Should the state recognise marriage at all?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Why does the state bother dabbling in marriage anyway? If two people want to vow to with each other why does that involve the state?

Marriage is a religious/civil thing that shouldn't have anything to do with the state. If people want to get married they can do it at a religious service or whatever.

When the state gets involved in marriage it has to set the limits, and those limits are usually just subjective social norms. In many countries two people of the same sex can't marry. Why? In many countries multiple people can't marry. Why? The state is just setting these limits because it's taking on some social function it shouldn't have anything to do with.

[Stavroforos]

I agree, I don't think that the state should be involved in marriage, only the recognition of two people living together for whatever demographic and tax purposes.

[Poach]

In event of divorce, surely the state should be involved via the Courts? Granted, that isn't quite the same as direct State involvement, as the Courts are largely independent and seperate from the Government as a whole, but the Courts themselves are still a faculty of the State.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

In event of divorce, surely the state should be involved via the Courts? Granted, that isn't quite the same as direct State involvement, as the Courts are largely independent and seperate from the Government as a whole, but the Courts themselves are still a faculty of the State.

that depends.

if they still have their assets seperate then obviously no action needs to be taken, but if they have joint accounts and whatever, well shouldn't that be treated like any other case? The same way as if two business partners had joint holdings and got in a row then the court would solve it.

[Poach]

Indeed Ireland, which would still therefore be State involvement via the Courts.

I agree that the State should only become involved in limiting marriage in the most extreme cases (eg, forced marriages), but outside that should not be involved.

[Boer]

The state not being involved in marriage would have strange and far reaching effects that I don't think most people normally think of. For example, if the state plays no part in marriage, does marriage still mean the couple cannot be made to testify against each other? If so can a massive criminal conspiracy marry each other to take advantage of this? Can two people (and perhaps an unnamed 3rd party) simply declare themselves married and unmarried at their whim or is some other standard needed and if so who sets it? Certainly this would complicate custody battles, or other disagreements involving children. Medical decisions if one (maybe) spouse is in a coma or such would also become problematic if the parents disagree with the other (maybe) spouse.
I'm sure this list could grow much larger if people really thought about it. Cases involving marriage would still end up in front of the courts. From a practical point of view, I think the state would end up with a de facto involvement in marriage no matter what.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

For example, if the state plays no part in marriage, does marriage still mean the couple cannot be made to testify against each other?

obviously not

Can two people (and perhaps an unnamed 3rd party) simply declare themselves married and unmarried at their whim or is some other standard needed and if so who sets it?

that depends on what they think of marriage.

if they are followers of a large religion then no.

[Viking Prince]

"Think of the children."

If it was only the disposition of assets and disolution of a contract then only when there was a civil dispute between parties would the state be involved. However children may often need the protection of a third party and that is the interest of the state.

I do agree that there needs to be a means by which the concept of marriage (religion / social) should be separated from the concerns of the state for the welfare of minors. If done properly, then the issue of 'gay marriage' evaporates.

[Enemy of the State]

Where states exist they should simply enforce the contract.

[Copperknickers II]

Tbh, the only reason for marriage is to provide a good and stable atmosphere for children. Obviously I don't see any trouble with two people who love each other living together, but I can't see any particular reason to call them married.

[Treize]

No polygamy.

[Enemy of the State]

No polygamy.

Why?

[Treize]

Why?

Saving the human race and all that.

[Border Patrol]

Saving the human race and all that.

Isn't that the argument against gays?

[Gaidin]

Why?

Because nobody wants to deal with clashes between 2nd and 3rd spouses regarding decisions(medical, legal, or otherwise), and how wealth of a deceased spouse is distributed, saying nothing of child custody.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Because nobody wants to deal with clashes between 2nd and 3rd spouses regarding decisions(medical, legal, or otherwise), and how wealth of a deceased spouse is distributed, saying nothing of child custody.

if the state isn't recognising marriage those problems cease to be.

wills are your friend.

[Gaidin]

if the state isn't recognising marriage those problems cease to be.

Yes, exactly. Was there anything else to add?

Oh and wills have a tradition of being contested in court. Funny that.

[Aru]

Funny, I never saw marriage as naturally religious thing, but as thing of law (therefore state) which binds two people who desire to bind themselves by that law and I always considered religion as useless intrusion into marriage, only serving the purpose of grand celebration in a church.

[Gromovnik]

Funny, I never saw marriage as naturally religious thing, but as thing of law (therefore state) which binds two people who desire to bind themselves by that law and I always considered religion as useless intrusion into marriage, only serving the purpose of grand celebration in a church.

Exactly. Also, there are inheritance laws to be taken into account. it would be unfair to leave the surviving spuse without anything, so it's good for the state to at least register marriages.

[Dr. Croccer]

Because there is a lot of law that comes into account as well. For child benefits the state obviously needs to know if there is acouple at all, and who they are; For inheritance and divorce claims as well.