4 ms·

"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 benef

"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.

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.