3 ms·

For a long time, the prevention of divorce was intended to protect women. It meant partners can't just be thrown aside if a better deal comes along. Eventually,

For a long time, the prevention of divorce was intended to protect women. It meant partners can't just be thrown aside if a better deal comes along. Eventually, of course, it became a trap for women (and men). Nowadays, unless you're religious, marriage is essentially just a socioeconomic winner trophy.

gumby 3y ago
> Nowadays, unless you're religious, marriage is essentially just a socioeconomic winner trophy. That is unnecessarily cynical. Civil marriage provides several conveniences for the participants: it establishes a default common property structure (so there are no tax consequences for pooling earnings or for who pays the bills each month, or common ownership of assets, especially useful in the case where one dies); if one is injured or sick the other has the authority to sign hospital paperwork etc; handling the legal mechanics of kids (from picking them up from school to paying fees etc) and so on. It also provides some hysteresis in a long term relationship (which will always have disagreements), again especially useful in the case of kids. Sure, this is a bloodless justification, but is t that the domain of civil law? Yes, you could laboriously set those things up individually if you want, but the bundle is more convenient and takes care of things ahead of time. And it’s voluntary. If you don’t want a marriage, don’t have one.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  > no tax consequences for pooling earnings or for who pays the bills each month I'm not aware of any tax consequences for splitting bills, or for one person paying bills while the other doesn't, or for any such scheme. I'm also not aware of any problem with pooling money. At any rate, I've had joint account owners on my savings account and never had any tax issue. I suppose hypothetically in some situations that it might count as a gift (I do not believe most would) and exceed the gift tax limit, but I doubt anyone ever has paid taxes for this. > handling the legal mechanics of kids (from picking them up from school to paying fees etc) Both parents have parental rights whether or not there is a marriage. There's nothing extra marriage provides legally here. As far as I can tell, the civil benefits of marriage are almost entirely limited to inheritance/estates and hospital paperwork. It's also usually the only way to get someone on your health insurance. Generally, there's not even any tax benefits (except in specific cases with specific credits YMMV, or sometimes if one spouse doesn’t work.)
  - hibikir 3y ago
    In fact, in the US, there are situations where marriage is a penalty: See old people divorcing because one needs expensive long term care, and Medicaid only takes over after all the marriage's assets have been completely drained.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  Aside, I'd like to point out that some of the important aspects of marriage are things that cannot be accomplished by pure private contract, because the existence of the relationship puts obligations on third parties to recognize it. (Much like another special case, power of attorney.) So if anyone says that government should not be involved in marriages/civil-unions/whatever, they're really talking about removing important features from the institution as well.
- EnigmaFlare 3y ago
  > And it’s voluntary. If you don’t want a marriage, don’t have one. Tell that to Australia and New Zealand where de-facto relationships (legally equivalent to marriage) occur automatically when you've been living together for 3 years or so. Some people can fall into it unaware but I know of people who intentionally dumped their partner just before the time limit to protect their property. I don't know why it works like this but it seems like whoever wants marriage for people in general wants it more than each individual participant does, so it might be for a societal rather than individual benefit.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    also in some EU countries, living together establishes rights and obligations with regards to property, inheritance and financial support.

gumby 3y ago

> Nowadays, unless you're religious, marriage is essentially just a socioeconomic winner trophy. That is unnecessarily cynical. Civil marriage provides several conveniences for the participants: it establishes a default common property structure (so there are no tax consequences for pooling earnings or for who pays the bills each month, or common ownership of assets, especially useful in the case where one dies); if one is injured or sick the other has the authority to sign hospital paperwork etc; handling the legal mechanics of kids (from picking them up from school to paying fees etc) and so on. It also provides some hysteresis in a long term relationship (which will always have disagreements), again especially useful in the case of kids. Sure, this is a bloodless justification, but is t that the domain of civil law? Yes, you could laboriously set those things up individually if you want, but the bundle is more convenient and takes care of things ahead of time. And it’s voluntary. If you don’t want a marriage, don’t have one.

Amezarak 3y ago
> no tax consequences for pooling earnings or for who pays the bills each month I'm not aware of any tax consequences for splitting bills, or for one person paying bills while the other doesn't, or for any such scheme. I'm also not aware of any problem with pooling money. At any rate, I've had joint account owners on my savings account and never had any tax issue. I suppose hypothetically in some situations that it might count as a gift (I do not believe most would) and exceed the gift tax limit, but I doubt anyone ever has paid taxes for this. > handling the legal mechanics of kids (from picking them up from school to paying fees etc) Both parents have parental rights whether or not there is a marriage. There's nothing extra marriage provides legally here. As far as I can tell, the civil benefits of marriage are almost entirely limited to inheritance/estates and hospital paperwork. It's also usually the only way to get someone on your health insurance. Generally, there's not even any tax benefits (except in specific cases with specific credits YMMV, or sometimes if one spouse doesn’t work.)
- hibikir 3y ago
  In fact, in the US, there are situations where marriage is a penalty: See old people divorcing because one needs expensive long term care, and Medicaid only takes over after all the marriage's assets have been completely drained.
Terr_ 3y ago
Aside, I'd like to point out that some of the important aspects of marriage are things that cannot be accomplished by pure private contract, because the existence of the relationship puts obligations on third parties to recognize it. (Much like another special case, power of attorney.) So if anyone says that government should not be involved in marriages/civil-unions/whatever, they're really talking about removing important features from the institution as well.
EnigmaFlare 3y ago
> And it’s voluntary. If you don’t want a marriage, don’t have one. Tell that to Australia and New Zealand where de-facto relationships (legally equivalent to marriage) occur automatically when you've been living together for 3 years or so. Some people can fall into it unaware but I know of people who intentionally dumped their partner just before the time limit to protect their property. I don't know why it works like this but it seems like whoever wants marriage for people in general wants it more than each individual participant does, so it might be for a societal rather than individual benefit.
- em-bee 3y ago
  also in some EU countries, living together establishes rights and obligations with regards to property, inheritance and financial support.