5 ms·

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

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?
- LordKano 10y ago
  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. There being an ability revoke means you still need government permission. The only difference is that we would assume a default answer of "Yes" when one asks. This seems like a odd point to make. Weddings and marriage go hand in hand. Perhaps I was being a bit pedantic but I also wanted to emphasize that there is a very big civil/secular aspect to marriage.
- rsynnott 10y ago
  > 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. That's pretty much what modern civil marriage already _is_, though. The marriage can't be refused unless it's illegal for some reason (one or more participants under age or already married or something). You're essentially giving a notification; the state will reject it if there's something wrong with it; if it's kosher they'll give you an acknowledgement that they accept the notification. The "license" terminology (which isn't used everywhere) is perhaps not appropriate. > You don't need permission to buy a house. You just buy it, usually with a loan from a bank. Funnily enough, when I bought my house I had to sign an elaborate declaration that I was not married (or civil union'd). This is because, in Ireland, the spouse automatically has rights to the family home, and it's illegal to clandestinely buy a house on your own in an attempt to avoid this. If I hadn't signed that, my purchase of the house wouldn't have been legal, but, like a civil marriage, it's basically just a declaration that all is in order.
zeveb 10y ago
> 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. Why do we tie those to sexual relationship status, though? The only one of those for which that makes any sense is a legal presumption of paternity, which we don't need now that we have accurate genetic tests (save for identical twins). Why shouldn't my brother, or my best friend, or members of my yacht club, be able to hold joint ownership, or be my next of kin, or get benefits through me? Secular marriage is just the husk of religious marriage, sapped of what actually makes a marriage marriage.
- _jal 10y ago
  There's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I'd encourage you to champion it. In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms. I did — I supported civil unions when they were on the ballot in my state.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      Civil unions aren't the same thing.
- zeta0134 10y ago
  Disclaimer: I am a gay man, and my support of gay marriage has always been a gray area. The elephant in the room that must be established here is a biological one. As much as we can hold hands and sing about the beauty of love, it remains that biologically, only a man and a woman can have children. Historically, it is this dependency, this social contract to promise to stay together to raise one's children, that has given rise to many of the legal protections that a marriage license provides. Now, there have been lots of heterosexual couples who marry on paper, never have kids, and for them it's largely a financial commitment (legally) and less of a social contract. I don't think same sex marriage is different in a financial regard than these examples, so I support it. But the situation gets somewhat more hairy when you consider that same sex couples may still want to raise children, and then the issue of surrogate mothers, adoption, same sex households, and all sorts of other potential legal complications come into play. How would a custody case play out with two fathers, for example? I'm not arguing for or against same sex marriage, and I'm personally in a polyamorous relationship that's unlikely to be recognized legally in any way shape or form, so there's that as well. I just want to draw attention to some of the hidden complexities that it introduces.

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?

LordKano 10y ago
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. There being an ability revoke means you still need government permission. The only difference is that we would assume a default answer of "Yes" when one asks. This seems like a odd point to make. Weddings and marriage go hand in hand. Perhaps I was being a bit pedantic but I also wanted to emphasize that there is a very big civil/secular aspect to marriage.
rsynnott 10y ago
> 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. That's pretty much what modern civil marriage already _is_, though. The marriage can't be refused unless it's illegal for some reason (one or more participants under age or already married or something). You're essentially giving a notification; the state will reject it if there's something wrong with it; if it's kosher they'll give you an acknowledgement that they accept the notification. The "license" terminology (which isn't used everywhere) is perhaps not appropriate. > You don't need permission to buy a house. You just buy it, usually with a loan from a bank. Funnily enough, when I bought my house I had to sign an elaborate declaration that I was not married (or civil union'd). This is because, in Ireland, the spouse automatically has rights to the family home, and it's illegal to clandestinely buy a house on your own in an attempt to avoid this. If I hadn't signed that, my purchase of the house wouldn't have been legal, but, like a civil marriage, it's basically just a declaration that all is in order.

zeveb 10y ago

> 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. Why do we tie those to sexual relationship status, though? The only one of those for which that makes any sense is a legal presumption of paternity, which we don't need now that we have accurate genetic tests (save for identical twins). Why shouldn't my brother, or my best friend, or members of my yacht club, be able to hold joint ownership, or be my next of kin, or get benefits through me? Secular marriage is just the husk of religious marriage, sapped of what actually makes a marriage marriage.

_jal 10y ago
There's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I'd encourage you to champion it. In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms. I did — I supported civil unions when they were on the ballot in my state.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Civil unions aren't the same thing.
zeta0134 10y ago
Disclaimer: I am a gay man, and my support of gay marriage has always been a gray area. The elephant in the room that must be established here is a biological one. As much as we can hold hands and sing about the beauty of love, it remains that biologically, only a man and a woman can have children. Historically, it is this dependency, this social contract to promise to stay together to raise one's children, that has given rise to many of the legal protections that a marriage license provides. Now, there have been lots of heterosexual couples who marry on paper, never have kids, and for them it's largely a financial commitment (legally) and less of a social contract. I don't think same sex marriage is different in a financial regard than these examples, so I support it. But the situation gets somewhat more hairy when you consider that same sex couples may still want to raise children, and then the issue of surrogate mothers, adoption, same sex households, and all sorts of other potential legal complications come into play. How would a custody case play out with two fathers, for example? I'm not arguing for or against same sex marriage, and I'm personally in a polyamorous relationship that's unlikely to be recognized legally in any way shape or form, so there's that as well. I just want to draw attention to some of the hidden complexities that it introduces.