The concept of Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/op...ontz.html?_r=1

Taking Marriage Private

Article Tools Sponsored By
By STEPHANIE COONTZ
Published: November 26, 2007

Olympia, Wash.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
John Korpics

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.

In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice were very rare.

Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people’s interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America’s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.

Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.

As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.

Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College, is the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

Sounds good to me.

I have been thinking about this alot as some of my friends have been getting engaged.

I love my girlfriend and love the concept of marriage, but I can no longer see the state's role in determining the legitimacy of a metaphysical concept (love). I used to be able to, but since marriage seems to be only a weak civil contract that extends the reach of government and private business now, I can't. We have excoriated any semblance of meaning. Single people and homosexuals can now adopt children and give them the same legitimacy and inheritance rights, eliminating marriage in the U.S. as an institution for the raising of children. Infidelity is simply a word in the contract with no real legal ramifications. Marriage penalties technically make it harder for people to earn a living than if they had stayed single and shared accounts.

I have numerous illnesses that seem to keep piling up. Ulcerative Colitis, Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis, Addison's Disease, Osteopenia. My medical bills show signs of increasing exponentially and my odds of needing a Liver transplant seem pretty good.

Why would I get married when all it would seemingly do is leave my wife open to credit companies taking our house and keeping her in indentured servitude after my death?

People regardless of who they are should be able to pick who can visit them in the hospital and who can receive their assets after death. I think, since marriage no longer means anything to the government, that it should be replaced with a contract. Single drinking buddies should be able to visit each other in the hospital if no other family is recognized.

Since my girlfriend and I are both baptized and confirmed Catholics, I was thinking of getting married in the Catholic church in Ireland (where government does not need to be notified) as both sides of my family, The Catholic Church and all of my friends would recognize our legitimate union.

I have believed for a while that the government needs to either fix marriage or get out of the business.



What does everyone think? Obviously, the thrust of my opinion is centered in the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

People regardless of who they are should be able to pick who can visit them in the hospital and who can receive their assets after death.

---

Can't you already do this? Living wills, ect...

Quote:

---

Since my girlfriend and I are both baptized and confirmed Catholics, I was thinking of getting married in the Catholic church in Ireland (where government does not need to be notified) as both sides of my family, The Catholic Church and all of my friends would recognize our legitimate union.



What does everyone think? Obviously, the thrust of my opinion is centered in the U.S.

---

Sounds reasonable to me. The only reason to get a civil marriage is for the benefits- if you think it's going to be more of a penalty than a benefit, don't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Since my girlfriend and I are both baptized and confirmed Catholics, I was thinking of getting married in the Catholic church in Ireland (where government does not need to be notified) as both sides of my family, The Catholic Church and all of my friends would recognize our legitimate union.

What does everyone think? Obviously, the thrust of my opinion is centered in the U.S.

---

imho, getting a marriage license is important when it comes to things like health insurance and stuff like taxes. It is rather counterproductive to remain single in the eyes of the government, especially if you are making a lifetime commitment.

Just an opinion from a married catholic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OP

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.

---

the article answers a lot of questions Tuff. Once the government started major entitlement programs they had to be able to track the money.

Quote:

---

Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people’s interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America’s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.

---

Yes this is true, but the problem is we've all become dependent to a degree on the entitlements. I'd love to have the government out of marriage and most of my life but its not fesible right now because to much is relient on government funding/regulation.

Hence why the marriage license is an important document. My old man died when I was young and my mother had to collect Social Security benefits to survive. Now this is a condition of society we were in, this benefit exsisted and she took advantage of it. If she hadnt been married, or couldnt prove she was married she would have lost that income.

Quote:

---

People regardless of who they are should be able to pick who can visit them in the hospital and who can receive their assets after death. I think, since marriage no longer means anything to the government, that it should be replaced with a contract. Single drinking buddies should be able to visit each other in the hospital if no other family is recognized.

---

Its an implied contract already because of community property assumptions. If your married and you die, unless otherwise specified (via a living will AKA a contract) your spouse gets ownership. Thats a cultural thing, and without it or proof of it (the marriage license) anyone can claim a part of your estate.

While Im all in favor of allowing people to marry no matter race religion or sexual orientation marriage licenses are essential confirmations for joint/community property assumptions. I like your sentiment Tuff, but entitlements + asset ownership + liabilities = the need for something of a formality.

Your example of being sick is a good one. Lets assume the worse case scenario, you have a lot of bills pilling up and your dead, who should be responsible for that? Your estate? If the answer is yes then by all means dont get your marriage recognized by the state because thats what they are coming after.

However someone has to pay for all of that, and the entities that provided you with the service are entitled to be paid out of your estate. By not getting married formally you will negate the ability of your spouse to access your assets, and ones you have accumulated with her will be subject to liens.

I've kind of rambled a bit, so let me say its all about sharing personal liability and personal assets. Marriage is a romantic institution, but in practical terms the laundry still has to get done, the dishes washed, and the bills paid.

Could a pre-nuptial agreement hold the authority to differ any medical bills that I would accrue away from my wife?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Could a pre-nuptial agreement hold the authority to put any medical bills that I would acrue not on my wife?

---

I seriously doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Could a pre-nuptial agreement hold the authority to differ any medical bills that I would accrue away from my wife?

---

That would be very subjective dependent on the nature of the assets you two accumulate together. This all assumes you get a formal legal marriage (legal in the eyes of the US) if you just have a ceremony Tuff you technically dont get the legal benefits of marriage. (you cant put her on your health insurance as an example).

If you get a legal marriage with the certificate then pre nups can have anything in them really but in a court of law the judge might be subjective. Basically you would be putting in the pre nup a waiver for your wife of any liability for your medical expenses should you die. A good lawyer could argue that the contract (the pre nup) couldnt possibly be a good insturment for this because no one could have known what your bills would be.

It all comes down to shared property dude, if you buy a house with her (both names on it) cars, checking accounts its up for grabs. Not only that but if the court can determine that she was enriched by your estate (say you have a small business and you employ her) and you are in a common law marriage they might be able to get some of her assets as well.

You should consult a lawyer honestly because it varies so much from state to state, but Pre nups usually do hold up as they are binding contracts. But putting language in for future medical expense liability might be tricky. If you think your really going down that path I wouldnt get the legal marriage either, but you should check the marriage laws in your state because of common law marriage issues.

Good points. I've found this too

http://www.divorcesource.com/NY/ARTICLES/nowak3.html


also this on the migrants using loopholes in civil unions and marriage

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle732531.ece

This article is interesting. How dare the government make inquiries as to whether the relationship was consumated or what the "orientation is.

If I love my friend dearly and there is no one i would rather share my property with, but I am heterosexual - how dare someone say two other guys can get a civil union (or get married) but we can't. They would force us to have sex? If the law can't interject in the case of private business between two homosexuals, why can it do so with heterosexuals?

Quote:

---

I was thinking of getting married in the Catholic church in Ireland (where government does not need to be notified)

---

Too late , now all marriages (civil or religeous) require 3 months notice to the government and the government issue of permission to marry .

Eh. Well I'm sure that it still works somewhere.

TSM:

You asked a "why" question. Seamus' thumb-rule on this reads as follows. The answer to 90% of all "why" questions is: money. If asking a "why" question where the government is involved, this percentage increases.

Marriage in most of our original cultures was an important contract. Historically, some cultures viewed it as part of the sacred, others not. For the most part, however, these contracts were viewed as a private contract between two families or between two men, or -- more rarely -- between a man and a woman. In most instances, the woman was a form of chattel, often with no legal rights independent of her husband.

Licensure -- of anything -- is part of a government's attempt to regulate and (usually) tax an activity.

In the USA, marriage licenses were first issued in order to minimize misceganation [later ruled blatantly discriminatory despite the popularity of such laws]. As more things seemed important to regulate, licensure became a common requirement and common law unions were dis-allowed.

Marriage licenses are an expression of government control and a revenue source.