; could you record that fact?" not such an equivalent?
Because you're applying for an official recognition of your marriage for which the government grants various benefits, and the government can in fact refuse it (for siblings for instance)
Yes, many religions are against sibling marriages, but many religions are also against same-sex marriage.
Most of the US puts a value judgement on incestual relationships and I can't say I agree with them, but I do believe there is an argument to be made against incestual marriage: because of the genetic risks to offsprings and the historical tendency to abuse, it is not in the state's interest to promote or encourage incestual relationships through marriage, the social advantages don't compensate for the issues.
> Or are you saying the government should still deny those marriages?
For the reasons above, yes I would say that. But I'm open to the idea that it's only a rationalisation of separately-held beliefs.
Interestingly, Americans love pure-bred dogs despite the genetic problems these pets have.
Why so? That's pretty much what the state does, it provides advantages for situations it wants to see happen more (tax breaks for instance, dispensations or fast tracks, direct monetary grants) and disadvantages for those it doesn't (fines and privation of liberty, mostly). Would you find replacing "the state" by "society" more palatable?
What about "traditional" opposite-sex marriages where children are not produced within the optimal reproductive age window? Should we take away their "advantages"?
Why do you believe creating children is the only social value of marriage? If it figures there at all, it's very low on the totem pole, after all society could simply subsidise rape if that were the point.
Yes indeed, and then you wrote something completely irrelevant.
> Why so? That's pretty much what the state does, it provides advantages for situations it wants to see happen more (tax breaks for instance, dispensations or fast tracks, direct monetary grants) and disadvantages for those it doesn't (fines and privation of liberty, mostly). Would you find replacing "the state" by "society" more palatable?
Said crippled children are often a drain on society. It's not the children's fault of course, but it's still the case.
Because you cannot be married to two different people at the same time. Marriage is not an event that happens, it's a legal contract that cannot be in conflict with an existing legal contract. A new marriage does not immediately nullify the existing contract, so an application must be processed to verify this.
There are also other things that need to be verified like age.
Since we have denied same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds, are we saying we should deny the right for a man to marry multiple men or women or a woman to marry multiple men or women because of our beliefs? Isn't that the same reason that we're denying same-sex marriage(s)?
Age verification is OK, since minors aren't recognized to be capable of forming contracts.
[1] Jacob was married to multiple wives.
If this view is outdated, and our laws against polygamy are causing people real pain, then by all means let them make their case; perhaps times have changed. But we do not make laws in the abstract, and polygamy in the USA is intimately connected to subjugation, abuse, FLDS, and other ugliness.
Inheritance should be simple enough with normal contracts, regardless of marriage (same goes for hospital visitation and medical decision-making, which you didn't mention). Immigration is already completely arbitrary, at the whim of the government. The government could change the immigration effects of marriage just as easily as changing who can get married. That brings us to taxes. Well, that's already an extremely obvious violation of the equal protection clause. Why should married people's taxes be any different than single people's taxes?
Should be, but isn't. Gay couples have been having expensive lawyers write these contracts for twenty years or so and when push comes to shove, they often don't mean shit. That's why we have been pushing for marriage rights.
The other issue is divorce. I know someone who is going through the end of a messy breakup with his long-term boyfriend. They met before marriage or civil partnership were a thing and the process of untangling shared assets, property, mortgages and so on is really complicated.
Yes. It's a shortcut, and I completely understand why people want to take it.
Divorce is pretty easy compared to marriage. Like you said, it's just figuring out who gets what...
No. United State v Windsor (the DOMA case) proved that. Spouses have estate tax exemptions. Windsor sued the IRS for $363,053 in estate taxes that she paid to them because the IRS didn't recognize her and her wife as legally married for tax purposes even thought New York did.
Civil marriage is a form of a "normal contract."