Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

It would mean nothing.

I mean, it would mean everything to those who are married (because they love each other yadda yadda), but no more Justice of the Peace marriages and what not.

If you get married, you get married by whatever entity decides to marry people (shoot, in this theory, your local McDonalds could choose to marry people if it so chose). The government needs no place in it. It's not the government's business. No more worrying about gay marriage/straight marriage, because there would be no need. The government doesn't need to prop up an institution, let society do it.

So what about divorce? Community property? Child support? Parental visitation? Death benefits? Distribution of property on death?

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

So what about divorce? Community property? Child support? Parental visitation? Death benefits? Distribution of property on death?

All these things can be settled through the courts (and already are, nearly all of them).

You may say, well sure but how do you define who is in the right or not. That's the definition of what the court's job is, regardless if the marriage is "legalized" or not.

[pshsx1]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

All these things can be settled through the courts (and already are, nearly all of them).

You may say, well sure but how do you define who is in the right or not. That's the definition of what the court's job is, regardless if the marriage is "legalized" or not.

Why would that go through the courts if the government has nothing to do with marriage?

If anything, the Facebook gods would have some say over it. Marriage would be just like saying 'in a relationship.' You don't need any documents; it's just a status that you, your spouse, and other people acknowledge.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by pshsx1

Why would that go through the courts if the government has nothing to do with marriage?

If anything, the Facebook gods would have some say over it. Marriage would be just like saying 'in a relationship.' You don't need any documents; it's just a status that you, your spouse, and other people acknowledge.

I believe he's talking about the other matters. Issues like child support are handled in the courts and distribution of property after death are handled by (correct me if I'm wrong) probate courts.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I believe he's talking about the other matters. Issues like child support are handled in the courts and distribution of property after death are handled by (correct me if I'm wrong) probate courts.

While true, the status of marriage automatically grants all of those rights and benefits onto the spouses. Though they could all be negotiated legally and separately it would create a rather heavy burden on the courts. Which then would be alleviated by creating some sort of status that couples could sign up for... which would essentially be marriage.

It would be nearly impossible to do it at this point. (And it's one of the reason that civil unions are often not effective solutions, the rights granted by marriage are not necessarily granted via civil union and particularly not if the couple moves to another state. )

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by pshsx1

Why would that go through the courts if the government has nothing to do with marriage?

If anything, the Facebook gods would have some say over it. Marriage would be just like saying 'in a relationship.' You don't need any documents; it's just a status that you, your spouse, and other people acknowledge.

And that's why the government can't get out of marriage. To do so would cause too much chaos for a true society to operate appropriately.

What those in government and people need to realize that marriage is just another form of a legal entity partnership...like a business.

When the government decides to look at all marriages as a civil union instead of marriage here, civil union there, that will stop the issue entirely.

And when the government starts treating marriage like a civil union legal entity partnership...it should come with all the advantages, and penalties of being in that partnership.

And the penalties for the dissolution of that partnership should come with tough enough penalties to make people think twice about having a government recognized civil union.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by pshsx1

Why would that go through the courts if the government has nothing to do with marriage?

Alot of stuff the government is suppose to have nothing to do with goes through the courts because it's the final arbitor, not because the government is involved.

If anything, the Facebook gods would have some say over it. Marriage would be just like saying 'in a relationship.' You don't need any documents; it's just a status that you, your spouse, and other people acknowledge.

Why should it be anything more?

Originally Posted by Drolefille

While true, the status of marriage automatically grants all of those rights and benefits onto the spouses. Though they could all be negotiated legally and separately it would create a rather heavy burden on the courts. Which then would be alleviated by creating some sort of status that couples could sign up for... which would essentially be marriage.

Not really.

Conceivably, someone who wanted to get married would just do it. However, if you wanted to grant it legal status (in terms of property, children, etc, etc) then a contract would be drawn up outlining the stipulations in order to duck greater legal issues (a pre-nuptial agreement is the best example of this).

Originally Posted by BluPhire

What those in government and people need to realize that marriage is just another form of a legal entity partnership...like a business.

But here's where you can abolish the governments role in marriage.

As I mentioned above, you can remove the deigning of what is or is not a marriage by simply entering into a legal contract if you want to truly legally legitimize it. Design stipulations, make the legal partnership document living and breathing with changes if need be. Thus, any consenting adult is able to enter into this contractual relationship; however the government is not there to decide whether or not the contract should exist, simply the enforcement of the contract.

[pshsx1]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Alot of stuff the government is suppose to have nothing to do with goes through the courts because it's the final arbitor, not because the government is involved.

Thank you for the clarification!

Didn't know that.

*blames ignorance on youth :P*

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Conceivably, someone who wanted to get married would just do it. However, if you wanted to grant it legal status (in terms of property, children, etc, etc) then a contract would be drawn up outlining the stipulations in order to duck greater legal issues (a pre-nuptial agreement is the best example of this).

Basically that's what marriage does now, except that all those things you would have to write up separately are codified in a vast multitude of laws and are granted automatically at signing. Honestly the biggest problem with the institution of marriage is that people are unwilling to mentally and emotionally disassociate the religious and personal aspects of marriage from the government benefits.

If it is a legal contract there should be no gender restrictions on it.

I'm not opposed to your ideal EW but I think it's far beyond what's plausible in the forseeable future.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Basically that's what marriage does now, except that all those things you would have to write up separately are codified in a vast multitude of laws and are granted automatically at signing. Honestly the biggest problem with the institution of marriage is that people are unwilling to mentally and emotionally disassociate the religious and personal aspects of marriage from the government benefits.

If it is a legal contract there should be no gender restrictions on it.

I'm not opposed to your ideal EW but I think it's far beyond what's plausible in the forseeable future.

I agree with you, Drole. That is what marriage does now except that the contract doesn't have to be written for every single couple who wants to enter into that contract. They get one license that in turn stipulates all the other legalities. I really don't understand what people mean when they refer to a civil union because, in the United States, that's exactly what marriage is. If you were REQUIRED to involve a religious entity in a marriage, then it would not be a civil union, it would be a religious ceremony. However, you can have all the religious ceremonies you want and you are not married unless you have a license. That makes marriage a civil union as it stands right now. Nobody distinguishes between the ceremony performed by a justice of the peace vs. a Catholic priest vs. a rabbi vs. a minister, etc. Marriage is a civil union. Those who choose to make it more by including a religious component are no more married than those who do not.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

When the government decides to look at all marriages as a civil union instead of marriage here, civil union there, that will stop the issue entirely.

And when the government starts treating marriage like a civil union legal entity partnership...it should come with all the advantages, and penalties of being in that partnership.

And the penalties for the dissolution of that partnership should come with tough enough penalties to make people think twice about having a government recognized civil union.

AMEN!

Originally Posted by AGDee

Marriage is a civil union. Those who choose to make it more by including a religious component are no more married than those who do not.

This should be the rallying call.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Basically that's what marriage does now, except that all those things you would have to write up separately are codified in a vast multitude of laws and are granted automatically at signing.

Right.

But the vast multitude of laws inherent in the marriage laws are not necessarily applicable to every marriage/every relationship. Therein lies the rub.

Honestly the biggest problem with the institution of marriage is that people are unwilling to mentally and emotionally disassociate the religious and personal aspects of marriage from the government benefits.

If it is a legal contract there should be no gender restrictions on it.

Correct on both accounts.

I'm not opposed to your ideal EW but I think it's far beyond what's plausible in the forseeable future.

What's plausible is not always moral. For me, the intervention of government into marriage is a moral issue (and not in the weird Christian assumptions). Presumably, one may always be pragmatic but I don't feel thats always a simple assertion.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Right.

But the vast multitude of laws inherent in the marriage laws are not necessarily applicable to every marriage/every relationship. Therein lies the rub.

No, though it provides a baseline. If couples wish to modify those standards they can through additional paperwork. Honestly it makes sense to have a standard contract that can be modified as the couples see fit. But because it's so intertwined into law - for example requiring insurance companies to cover spouses, requiring hospitals allow spouses to visit, allowing spouses to obtain citizenship) spouses lose a lot of protection as well as responsibility without it.

What's plausible is not always moral. For me, the intervention of government into marriage is a moral issue (and not in the weird Christian assumptions). Presumably, one may always be pragmatic but I don't feel thats always a simple assertion.

But plausiblity and morality have nothing to do with each other. I don't think I understand your use of morality there. I don't think government should interfere with marriage - any couple should be allowed to get married. However, I don't think that the government truly can get out of the marriage business either. Unless it were to adopt the idea of the state offering civil unions and marriages being the personal or religious ceremony. However it is perfectly possible for people who do not want the government involved in their relationship now to have a marriage ceremony without signing the certificate and being legally married.

As for being pragmatic, it's not the ideal solution ever, true. But personally I'd rather see equality in marriage law now than hold out for an ideal.*

*At least when it comes to the kind of first world problems we're talking about here.