3 ms·
Marriage is more than property rights. We have deeds for that. I list the principle reasons for marriage, including devising property. The state does limit mar
by joshuaheard 10y ago
Marriage is more than property rights. We have deeds for that. I list the principle reasons for marriage, including devising property.
The state does limit marriage, in part for procreation. For instance, the limits on the degree of consanguinity are to prevent birth defects. There are also age restrictions, which relate to the ability to give birth. So, in a sense, it is tied to procreation.
- tptacek 10y agoAge restrictions on marriage have little to do with childbearing, as they are almost invariably set many years after the point where a woman can bear children, and depart from the (awful) historical norm of women being married off as children --- and as property --- as soon as they reach that age. If you were casting about for further evidence for your argument that marriage is more about the sanctity of procreation rather than about property rights, I think you've hit on something here that harms that argument.
- rayiner 10y agoMarriage as a state-sanctioned construct is almost entirely about property and other legal rights. You cannot achieve the effect of marriage using a combination of other legal constructs. For example, even a prenuptial agreement cannot fully divest a spouse of rights in property acquired during marriage. Moreover, you cannot create things like spousal privilege contractually. In contrast, child-rearing works more or less the same whether or not the couple is married. The rights and obligations attendant to children arise out of the parental relationship, not the marriage. About the only practical parental right tied to marriage that I can think of is the legal presumption in most states that a woman's husband is the father of any child she has during marriage.