6 ms·

Get rid of marriage from the law entirely. Marriage could be expressed in a standard contract that gives the sorts of rights the it currently carries. The state

Get rid of marriage from the law entirely. Marriage could be expressed in a standard contract that gives the sorts of rights the it currently carries. The state shouldn't have any say in who enters this sort of agreement.

pixie_ 14y ago
Marriage wasn't even in law until the late 1800's when they had to define it to outlaw polygamous Mormons.
- millstone 14y ago
  What do you mean? Marriage licenses were issued in the American colonies, so state marriage licenses are in that sense older than the USA.
seldo 14y ago
This was Mitt Romney's suggestion for gay marriage, but the truth is that there are all sorts of rights that can only be conferred by marriage. For example: you can't write a contract that says your business partner should pay less taxes, but marriage can. You can't write a contract that gives your business partner the right to a green card, but marriage can. There's literally hundreds more. We are a species that likes to pair-bond; we consider it a greater hardship to separate members of a pair than members of a looser association like friendship. The legislation reflects that. Social engineering via tax breaks are a dumb idea, but deleting the concept of marriage from law entirely is impractical and probably undesirable.
- waqf 14y ago
  I am torn, because I want to upvote your first para which accurately addresses the points raised by the parent; yet your second para is all fluff, empty rhetoric, assertions totally without justification. If you are a new kind of troll, I salute you.
  - hayksaakian 14y ago
    Hmm good point, I'm taking notes from this one.
  - seldo 14y ago
    It is never my intention to troll, as I hope my commenting record attests. Which of my statements do you consider unjustified?
    - waqf 14y ago
      I was thinking specifically of the statement "[D]eleting the concept of marriage from law entirely is [...] probably undesirable."
- rdl 14y ago
  I think you could change the law to allow the currently-conferred-by-marriage rights to be otherwise assignable. I basically am in favor of religions being able to define "marriage" however they want (and am confident there would be a variant, if not primary variant, of every major religion which supported and another which denounced gay marriage). The state should do something else, for everyone, with all rights handled through the state's thing. The quick hack is to just require all new marriages also be civil unions, and not recognize future marriage otherwise. Civil union should get every current private and government benefit of marriage. Strictly religious benefits from private entities could potentially be withdrawn from civil unions (I honestly have no idea what those would be).
  - seldo 14y ago
    This has been repeatedly suggested, but given all the fuss from the religious right over giving others equal rights, the uproar that would be caused by attempting to take rights away from them would be enormous, and political suicide.
    - rdl 14y ago
      In most of the country this is political suicide anyway (there is probably 50% of the country where stripping non-heterosexuals of citizenship would be a winning political strategy). I have a lot more faith in a judicial solution than a legislative one. March should be interesting.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Social engineering via tax breaks are a dumb idea, but deleting the concept of marriage from law entirely is impractical and probably undesirable. The only rights of marriage that cannot be conferred by contract are the parts that fall into the "social engineering via tax breaks" (or redistribution) category.
  - seldo 14y ago
    Immigration rights are not tax breaks, and they are a hugely valuable benefit of marriage. Marriage gets you a green card within two years; attempting to do the same as, say, a 25 year old with a bachelor's degree could take upwards of 7 years. (Marriage is also much cheaper) There's other rights, like hospital visitation, legal indemnification, etc. that also don't fall into that category.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      You get hospital visitation with a medical proxy contract. You are correct about immigration and legal indemnification, though I question the social utility of both those benefits.
cpursley 14y ago
Exactly. This is what I try to explain to people all the time when they bring up gay marriage. I argue that the state should be out of marriage - all marriage - it is a social contract.
millstone 14y ago
Are you suggesting that marriage can be expressed as a contract between two people, without the government being involved? This is not the case. For example, my earnings go into a account I hold jointly with my wife. If marriage carried no special privileges, then we would need to keep track of how much of the income she "received" from me, to pay gift taxes. "Ok, honey, we ordered a $20 pizza, and you ate four slices, so I guess that means you received $8 worth of income..." Fortunately, we are spared this insanity, because gifts to spouses are tax exempt. This allows us to share our money like we share our lives. Spousal green cards, spousal privilege in court, and Social Security survivors benefits are other examples of privileges that cannot be granted through private contracts, but that require the government's involvement.
- montecarl 14y ago
  You are right that marriage currently cannot be expressed in this way. However, I would like to see it be able to be expressed this way.
  - millstone 14y ago
    How would that be accomplished? For example, spousal residency. Would that be a general right - any US citizen could grant permanent residency to anybody else, through a private contract? Or would you rather eliminate the right entirely, so that if you fall in love with a foreigner, you have to hope they can make it to you through other immigration channels?
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      That sounds interesting, a sort of "personal sponsorship" visa. You vouch for somebody, they get to move to the US, and you bear partial responsibility for their actions (like a parent would for a child) until they obtain traditional residency?
    - Spoom 14y ago
      Hmm. As a fiancee visa recipient (now Lawful Permanent Resident) who is necessarily familiar with that area of immigration law, your proposal is probably more interesting than you realize. US Citizens who wish to petition USCIS to grant permanent residency to their fiancee or spouse must, as part of the petition process, sign a form that creates a legal contract with the US Government that the US Citizen sponsor must repay any means-tested social benefits the beneficiary receives. This is in addition to the filing fees incurred as part of the process. Given that this bond must be created as part of the process, I could see your proposal as potentially being OK, except that USCIS would have to set up rules to limit this ability if the sponsor fails in their implicit duties to get the beneficiary on their feet. Basically, I see it as potentially being a privilege, not a right.

pixie_ 14y ago

Marriage wasn't even in law until the late 1800's when they had to define it to outlaw polygamous Mormons.

millstone 14y ago
What do you mean? Marriage licenses were issued in the American colonies, so state marriage licenses are in that sense older than the USA.

seldo 14y ago

This was Mitt Romney's suggestion for gay marriage, but the truth is that there are all sorts of rights that can only be conferred by marriage. For example: you can't write a contract that says your business partner should pay less taxes, but marriage can. You can't write a contract that gives your business partner the right to a green card, but marriage can. There's literally hundreds more. We are a species that likes to pair-bond; we consider it a greater hardship to separate members of a pair than members of a looser association like friendship. The legislation reflects that. Social engineering via tax breaks are a dumb idea, but deleting the concept of marriage from law entirely is impractical and probably undesirable.

waqf 14y ago
I am torn, because I want to upvote your first para which accurately addresses the points raised by the parent; yet your second para is all fluff, empty rhetoric, assertions totally without justification. If you are a new kind of troll, I salute you.
- hayksaakian 14y ago
  Hmm good point, I'm taking notes from this one.
- seldo 14y ago
  It is never my intention to troll, as I hope my commenting record attests. Which of my statements do you consider unjustified?
  - waqf 14y ago
    I was thinking specifically of the statement "[D]eleting the concept of marriage from law entirely is [...] probably undesirable."
rdl 14y ago
I think you could change the law to allow the currently-conferred-by-marriage rights to be otherwise assignable. I basically am in favor of religions being able to define "marriage" however they want (and am confident there would be a variant, if not primary variant, of every major religion which supported and another which denounced gay marriage). The state should do something else, for everyone, with all rights handled through the state's thing. The quick hack is to just require all new marriages also be civil unions, and not recognize future marriage otherwise. Civil union should get every current private and government benefit of marriage. Strictly religious benefits from private entities could potentially be withdrawn from civil unions (I honestly have no idea what those would be).
- seldo 14y ago
  This has been repeatedly suggested, but given all the fuss from the religious right over giving others equal rights, the uproar that would be caused by attempting to take rights away from them would be enormous, and political suicide.
  - rdl 14y ago
    In most of the country this is political suicide anyway (there is probably 50% of the country where stripping non-heterosexuals of citizenship would be a winning political strategy). I have a lot more faith in a judicial solution than a legislative one. March should be interesting.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
Social engineering via tax breaks are a dumb idea, but deleting the concept of marriage from law entirely is impractical and probably undesirable. The only rights of marriage that cannot be conferred by contract are the parts that fall into the "social engineering via tax breaks" (or redistribution) category.
- seldo 14y ago
  Immigration rights are not tax breaks, and they are a hugely valuable benefit of marriage. Marriage gets you a green card within two years; attempting to do the same as, say, a 25 year old with a bachelor's degree could take upwards of 7 years. (Marriage is also much cheaper) There's other rights, like hospital visitation, legal indemnification, etc. that also don't fall into that category.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    You get hospital visitation with a medical proxy contract. You are correct about immigration and legal indemnification, though I question the social utility of both those benefits.

cpursley 14y ago

Exactly. This is what I try to explain to people all the time when they bring up gay marriage. I argue that the state should be out of marriage - all marriage - it is a social contract.

millstone 14y ago

Are you suggesting that marriage can be expressed as a contract between two people, without the government being involved? This is not the case. For example, my earnings go into a account I hold jointly with my wife. If marriage carried no special privileges, then we would need to keep track of how much of the income she "received" from me, to pay gift taxes. "Ok, honey, we ordered a $20 pizza, and you ate four slices, so I guess that means you received $8 worth of income..." Fortunately, we are spared this insanity, because gifts to spouses are tax exempt. This allows us to share our money like we share our lives. Spousal green cards, spousal privilege in court, and Social Security survivors benefits are other examples of privileges that cannot be granted through private contracts, but that require the government's involvement.

montecarl 14y ago
You are right that marriage currently cannot be expressed in this way. However, I would like to see it be able to be expressed this way.
- millstone 14y ago
  How would that be accomplished? For example, spousal residency. Would that be a general right - any US citizen could grant permanent residency to anybody else, through a private contract? Or would you rather eliminate the right entirely, so that if you fall in love with a foreigner, you have to hope they can make it to you through other immigration channels?
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    That sounds interesting, a sort of "personal sponsorship" visa. You vouch for somebody, they get to move to the US, and you bear partial responsibility for their actions (like a parent would for a child) until they obtain traditional residency?
  - Spoom 14y ago
    Hmm. As a fiancee visa recipient (now Lawful Permanent Resident) who is necessarily familiar with that area of immigration law, your proposal is probably more interesting than you realize. US Citizens who wish to petition USCIS to grant permanent residency to their fiancee or spouse must, as part of the petition process, sign a form that creates a legal contract with the US Government that the US Citizen sponsor must repay any means-tested social benefits the beneficiary receives. This is in addition to the filing fees incurred as part of the process. Given that this bond must be created as part of the process, I could see your proposal as potentially being OK, except that USCIS would have to set up rules to limit this ability if the sponsor fails in their implicit duties to get the beneficiary on their feet. Basically, I see it as potentially being a privilege, not a right.