What are the practical reasons for government involvement in marriage? 

It seems that the way gays have handled marriage until very recently is the right way to go -- two people committing to each other under the auspices of whatever institution (church, synagogue, Elk's Lodge, etc.) means something to them.

Issues of child custody/parental responsibilities can certainly be handled outside the context of 'legalized marriage' as it currently exists.  The same applies to health insurance, estate issues, etc.

Are there compelling reasons for certain citizens to be afforded certain benefits or suffer certain penalties just because they decide to legalize their relationship?

Is 'legal' marriage simply a concept that people are sentimentally attached to?  Or is there a compelling interest for the state to be involved in 'sanctioning' these relationships?

What are the practical reasons for government involvement in marriage? 

It seems that the way gays have handled marriage until very recently is the right way to go -- two people committing to each other under the auspices of whatever institution (church, synagogue, Elk's Lodge, etc.) means something to them.

Issues of child custody/parental responsibilities can certainly be handled outside the context of 'legalized marriage' as it currently exists.  The same applies to health insurance, estate issues, etc.

Are there compelling reasons for certain citizens to be afforded certain benefits or suffer certain penalties just because they decide to legalize their relationship?

Is 'legal' marriage simply a concept that people are sentimentally attached to?  Or is there a compelling interest for the state to be involved in 'sanctioning' these relationships?


The compelling reasons are...

a) They should be able to simply because everyone else is able too. It's called not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

b). The same applies to health insurance, estate issues, etc. ~ No it doesn't. Health insurance will not allow someone's gay partner to be a financial beneficiary on a life insurance policy simply because they don't have to unless the couple is either married or civilly united in a legal context. The same goes with a gay parters inclusion on a health plan, and also with issues of legal wills. Non-immediate family members are often not allowed to see patients in hospital in many situations, including an emergency.

You misundertand my post.  I'm not asking why gays should be allowed to legally marry.  I'm questioning why marriage is a legal issue.  For anyone.

Actually, on a life insurance policy, you can designate anyone to be the beneficiary and many health plans are now allowing homosexual partners to cover the partner...with a few stipulations (one being the time together, I believe for most plans it's 2 years...could be wrong on the "time" though).  And, child custody, etc. CAN be handled through legal means via wills, etc.  However, you missed the big one...the tax benefit of being recognized legally as a married couple.  Many gay partners live together, intermix their funds, share expenses equally, but do not get the tax benefits of doing so.  IMO, the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage" is a matter of semantics.  As long as they are afforded the same benefits under the law, I don't see the difference...in my eyes, I would call either union a "marriage".


Perhaps may companies are aloowing it, but they don't have to... especially when the time comes to pay up. And with the legal wills, in many cases those wills are contested in court by the unsupportive family of the deceased. Allowing marriage or civil unions between gays just serves to protect these rights. And in IMHO, I think if you're going to bother with civil unions, you might as well give them the full marriage rights, if only for the reason that there can be no non-religious reasons not to grant them the right to marry.

Because the government has chosen to allow "married" couples certain benefits under the laws.  I.E.  tax benefits for "married" couples, survivor benefits under Social Security and the like.


Why does it seem that people aren't actually READING my post?

Again, I'm asking what compelling reason is there for marriage to exist as a legal entity in the first place?

Why does it seem that people aren't actually READING my post?

Again, I'm asking what compelling reason is there for marriage to exist as a legal entity in the first place?

Just so you know, I get it.  I'm guessing people can't even comprehend the notion of questioning whether or not marriage should exist at all.  I know I've had my doubts (rim shot).

I'm guessing people can't even comprehend the notion of questioning whether or not marriage should exist at all.



I guess...

I mean, a few years ago, I was as traditional as anyone -- I just accepted that I'd eventually settle down, get married -- legally -- and live my government-sanctioned life.  But now this whole gay marriage issue has made me question the whole idea in the first place -- what the hell business is it of government?  And why should 'married' people get benefits I don't?  Why shouldn't I be able to designate my girlfriend (or my male best friend for that matter) as my legal dependent, or as the co-parent of an adopted child, or whatever else?

It's not government's business, but like many other aspects of our lives, they have MADE it their business.


This is my point.  Guys, I'm really not trying to be difficult, but this is basically a very simple question.  It seems to me there's no logical reason for marriage to be government-supervised, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that I might have failed to consider some valid argument or another, so I'm just curious as to whether there exists one.  That's all.

If not, we're agreed: Nullifications all around.

It's not government's business, but like many other aspects of our lives, they have MADE it their business. 

They make it their business because people want them to make it their business.  This is my whole problem with government.  If enough people want something, politicians from one "side" or the other will whore themselves, ignoring any issues about whether or not gov't has any business interfering (not to mention whether or not it's strictly prohibited in the Constititution), and make it law.  That's what most people think government is for, but they bitch and moan when it's used for something they don't happen to like.  Marriage in the US exists now as a legal entity because it was popular long before the US existed, and even today (as Leo found out), people can't even consider the possibility that it's wrong to provide benefits to people who get married.

It is not my field but I think thoughtful answers to this question can be found in much academic feminist literature which I am aware of but can't really say I am familiar with in detail..clearly the state has an interest in maintaining property rights, succession and the reproduction of the work force  all of which in a patriarchal contex requires the coralling and controlling of female sexuality in order to try to create a good chance of male genetic material being reproduced etc ..

the legal effects of marriage could be produced by other means but they may not have the same cultural resonance  but all sort of changes in scientiifc knowledge inevitably change cultural and legal attutudes ..
nowadays women are not seen as incubators to grow male sperm for example.. but that is quite a recent discovery..

also it is now possible to ascertain paternity reasonably accurately so there are other methods of peventing your property rights being passed on to a n illegitmate child of an wife's adulterous affair etc .. so there is not the same need to threaten adulterous wives with being stoned to death etc!!


Try to imagine that you are a wealthy man living in a prescientific age and you think women are basically incubators and you want to make sure that your incubator grows your seed ........

and you are a lawmaker ... what would you do????

correction I don't mean really prescientific .. before guys understood that ther was a connection between sexual intercourse and reproduction they thought women were amazing goddesses!!! shame the penny dropped!!!

even today (as Leo found out), people can't even consider the possibility that it's wrong to provide benefits to people who get married.



I'm not so sure that people can't or won't consider the possibility -- in fact, so far, no one's been able to suggest a good reason for it.  I think perhaps it's just that most people are just used to the idea and have not had a compelling reason to question the logic/desirability of it in this day and age, so they've just accepted it by default.


It is not my field but I think thoughtful answers to this question can be found in much academic feminist literature which I am aware of but can't really say I am familiar with in detail..clearly the state has an interest in maintaining property rights, succession and the reproduction of the work force  all of which in a patriarchal contex requires the coralling and controlling of female sexuality in order to try to create a good chance of male genetic material being reproduced etc ..

the legal effects of marriage could be produced by other means but they may not have the same cultural resonance   but all sort of changes in scientiifc knowledge inevitably change cultural and legal attutudes ..
nowadays women are not seen as incubators to grow male sperm for example.. but that is quite a recent discovery..

also it is now possible to ascertain paternity reasonably accurately so there are other methods of peventing your property rights being passed on to a n illegitmate child of an wife's adulterous affair etc .. so there is not the same need to threaten adulterous wives with being stoned to death etc!!


Try to imagine that you are a wealthy man living in a prescientific age and you think women are basically incubators and you want to make sure that your incubator grows your seed ........

and you are a lawmaker ... what would you do????



I hear what you're saying about historical reasons, but I was just wondering if anyone can suggest a compelling reason given where we are now...

Carlos and I were living "in sin" for about 5 years. We had seperate everything, so to speak even though we shared household expenses and perfectly happy being together. Then we finally got married-because of a few reasons, we figured that this relationship is going to last and wanted to make that commitment to each other (which is the usual reasons for wanting to get married). However, once we had that piece of paper, we discovered some adventages (even though we did think about them before but it really hit home afterwards). First, I was able to use his insurence-which is a big plus for me since I was going through the V.A. and coverage was, well, not the best. Now, I can chose which doctor I want to see. I also got a pay raise because Uncle Sam now conciders Carlos my "dependent" (which makes both of us laugh at that term) and he now has a government I.D. card (which we both laughed the day he got it) that he can use at any commissary and BX (or PX). There was also a change in our tax returns.

Even though some claim that marriage is a "religious institution" it is in fact a social one-and the government recognizes it. I really think it is a shame that any loving couple who wants to commit to each other regardless of their genders, should have the right as Carlos and I have. We chose to get married because we wanted to. I think it is very sad that others don't have that choice because some people are afraid. I really don't understand how two loving people who just happen to be the same sex can "destroy" the institue of marriage. I just don't get it.



Cat

As with most issues of human interaction, the state has an interest in maintaining some sebalance of order and social stability.  That includes regulating sexuality, and especiaslly female sexuality.  Part of it has to due with property, but an older reason has to due with providing for children.  Think of it in terms of gatherer/hunter societies.  Women encombered by pregnancy and/or young children would find it hard to provide for themselves and their children without the support of others.  I think the idea of marriage evolved from that reality.  Why the state has to be involved is a different question.

I think it is only practical for a governing body to be involved in the institution of marriage, but only to the extent of issuing certificates and recording the event. Even if it's just for purposes of census, it just keeps everything orderly and organised. In cases of marrying internationally, the governments of each citizen need to know what's going on, especially when one of them will be accepting a foreigner into the country... they need a reason to let them in(marriage to a citizen), and they need proof of the marriage (a marriage certificate issued by a recognised authority, foreign or domestic).