4 ms·

Why not for everyone? What's yours is yours, what's shared is shared. Seems simple enough? The legal entanglement is perhaps the strangest part of marriage, an

Why not for everyone? What's yours is yours, what's shared is shared. Seems simple enough? The legal entanglement is perhaps the strangest part of marriage, and divorce.

ar_lan 7y ago
I don't understand why marriage is a legal thing. Why is the government involved?
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Taxes. Church and state get involved with the individual for extraction of assets, control resource distribution, control population growth by incentivizing higher birth rate(= work force = more taxes), ‘tithing’ of various forms and basically surveillance. From birth to death, they keep tabs.
- pizza234 7y ago
  Because governments regulate the pivotal aspects of society. Marriage has been a long-standing form of union between people, which is supposed to be the foundation of procreation, which in turn is the foundation of a lasting society. Whether the regulations are outdated, it's definitely a very valid point of discussion, but the fact that there is regulation is significant.
  - saalweachter 7y ago
    If you want to take all the romance out of it, you can look at marriage as a well-understood standard contract for forming a legal partnership with oodles of case law and precedent. It's like how nearly everything is a Delaware corporation, or how nearly every lease you sign is one of three or four templates downloaded off the internet with the names and addresses filled in.
- kraig911 7y ago
  Well first things first kids need legal protection and a system needs something in place to account for them.
  - dudul 7y ago
    Isn't it possible to have kids outside of wedlock?
  - epicureanideal 7y ago
    How does marriage protect the children?
    - kraig911 7y ago
      Not marriage per se but mutual union of people ordained by the court system protects children. Truly single parents have the hardest time. Help a woman have a pregnancy with no father on the birth cerficate you'll understand what I mean.
- tenebrisalietum 7y ago
  Because property rights are involved.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
The issue is that marriage often produces children. In many cases, one partner will take a more active role with the children while the other takes a more active role in their career. If they stay married it works out. However, if they split, the partner who took a more active role with the children will be shortchanged. The law tries to address this issue.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  plenty of people have children without being married and plenty of married couples don't have children. assuming both parties actually wanted to have a child at the time, the child should be entitled to support from both parents and the primary caregiver should probably get something from the other parent. whether the parents are married seems like it should be pretty much orthogonal.
  - gscott 7y ago
    Unfortunately there are a lot of men who will get a woman pregnant, have her take care of the kids, not marry her. He will pay for everything then later after the kids are out leave her but she gets nothing because they are not married and everything is in his name. Now she has to start from scratch and is middle aged so she doesn't have a lot of time to build a career, pay into social security, has no savings, etc. Why do men do this? Women fall in love with bad men unfortunately. Once she is already pregnant then he has all of the leverage.
    - ryanobjc 7y ago
      Yes this, this is why community property, common law marriages, and alimony exists. To help correct the imbalance of power, and the justice of the situation. The bottom line is raising kids as a stay at home parent is a huge burden. It's entirely unpaid (in money and career). The beneficiaries are both parents. To allow a man (or rich woman, the laws in California are fairly gender neutral here) to accrue the benefits, and disallow the woman any benefits from her sacrifice, well most people consider that to be unfair. And so do the courts.
    - 7y ago
RHSeeger 7y ago
A lot of choices made during marriage are dependent on both people. One spouse will take a job that involves travel means the other cannot if they have a child. Or one spouse could be stay-at-home, while the other works (once again, generally for children). When choices are made for the benefit of the couple, then both members should face the results of those choices.

Why not for everyone? What's yours is yours, what's shared is shared. Seems simple enough? The legal entanglement is perhaps the strangest part of marriage, and divorce.

ar_lan 7y ago

I don't understand why marriage is a legal thing. Why is the government involved?

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Taxes. Church and state get involved with the individual for extraction of assets, control resource distribution, control population growth by incentivizing higher birth rate(= work force = more taxes), ‘tithing’ of various forms and basically surveillance. From birth to death, they keep tabs.
pizza234 7y ago
Because governments regulate the pivotal aspects of society. Marriage has been a long-standing form of union between people, which is supposed to be the foundation of procreation, which in turn is the foundation of a lasting society. Whether the regulations are outdated, it's definitely a very valid point of discussion, but the fact that there is regulation is significant.
- saalweachter 7y ago
  If you want to take all the romance out of it, you can look at marriage as a well-understood standard contract for forming a legal partnership with oodles of case law and precedent. It's like how nearly everything is a Delaware corporation, or how nearly every lease you sign is one of three or four templates downloaded off the internet with the names and addresses filled in.
kraig911 7y ago
Well first things first kids need legal protection and a system needs something in place to account for them.
- dudul 7y ago
  Isn't it possible to have kids outside of wedlock?
- epicureanideal 7y ago
  How does marriage protect the children?
  - kraig911 7y ago
    Not marriage per se but mutual union of people ordained by the court system protects children. Truly single parents have the hardest time. Help a woman have a pregnancy with no father on the birth cerficate you'll understand what I mean.
tenebrisalietum 7y ago
Because property rights are involved.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

The issue is that marriage often produces children. In many cases, one partner will take a more active role with the children while the other takes a more active role in their career. If they stay married it works out. However, if they split, the partner who took a more active role with the children will be shortchanged. The law tries to address this issue.

leetcrew 7y ago
plenty of people have children without being married and plenty of married couples don't have children. assuming both parties actually wanted to have a child at the time, the child should be entitled to support from both parents and the primary caregiver should probably get something from the other parent. whether the parents are married seems like it should be pretty much orthogonal.
- gscott 7y ago
  Unfortunately there are a lot of men who will get a woman pregnant, have her take care of the kids, not marry her. He will pay for everything then later after the kids are out leave her but she gets nothing because they are not married and everything is in his name. Now she has to start from scratch and is middle aged so she doesn't have a lot of time to build a career, pay into social security, has no savings, etc. Why do men do this? Women fall in love with bad men unfortunately. Once she is already pregnant then he has all of the leverage.
  - ryanobjc 7y ago
    Yes this, this is why community property, common law marriages, and alimony exists. To help correct the imbalance of power, and the justice of the situation. The bottom line is raising kids as a stay at home parent is a huge burden. It's entirely unpaid (in money and career). The beneficiaries are both parents. To allow a man (or rich woman, the laws in California are fairly gender neutral here) to accrue the benefits, and disallow the woman any benefits from her sacrifice, well most people consider that to be unfair. And so do the courts.
  - 7y ago

RHSeeger 7y ago

A lot of choices made during marriage are dependent on both people. One spouse will take a job that involves travel means the other cannot if they have a child. Or one spouse could be stay-at-home, while the other works (once again, generally for children). When choices are made for the benefit of the couple, then both members should face the results of those choices.