7 ms·

The national conversation on this topic is entirely wrong. The supreme court has clearly stated a number of times over the the years (http://afer.org/blog/14-s

The national conversation on this topic is entirely wrong. The supreme court has clearly stated a number of times over the the years (http://afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/ http://afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fu...) that marriage is a fundamental right. So what we should be asking the government is if it's a fundamental right, why do we require a license to get married? Fundamental rights are not supposed to require anything to exercise since we derive them not from the government but from our mere existence as human beings. I don't require a license to exercise my right to free speech and publish something online or create a film. I don't have to apply for a license to practice religion. Why the hell do I need permission from the government to get married, especially when such a ceremony (for most people) is a religious one? Sure, some people go to the justice of the peace to get married. But nearly everyone has a religious ceremony or they hire a neutral officiant (or have someone they know get ordained). Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony. If we want to deem it something else, I'm fine with that. We can still allow people to get married and not have the government be involved. Why can't we just decide who we are going to get married to, and simply fill out some paperwork to declare (not ask permission) ourselves married and notify the government of our status change. Asking permission is obscene and defeats the entire purpose of declaring it a "fundamental right".

gdulli 10y ago
I also thought it was strange that the fight was over "winning" permission from the government to have a relationship rather than ditching the idea that permission should be needed.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Married people enjoy benefits in the eyes of the law. Of course the commitment of those involved is the most important part of a marriage, but given the way our society works, the legal rights are also quite important.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    But is it right that benefits were set up in the first place so as to promote the morality of one type of relationship but not another?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Who cares what the original intent was.
      - turc1656 10y ago
        I care, and you should, too. Because if we don't agree with the original intent anymore or no longer think it's valid or fits in with our current societal values and beliefs, then it should be re-examined and either modified or scrapped altogether.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Yes, as we are discussing, it was in fact recently modified to fit with current societal values.
    - turc1656 10y ago
      Nope, definitely wasn't right in most cases. I can understand why some of it exists, though - like not being able to be forced to testify against your spouse. The two people who are married are supposed to be "one" so the extension of the fifth amendment makes sense. But a lot of the other stuff having to do with tax benefits...I'm not too crazy about. The government is notorious for doling out tax benefits to activities they want to promote. Like the mortgage interest deduction. The government wants to promote home ownership so they created that to incentivize people buy homes. That's arguably the most popular tax break out there, but all it does is give preference to how you spend your money. Spend it on something the government approves of, and you get a tax break. Similar story with child tax credits, dependent care credits, etc. They are basically rubber stamping certain life choices. And the effect is that people who neglect or outright refuse to engage in these choices/expenditures end up paying more in taxes, all else being equal.
LordKano 10y ago
So what we should be asking the government is if it's a fundamental right, why do we require a license to get married? What you're asking for isn't permission to get married. You're asking for government recognition of your marriage. Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony. No. Historically, weddings have been religious ceremony. Marriage is bigger than the wedding. Marriage means legal changes. Being married means that someone can hold you accountable for your spouse's debts. Being married means the joint ownership of property. Being married means next of kin status. Being married means legal presumption of paternity. Being married means survivor's benefits when one spouse dies. These are all things what are enforced by the government and THAT is why marriage licenses exist. Want to declare your undying love for your partner and become religiously, spiritually or culturally married? Go ahead. Want the legal protections of the secular institution of marriage? You need a license.
- turc1656 10y ago
  "You're asking for government recognition of your marriage." True, but that's only because, as another user mentioned in this thread, that there are legal benefits of being married. You also touched upon this subject. But wanting government recognition so that the legal benefits can be had does not inherently require a license. It can and should be done through mere declaration and formal notification to the government. Our laws could absolutely be changed such that any two people (or more, I suppose, but for simplicity we'll leave it at two) could fill out paperwork and declare themselves married. As long as neither of those people have any existing/active declaration of marriage to someone else, then it would be valid and in force until otherwise revoked. This is very similar to what we have now except there is no permission needed. You are basically electing to put yourself into a specific set of rules, just like a contract, that both parties in the marriage agree to. That set of rules is known and defined and the declaration acts as an acceptance/agreement to enter it. And like a contract, it can't just be exited without the other party's explicit agreement to end it - otherwise adjudication would be required, like any contract dispute. "No. Historically, weddings have been religious ceremony." This seems like a odd point to make. Weddings and marriage go hand in hand. No one has a wedding without being married. But I think what you are trying to get at is the legal aspect. All of that would still exist and does not inherently require a license, as I talked about above. "Want the legal protections of the secular institution of marriage? You need a license." My entire point is that the government has made it that way, but it doesn't have to be that way. The current licensing requirements restrict human freedom for no apparent reason other than for the government to reject lifestyles and values that are not approved. You don't need permission to buy a house. You just buy it, usually with a loan from a bank. Then you file paperwork with the government telling them that it was sold to you, what date you bought it, etc. Then you become the legal homeowner and it is recorded in the public record. You then receive all the legal benefits (and responsibilities) of being the homeowner. This is essentially identical to what I am saying for marriage. Why does marriage have to be any different?
edblarney 10y ago
'Marriage is a right' - but between whom? In many parts of the world, polygamy is legal. The president of South Africa has many wives. We dare not question their 'cultural integrity'. A libertarian argument for polygamy could be made easily, just as strongly as the one for gay marriage. Personally, I believe marriage is a cultural institution, not a civic one. I think that the government should not be in the business of defining what marriage is - and stick to 'civil unions'. Two people can declare themselves to be married - it's their choice of identity. Others can chose to reject that if they want. The government gets involved only for legal issues, much like you're declared to be in a 'civil union' if you live together with someone for long enough, irrespective of your marriage status.
- jimmies 10y ago
  I largely agree with you, and I don't even think that many people would have a problem with what you propose. But who gets to decide whether a civil union couple can file tax jointly or not?
  - fl0wenol 10y ago
    I think the model should simply switch to household-based reporting only, regardless of status, especially if the joint set of taxpayers are claiming dependents. Each reporting adult filer in the household would link to a household TIN (like a EIN) and it would be done in aggregate. The decision to file separately would be based on the dilution of deductions as number of filers increased, relative financial independence desired, or risk of incurring the tax liabilities of others in the household. (That would discourage roommates from filing jointly if they desired financial independence to avoid abusing the model)
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony. For most of history it's been both a religious and a civic institution (marriage is an institution, a wedding is a ceremony commemorating, or effecting depending on the model, the entrance into that institution), both in nature and effect, with the civilian/legal effect regarding property rights and inheritance arguably most often the predominant aspect; the idea that the religious and the civic domains are fundamentally separate rather than deeply linked is a relatively modern innovation, along with which came completely separate religious and civic institutions of marriage in the places where that separation between the religious and the civic domains has been given effect.
sedachv 10y ago
> So what we should be asking the government is if it's a fundamental right, why do we require a license to get married? You have to ask this question in the context of legal history. In English common law, from which United States law on marriage is derived, marriage was basically a legal contract stripping women of most of their rights and transferring them to the husband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
st3v3r 10y ago
And none of that matters. Fact of the matter is, we do require marriage licenses. And unless you're going to go out and campaign that the government should get out of straight marriage, trying to point this out is quite ignorant and worthless at best, and quite bigoted at worse.
rsynnott 10y ago
> Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony. Common misconception, but not really true. For most of history, marriage for normal people was rarely a ceremony _at all_. The state and church usually recognised marriage to greater or lesser degrees, but most people were deemed married because they were recognised by their community as being married. Formal religious or civic marriage ceremonies were mostly for the upper classes. Gradually they spread out among classes (especially in Catholic countries), but in many places common-law marriage remained acceptable until surprisingly recently. In England, for instance, common-law marriage wasn't abolished until 1753. It wasn't abolished in Scotland until 2006. In America, a number of states _still_ recognise common-law marriage. And even where marriage registration has long been required for recognition, this has often been purely civil. People in some European countries, if they want a church marriage, have to get 'married' twice; the civil authorities don't recognise the church one, and this has been the case for a long time (I think since the French Revolution for France). > Why can't we just decide who we are going to get married to, and simply fill out some paperwork to declare (not ask permission) ourselves married and notify the government of our status change. If you live in a common-law marriage state, you can. You don't even have to file any paperwork (though it'll cause you trouble traveling if you don't get it formally recognised). > Asking permission is obscene and defeats the entire purpose of declaring it a "fundamental right". When you get legally married, you're not really asking permission. You're informing the state of the fact. For practical reasons, most modern countries won't recognise your marriage unless you do this (though, as above, some US states will). But you're not really asking permission as such.
facepalm 10y ago
The discussion should not be about marriage, but about the right to adopt children and to grant citizenship to spouses. Next I wonder, what are the arguments against marriage for polygamists? And if I can marry several people (how many - 100 perhaps?), do I have to prove I love them before they get the right to live in my country?

gdulli 10y ago

I also thought it was strange that the fight was over "winning" permission from the government to have a relationship rather than ditching the idea that permission should be needed.

maxerickson 10y ago
Married people enjoy benefits in the eyes of the law. Of course the commitment of those involved is the most important part of a marriage, but given the way our society works, the legal rights are also quite important.
- gdulli 10y ago
  But is it right that benefits were set up in the first place so as to promote the morality of one type of relationship but not another?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Who cares what the original intent was.
    - turc1656 10y ago
      I care, and you should, too. Because if we don't agree with the original intent anymore or no longer think it's valid or fits in with our current societal values and beliefs, then it should be re-examined and either modified or scrapped altogether.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Yes, as we are discussing, it was in fact recently modified to fit with current societal values.
  - turc1656 10y ago
    Nope, definitely wasn't right in most cases. I can understand why some of it exists, though - like not being able to be forced to testify against your spouse. The two people who are married are supposed to be "one" so the extension of the fifth amendment makes sense. But a lot of the other stuff having to do with tax benefits...I'm not too crazy about. The government is notorious for doling out tax benefits to activities they want to promote. Like the mortgage interest deduction. The government wants to promote home ownership so they created that to incentivize people buy homes. That's arguably the most popular tax break out there, but all it does is give preference to how you spend your money. Spend it on something the government approves of, and you get a tax break. Similar story with child tax credits, dependent care credits, etc. They are basically rubber stamping certain life choices. And the effect is that people who neglect or outright refuse to engage in these choices/expenditures end up paying more in taxes, all else being equal.

LordKano 10y ago

So what we should be asking the government is if it's a fundamental right, why do we require a license to get married? What you're asking for isn't permission to get married. You're asking for government recognition of your marriage. Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony. No. Historically, weddings have been religious ceremony. Marriage is bigger than the wedding. Marriage means legal changes. Being married means that someone can hold you accountable for your spouse's debts. Being married means the joint ownership of property. Being married means next of kin status. Being married means legal presumption of paternity. Being married means survivor's benefits when one spouse dies. These are all things what are enforced by the government and THAT is why marriage licenses exist. Want to declare your undying love for your partner and become religiously, spiritually or culturally married? Go ahead. Want the legal protections of the secular institution of marriage? You need a license.

turc1656 10y ago
"You're asking for government recognition of your marriage." True, but that's only because, as another user mentioned in this thread, that there are legal benefits of being married. You also touched upon this subject. But wanting government recognition so that the legal benefits can be had does not inherently require a license. It can and should be done through mere declaration and formal notification to the government. Our laws could absolutely be changed such that any two people (or more, I suppose, but for simplicity we'll leave it at two) could fill out paperwork and declare themselves married. As long as neither of those people have any existing/active declaration of marriage to someone else, then it would be valid and in force until otherwise revoked. This is very similar to what we have now except there is no permission needed. You are basically electing to put yourself into a specific set of rules, just like a contract, that both parties in the marriage agree to. That set of rules is known and defined and the declaration acts as an acceptance/agreement to enter it. And like a contract, it can't just be exited without the other party's explicit agreement to end it - otherwise adjudication would be required, like any contract dispute. "No. Historically, weddings have been religious ceremony." This seems like a odd point to make. Weddings and marriage go hand in hand. No one has a wedding without being married. But I think what you are trying to get at is the legal aspect. All of that would still exist and does not inherently require a license, as I talked about above. "Want the legal protections of the secular institution of marriage? You need a license." My entire point is that the government has made it that way, but it doesn't have to be that way. The current licensing requirements restrict human freedom for no apparent reason other than for the government to reject lifestyles and values that are not approved. You don't need permission to buy a house. You just buy it, usually with a loan from a bank. Then you file paperwork with the government telling them that it was sold to you, what date you bought it, etc. Then you become the legal homeowner and it is recorded in the public record. You then receive all the legal benefits (and responsibilities) of being the homeowner. This is essentially identical to what I am saying for marriage. Why does marriage have to be any different?

edblarney 10y ago

'Marriage is a right' - but between whom? In many parts of the world, polygamy is legal. The president of South Africa has many wives. We dare not question their 'cultural integrity'. A libertarian argument for polygamy could be made easily, just as strongly as the one for gay marriage. Personally, I believe marriage is a cultural institution, not a civic one. I think that the government should not be in the business of defining what marriage is - and stick to 'civil unions'. Two people can declare themselves to be married - it's their choice of identity. Others can chose to reject that if they want. The government gets involved only for legal issues, much like you're declared to be in a 'civil union' if you live together with someone for long enough, irrespective of your marriage status.

jimmies 10y ago
I largely agree with you, and I don't even think that many people would have a problem with what you propose. But who gets to decide whether a civil union couple can file tax jointly or not?
- fl0wenol 10y ago
  I think the model should simply switch to household-based reporting only, regardless of status, especially if the joint set of taxpayers are claiming dependents. Each reporting adult filer in the household would link to a household TIN (like a EIN) and it would be done in aggregate. The decision to file separately would be based on the dilution of deductions as number of filers increased, relative financial independence desired, or risk of incurring the tax liabilities of others in the household. (That would discourage roommates from filing jointly if they desired financial independence to avoid abusing the model)

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony. For most of history it's been both a religious and a civic institution (marriage is an institution, a wedding is a ceremony commemorating, or effecting depending on the model, the entrance into that institution), both in nature and effect, with the civilian/legal effect regarding property rights and inheritance arguably most often the predominant aspect; the idea that the religious and the civic domains are fundamentally separate rather than deeply linked is a relatively modern innovation, along with which came completely separate religious and civic institutions of marriage in the places where that separation between the religious and the civic domains has been given effect.

sedachv 10y ago

> So what we should be asking the government is if it's a fundamental right, why do we require a license to get married? You have to ask this question in the context of legal history. In English common law, from which United States law on marriage is derived, marriage was basically a legal contract stripping women of most of their rights and transferring them to the husband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

st3v3r 10y ago

And none of that matters. Fact of the matter is, we do require marriage licenses. And unless you're going to go out and campaign that the government should get out of straight marriage, trying to point this out is quite ignorant and worthless at best, and quite bigoted at worse.

rsynnott 10y ago

> Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony. Common misconception, but not really true. For most of history, marriage for normal people was rarely a ceremony _at all_. The state and church usually recognised marriage to greater or lesser degrees, but most people were deemed married because they were recognised by their community as being married. Formal religious or civic marriage ceremonies were mostly for the upper classes. Gradually they spread out among classes (especially in Catholic countries), but in many places common-law marriage remained acceptable until surprisingly recently. In England, for instance, common-law marriage wasn't abolished until 1753. It wasn't abolished in Scotland until 2006. In America, a number of states _still_ recognise common-law marriage. And even where marriage registration has long been required for recognition, this has often been purely civil. People in some European countries, if they want a church marriage, have to get 'married' twice; the civil authorities don't recognise the church one, and this has been the case for a long time (I think since the French Revolution for France). > Why can't we just decide who we are going to get married to, and simply fill out some paperwork to declare (not ask permission) ourselves married and notify the government of our status change. If you live in a common-law marriage state, you can. You don't even have to file any paperwork (though it'll cause you trouble traveling if you don't get it formally recognised). > Asking permission is obscene and defeats the entire purpose of declaring it a "fundamental right". When you get legally married, you're not really asking permission. You're informing the state of the fact. For practical reasons, most modern countries won't recognise your marriage unless you do this (though, as above, some US states will). But you're not really asking permission as such.

facepalm 10y ago

The discussion should not be about marriage, but about the right to adopt children and to grant citizenship to spouses. Next I wonder, what are the arguments against marriage for polygamists? And if I can marry several people (how many - 100 perhaps?), do I have to prove I love them before they get the right to live in my country?