7 ms·

What's shocking to me is that we need permission from the state to marry, whether gay or straight. Why do we need the blessing of the government to marry anywa

What's shocking to me is that we need permission from the state to marry, whether gay or straight. Why do we need the blessing of the government to marry anyway? We can have kids without permission from the state (so long as you aren't in China), why do we need to ask for permission and "apply for marriage"? In theory, applying for marriage implies the government could deny a marriage, gay or straight. Why do we implicitly give this power to the government?

lukifer 11y ago
One of the most brilliant ideas I've heard on the subject is a couple of proposed constitutional amendments stating that (a) your body is your personal property, and (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family. When framed in that way, even most social conservatives would agree with the underlying principles.
- tommorris 11y ago
  > (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family So if Charles Manson decides you are his wife now, you don't get much of a say in it. Sounds awesome.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
  Then what is there to prevent two people who've never even met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes.
  - jasonjei 11y ago
    What's to prevent two people who've met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes? Marriage fraud is marriage fraud--an application for marriage doesn't prevent that even presenting themselves before court officers. However, there's a whole discussion on how tax benefits for married couples is in violation of the equal protection clause...
- mark-r 11y ago
  You underestimate social conservatives. They're perfectly capable of working out the consequences of such a change.
- hobbyjogger 11y ago
  In an odd way, your constitutional amendment (b) would outlaw marriage altogether. When you have an inalienable right to something, you can't bargain that right away through contract.[1] An inalienable right to define who is family would make it impossible for anyone to enter a "contract" for an exclusive relationship (which alienates your right to marry others you want to have in your family). You couldn't get married (at least as that term is used now) any more than you can enter a contract to become a slave. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+rights http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+ri...
fixermark 11y ago
Because the unions carry legal consequences, and are therefore the purview of the state. That having been said, one could imagine that a government that didn't evolve from a religiously-knitted culture would have grounded those unions of family more firmly in contract law, not in a construct that's bound up with gender requirements. ... and when you can find such a government on the entirety of Earth, let me know. ;)
bighi 11y ago
It's the opposite. You can be together whoever you want. What they mean, in this case, is the government recognition of your union. As the government need defined laws to operate... And why do the government need to recognize the union? To give them some rights that united people need. Like keeping important possessions (like a house), becoming responsible for kids, taking important medical decisions when the other person can't take them, etc.
- jasonjei 11y ago
  I understand that laws need definition, but why does a definition need governmental approval? Do we apply for a permit before we want to give birth to a child? Shouldn't it be the same basis as having a kid--that is, if you're going to marry, you are marrying, and no one is to have a say in that except realize that is fact? Last time I checked, there is no application to have a kid, and kids are defined in law for governmental institutions like negligence of a child, etc.
  - dirtmerchant 11y ago
    Where can I send donations to the political party that proposes a license to breed?
    - jasonjei 11y ago
      The Communist Party of China "In November 2013, following the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, China announced the decision to relax the one-child policy. Under the new policy, families can have two children if one parent is an only child.[90] This will mainly apply to urban couples, since there are very few rural only children due to long-standing exceptions to the policy for rural couples.[91]"
ffn 11y ago
Tax, immigration/emigration, and will/inheritance reasons. For one thing, the government gives you a tax break if you marry; this was particularly useful because, in the old days, women didn't work so it made sense to not tax the man (who did work) because he was effectively making money for two (and possibly more if they had children). Similarly, getting married changes your defaults if you die intestate (that is, you didn't draw up a will giving all your money to some slap-up blond or something), then your spouse (as oppose to your next-in-line) gets your $$. As for the immigration reason, if you're an US citizen but your wife (or hubby) is another nationality, you can get him or her over here and move onto getting him/her a resident alien card much more easily than through other methods of immigration (presumably this is so that families can be together, which is nice). If you don't care about any of that and love another person, place, thing, or idea, you can just announce you're married to him/her/it without recognition from the government and just sort of be together.
- jasonjei 11y ago
  Tax, inheritance, and immigration laws don't require you to apply for a permit though to have your kids recognized so long as there is a registered birth certificate. My problem is the "application for marriage" process. A marriage should be recognized in the same manner that we issue a birth certificate; something that is issued as a matter of fact, not as a result of application awaiting approval or denial. Why is it not "registration of a marriage" as opposed to "application for marriage"? I think the semantics are important, since "application" implies we are ceding power to the government. Isn't your body your body as opposed to requesting the government permission to marry? I understand that it's required for recognition, but isn't it time we at least imply marriage is just a matter of recording instead of a formal permitting process?
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    There are pregnant mothers who sneak to America to birth their child on American soil. There are green card marriages. In the case of the first, we have decided that we will still give the kid citizenship. In the case of the second, we don't allow it (if we catch it). I'm pretty sure you can marry without a marriage license. You just aren't legally married, i.e. you don't get all the legal benefits.
unfamiliar 11y ago
You don't need permission from the government to marry, you can do it yourself in the woods. But if you want all the benefits of a government sanctioned marriage then you have to be married in the eyes of the government.
- jasonjei 11y ago
  I agree. But that's why we have the marriage inequality problem.
- donatj 11y ago
  That's why the government version shouldn't be called marriage.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    At this point, it's semantics. In France there is a thing called PACS [1], which is kind of what you refer to. However to make that equivalently semantic "government version" union would require changing of a large amount of legal text (e.g. taxation legislation). If the "government version" was simply a stand-in for "married" (i.e., reusing the variable) then what difference has been achieved even semantically? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_solidarity_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_solidarity_pact

lukifer 11y ago

One of the most brilliant ideas I've heard on the subject is a couple of proposed constitutional amendments stating that (a) your body is your personal property, and (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family. When framed in that way, even most social conservatives would agree with the underlying principles.

tommorris 11y ago
> (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family So if Charles Manson decides you are his wife now, you don't get much of a say in it. Sounds awesome.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
Then what is there to prevent two people who've never even met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes.
- jasonjei 11y ago
  What's to prevent two people who've met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes? Marriage fraud is marriage fraud--an application for marriage doesn't prevent that even presenting themselves before court officers. However, there's a whole discussion on how tax benefits for married couples is in violation of the equal protection clause...
mark-r 11y ago
You underestimate social conservatives. They're perfectly capable of working out the consequences of such a change.
hobbyjogger 11y ago
In an odd way, your constitutional amendment (b) would outlaw marriage altogether. When you have an inalienable right to something, you can't bargain that right away through contract.[1] An inalienable right to define who is family would make it impossible for anyone to enter a "contract" for an exclusive relationship (which alienates your right to marry others you want to have in your family). You couldn't get married (at least as that term is used now) any more than you can enter a contract to become a slave. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+rights http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+ri...

fixermark 11y ago

Because the unions carry legal consequences, and are therefore the purview of the state. That having been said, one could imagine that a government that didn't evolve from a religiously-knitted culture would have grounded those unions of family more firmly in contract law, not in a construct that's bound up with gender requirements. ... and when you can find such a government on the entirety of Earth, let me know. ;)

bighi 11y ago

It's the opposite. You can be together whoever you want. What they mean, in this case, is the government recognition of your union. As the government need defined laws to operate... And why do the government need to recognize the union? To give them some rights that united people need. Like keeping important possessions (like a house), becoming responsible for kids, taking important medical decisions when the other person can't take them, etc.

jasonjei 11y ago
I understand that laws need definition, but why does a definition need governmental approval? Do we apply for a permit before we want to give birth to a child? Shouldn't it be the same basis as having a kid--that is, if you're going to marry, you are marrying, and no one is to have a say in that except realize that is fact? Last time I checked, there is no application to have a kid, and kids are defined in law for governmental institutions like negligence of a child, etc.
- dirtmerchant 11y ago
  Where can I send donations to the political party that proposes a license to breed?
  - jasonjei 11y ago
    The Communist Party of China "In November 2013, following the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, China announced the decision to relax the one-child policy. Under the new policy, families can have two children if one parent is an only child.[90] This will mainly apply to urban couples, since there are very few rural only children due to long-standing exceptions to the policy for rural couples.[91]"

ffn 11y ago

Tax, immigration/emigration, and will/inheritance reasons. For one thing, the government gives you a tax break if you marry; this was particularly useful because, in the old days, women didn't work so it made sense to not tax the man (who did work) because he was effectively making money for two (and possibly more if they had children). Similarly, getting married changes your defaults if you die intestate (that is, you didn't draw up a will giving all your money to some slap-up blond or something), then your spouse (as oppose to your next-in-line) gets your $$. As for the immigration reason, if you're an US citizen but your wife (or hubby) is another nationality, you can get him or her over here and move onto getting him/her a resident alien card much more easily than through other methods of immigration (presumably this is so that families can be together, which is nice). If you don't care about any of that and love another person, place, thing, or idea, you can just announce you're married to him/her/it without recognition from the government and just sort of be together.

jasonjei 11y ago
Tax, inheritance, and immigration laws don't require you to apply for a permit though to have your kids recognized so long as there is a registered birth certificate. My problem is the "application for marriage" process. A marriage should be recognized in the same manner that we issue a birth certificate; something that is issued as a matter of fact, not as a result of application awaiting approval or denial. Why is it not "registration of a marriage" as opposed to "application for marriage"? I think the semantics are important, since "application" implies we are ceding power to the government. Isn't your body your body as opposed to requesting the government permission to marry? I understand that it's required for recognition, but isn't it time we at least imply marriage is just a matter of recording instead of a formal permitting process?
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  There are pregnant mothers who sneak to America to birth their child on American soil. There are green card marriages. In the case of the first, we have decided that we will still give the kid citizenship. In the case of the second, we don't allow it (if we catch it). I'm pretty sure you can marry without a marriage license. You just aren't legally married, i.e. you don't get all the legal benefits.

unfamiliar 11y ago

You don't need permission from the government to marry, you can do it yourself in the woods. But if you want all the benefits of a government sanctioned marriage then you have to be married in the eyes of the government.

jasonjei 11y ago
I agree. But that's why we have the marriage inequality problem.
donatj 11y ago
That's why the government version shouldn't be called marriage.
- r00fus 11y ago
  At this point, it's semantics. In France there is a thing called PACS [1], which is kind of what you refer to. However to make that equivalently semantic "government version" union would require changing of a large amount of legal text (e.g. taxation legislation). If the "government version" was simply a stand-in for "married" (i.e., reusing the variable) then what difference has been achieved even semantically? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_solidarity_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_solidarity_pact