Banning gay marriage? Why not ban divorce, too?

Starthinker · 19th July 2010, 10:39 AM

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-...018?source=rss

Quote:

SACRAMENTO — John Marcotte had a revelation after he voted against Proposition 8, the 2008 California initiative that banned same-sex marriage — in part, its backers said, to preserve traditional marriage.

If saving traditional marriage was the aim, then there has to be a better way, thought the Sacramento father of two. "Don't stop gay people from getting married; stop straight people from getting divorced!

Makes sense to me. If people are so fired up to protect marriage, then protect the marriages that already exist. I wonder if other law makers will follow suit in other states. I wonder how many divorcees voted against gay marriage...

Personally, I think marriages should just be more like contracts that end at a certain date or under certain circumstances, and should be equal whether between a man and woman or with partners of the same sex. If religions want to view it in their own light then let them, but religious vows shouldn't be legally binding nor should religions dictate to governments what a marriage should be. Does baptism grant any legal status? Does communion? Does confession? No. So why should a religious ceremony between a couple be so binding? Yes, we have centuries of habit to get rid of, but this is just the way I see it.

geni · 19th July 2010, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

Personally, I think marriages should just be more like contracts that end at a certain date or under certain circumstances, .

Not vaible due to the issue of unforeseen circumstances.

Starthinker · 19th July 2010, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by geni

Not vaible due to the issue of unforeseen circumstances.

That's why I said "At a certain date or under certain circumstances". Just like an insurance contract has an answer for virtually everything so could a marriage contract. If nothing else you could have an "marriage can be dissolved due to unforseeable act of nature" or some such clause. (I hate the phrase, "act of god".) Otherwise there's not much that can be unforseeable.

"Marriage can be dissolved due to adultery, horrible disfigurment, cheating at board games, incompatible jobs, disagreements on how to raise the kids, volcanoes, earthquakes, competing dinner reservations, getting tired of each other, rock, paper, scissors, alien invasion, or any other unforseeable act of nature or mankind." See? It's not hard to cover everything.

bynmdsue · 19th July 2010, 10:57 AM

Why have marriage at all?

Starthinker · 19th July 2010, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Why have marriage at all?

Good question. I would do away with it completely except as a religious association but there are just too many laws defining custody of children, ownership of property, etc., to do away with it completely. Maybe it would be possible to phase it out over a few generations but there is no way to suddenly abolish it.

phantomb · 19th July 2010, 11:04 AM

The issue with changing marriage to be that dynamic is in the way that many organizations, public and private, take marriage status into account. Many workers have benefit plans that cover their spouses, for example. I'm not saying that this means we couldn't or shouldn't move in that direction, just that we'd have to make sure that as marriages become easier to start or end, the legal implications we place on marriage status change to match.

jonlindsay · 19th July 2010, 11:06 AM

Statistics show ... Marriage is the number one cause of divorce.

Twiler · 19th July 2010, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

Good question. I would do away with it completely except as a religious association but there are just too many laws defining custody of children, ownership of property, etc., to do away with it completely. Maybe it would be possible to phase it out over a few generations but there is no way to suddenly abolish it.

I agree. It's already weaker than it was, and it can keep on getting weaker.

ponderingturtle · 19th July 2010, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Why have marriage at all?

Because people want to have someone other than a blood relative as next of kin? There are many things that only marriage does that people want done.

ponderingturtle · 19th July 2010, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

Good question. I would do away with it completely except as a religious association but there are just too many laws defining custody of children, ownership of property, etc., to do away with it completely. Maybe it would be possible to phase it out over a few generations but there is no way to suddenly abolish it.

So there should be no difference between a ****buddy roommate and a spouse legally?

Should we start a list of various people who need to be deported because they only have legal status because they married the person they had sex with?

ponderingturtle · 19th July 2010, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by phantomb

The issue with changing marriage to be that dynamic is in the way that many organizations, public and private, take marriage status into account. Many workers have benefit plans that cover their spouses, for example. I'm not saying that this means we couldn't or shouldn't move in that direction, just that we'd have to make sure that as marriages become easier to start or end, the legal implications we place on marriage status change to match.

There are a lot of things that marriage does that most people will say should be done in some fashion. I think it is good to bundle them because it saves having a 20 page document with specific effects of marriage that either apply to you or do not. It means that it will take a massive amount of paperwork to determine how any bureaucracy treats a couple. Because they have to look at the individual clauses in their partnership agreement.

It also sidesteps the issue of say which clauses are needed to qualify for a marriage visa, or be treated as married by the military or...

KingMerv00 · 19th July 2010, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Because people want to have someone other than a blood relative as next of kin? There are many things that only marriage does that people want done.

The second sentence is correct but the first sentence is not a good example. You can grant inheritance rights to your partner regardless of sexual orientation.

ponderingturtle · 19th July 2010, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

The second sentence is correct but the first sentence is not a good example. You can grant inheritance rights to your partner regardless of sexual orientation.

I was using next of kin in a broader sense than just inheritance, including things like right to sue for wrongful death, legal standing to make decisions with out power of attorney and so on. Of course you can't give them the same rights, as inheritance tax is exempted for married couples, so you would have to go through some come complex legal means to get that if you wanted to for a same sex couple.

Starthinker · 19th July 2010, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So there should be no difference between a ****buddy roommate and a spouse legally?

Should we start a list of various people who need to be deported because they only have legal status because they married the person they had sex with?

I don't get what you are saying, and I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You can have a legal spouse, with all the benefits of a spouse, regardless if they're the same sex or not, it would just be a contract, and not a "marriage". If you want to define a marriage as "Between Bob and Mary for a period of 12 years" then at least they know at the end of 12 years it will be dissolved and they can prepare for it. Sure, it may end up being a 20 page or 100 page contract but is that any different from a 20 page or 100 page divorce decree? We already have pre-nups which are a step in this very direction. Pre-nups are contracts that tells what happens when a marriage is over, why not just make all marriages like that? That takes religion right out of it and if your particular religion wants to do something different, well, that's up to you but it wouldn't be legally binding.

Which brings up another point, if there are people so worried that gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage in general, what about pre-nups? Maybe we should outlaw those, too, after all they are just preperations for a marriage to fail. (sarcasm)

TragicMonkey · 19th July 2010, 12:19 PM

If homophobes were bright, they'd legalize gay marriage and spread the suffering.

WildCat · 19th July 2010, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

So why should a religious ceremony between a couple be so binding?

It's not, marriage licenses are issued by the state.

WildCat · 19th July 2010, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

The second sentence is correct but the first sentence is not a good example. You can grant inheritance rights to your partner regardless of sexual orientation.

You can, but under the law it defaults to your spouse.

Mark6 · 19th July 2010, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

Which brings up another point, if there are people so worried that gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage in general, what about pre-nups? Maybe we should outlaw those, too, after all they are just preperations for a marriage to fail. (sarcasm)

I would not be surprised if a lot of opponents of gay marriage are not happy about pe-nups either.

dudalb · 19th July 2010, 01:06 PM

If this proposition makes the ballot, it is the ultimate proof that it is way,way, too easy to get a propostion on the California ballot.

ponderingturtle · 19th July 2010, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

I don't get what you are saying, and I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You can have a legal spouse, with all the benefits of a spouse, regardless if they're the same sex or not, it would just be a contract, and not a "marriage". If you want to define a marriage as "Between Bob and Mary for a period of 12 years" then at least they know at the end of 12 years it will be dissolved and they can prepare for it. Sure, it may end up being a 20 page or 100 page contract but is that any different from a 20 page or 100 page divorce decree? We already have pre-nups which are a step in this very direction. Pre-nups are contracts that tells what happens when a marriage is over, why not just make all marriages like that? That takes religion right out of it and if your particular religion wants to do something different, well, that's up to you but it wouldn't be legally binding.

And adds all the unique things of marriage to contracts. And permits you to have a only some of the part of marriage and not others.

Marriage is not just a contract it is a status. And legally religion has no part in it.

quadraginta · 19th July 2010, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by phantomb

The issue with changing marriage to be that dynamic is in the way that many organizations, public and private, take marriage status into account. Many workers have benefit plans that cover their spouses, for example. I'm not saying that this means we couldn't or shouldn't move in that direction, just that we'd have to make sure that as marriages become easier to start or end, the legal implications we place on marriage status change to match.

How much easier can they get to start?

Over 21 (or 18, or even 16 in some jurisdictions). Maybe pass a blood test in some places. Pay for a license and dredge up a magistrate or JoP.

Heck, some places you just have to live together long enough and act like you're married.

As long as the gender thing is obeyed.

I've always thought that the whole thing is bass-ackwards. It needs to be a whole lot tougher to get married, and much easier to get divorced.

------------------------------

To the OP.

One problem is that the meaning of the term "marriage" is a moving target, and it generally gets moved by people who are defending "traditional values".

Marriage is already a contract from a legal perspective, and other than the possible exception of states electing sometimes to delegate the authority to bestow that status to certain church authorities that is all it is from the state's POV. Questions of inheritance, division of assets, child custody and support, etc., etc. are all purely legal ones, and are adjudicated only under the direct auspices of state authority as a contract. Lesser entities, such as insurance companies or corporations with benefits can pretty much apply any standard they choose.

My marriage is no less "legal" because it was sanctioned by a magistrate than if it had been performed by a Baptist preacher. Maybe more-so.

The problem is that this meaning of the word gets swapped around with "traditional" marriage, which is strictly a definition implied by the moral authority of some church.

The best thing IMO would be to abolish "marriage" as a concept with any legal relevance to the state, and replace it with "civil unions" ... for everyone. If some couple (or more than a couple) chooses to buttress that legal association with the sanction of whatever flavor of church they prefer then fine, but it should bestow no additional legal privileges or obligations as a result of that sanction.

Divorce would be (is?) the dissolution of that "civil union" contract. All of the legal consequences of such a dissolution are well rehearsed and replayed in courts every day. Nothing new there.

The real problem is religion's involvement with the state's jurisdiction over contract law. That's what needs to be weeded out.

ponderingturtle · 19th July 2010, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Marriage is already a contract from a legal perspective, and other than the possible exception of states electing sometimes to delegate the authority to bestow that status to certain church authorities that is all it is from the state's POV. Questions of inheritance, division of assets, child custody and support, etc., etc. are all purely legal ones, and are adjudicated only under the direct auspices of state authority as a contract. Lesser entities, such as insurance companies or corporations with benefits can pretty much apply any standard they choose.

No it is a status. You either have the status of being married or you do not. It is not a contract.

Nogbad · 19th July 2010, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by jonlindsay

Statistics show ... Marriage is the number one cause of divorce.

Isn't it just

Loss Leader · 19th July 2010, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

Personally, I think marriages should just be more like contracts that end at a certain date or under certain circumstances

No, it's impossible. It can't be done.

KingMerv00 · 19th July 2010, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No it is a status. You either have the status of being married or you do not. It is not a contract.

It is both.

It is a contract between two people. That contract gives you a special status with the government.

AvalonXQ · 19th July 2010, 01:33 PM

I have no issue with abolishing divorce. If marriage were irrevocable, perhaps people would be a bit more hesitant to get married, and a bit quicker to try and reconcile.

quadraginta · 19th July 2010, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No it is a status. You either have the status of being married or you do not. It is not a contract.

It's both. I don't disagree with your statement that it is a status, but the many of the rights and obligations incurred by assuming that status have no functional difference from a contract in the eyes of the state.

This is a good example of why that area of blurriness should be eliminated. Those qualities of the "status" of "marriage" which are the functional equivalent of contractual privileges and responsibilities recognized by the state should be clearly separated from the "spiritual" ones which the law does not deign to (and has no business to) involve itself with.

"Divorced" from each other, if you like.

Loss Leader · 19th July 2010, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Divorce would be (is?) the dissolution of that "civil union" contract. All of the legal consequences of such a dissolution are well rehearsed and replayed in courts every day. Nothing new there.

You're completely wrong. There are innovations and evolutions in divorce law literally every single day. As anyone here who has gotten divorced can tell you, it is far from an automatic or bureaucratic process. It is individualized, difficult and deliberate.

(Which is not to say that it cannot or should not be made more efficient, or that any one particular divorce could not be quick, friendly, cheap and relatively easy.)

Mark6 · 19th July 2010, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

No, it's impossible. It can't be done.

Assuming your spoiler is not a joke, and what you truly believe, my answer is: Only because you stand to lose a lot of money if it WERE done.

Loss Leader · 19th July 2010, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

It is both.

It is a contract between two people. That contract gives you a special status with the government.

Originally Posted by quadraginta

It's both. I don't disagree with your statement that it is a status, but the many of the rights and obligations incurred by assuming that status have no functional difference from a contract in the eyes of the state.

No, it's not. It's not both. It's not a contract at all. Some facets of a marriage are sort of analogous to a contract, but that doesn't matter. Some facets of monitor lizards are analogous to humans; I still wouldn't want one as my cardiologist.

Marriage is a status. It cannot be reinterpreted through contract law any more than Ender's Game can be interpreted with a flute.

Loss Leader · 19th July 2010, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

Assuming your spoiler is not a joke, and what you truly believe, my answer is: Only because you stand to lose a lot of money if it WERE done.

And my answer to you would contain a profanity and an invitation for you to go do it to yourself.

quadraginta · 19th July 2010, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

You're completely wrong. There are innovations and evolutions in divorce law literally every single day. As anyone here who has gotten divorced can tell you, it is far from an automatic or bureaucratic process. It is individualized, difficult and deliberate.

(Which is not to say that it cannot or should not be made more efficient, or that any one particular divorce could not be quick, friendly, cheap and relatively easy.)

Okay. I probably should have said "Most of ..." instead of "All of ...". I know what you mean, and I have been divorced.

Aside from the fact (which I cheerfully acknowledge) that human relationships can provide an endless source of permutations do you disagree that many, if not most of the issues involved in divorce are fairly well trodden paths?

I don't think that contract law is any less vulnerable to human foibles or creativity.

My point is that there is plenty of room to separate the legal issues from the religious ones, and that the crux of the objections to "gay marriage" bans is dependent on that need for separation.

quadraginta · 19th July 2010, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

No, it's not. It's not both. It's not a contract at all. Some facets of a marriage are sort of analogous to a contract, but that doesn't matter. Some facets of monitor lizards are analogous to humans; I still wouldn't want one as my cardiologist.

Marriage is a status. It cannot be reinterpreted through contract law any more than Ender's Game can be interpreted with a flute.

Why? Once the religious aspects are set aside what are the fundamental differences? Which other functions of marriage cannot be expressed as a contract?

If you dress up a monitor lizard in Popes' robes and a pointy hat it's still a monitor lizard. If someone chooses to take communion from it, it's still a lizard.

Aoidoi · 19th July 2010, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by jonlindsay

Statistics show ... Marriage is the number one cause of divorce.

And the only other way out is worse!

linusrichard · 19th July 2010, 03:43 PM

I'm with Loss Leader and ponderingturtle here. Marriage resembles a contract in a lot of superficial ways and maybe in some important ways, but on examination, the idea of marriage as contract falls apart. To take just one example - has a breach of contract suit ever been maintained (in modern times--don't give me something from 1380) for the breach of a marriage? And be careful - I don't mean a contract where the parties promise to get married.

And no, a divorce action is not a breach of contract action.

The question of whether marriage should or could be a contract is different, but it definitely is not.

MatildaGage · 19th July 2010, 04:09 PM

Haven't some states made it really difficult to get a divorce already? Not prohibiting divorce, but coming closer to it...

What's it called....super duper extra holy marriage or something like that.

You can get a regular marriage or an extra holy one.

MontagK505 · 19th July 2010, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I have no issue with abolishing divorce. If marriage were irrevocable, perhaps people would be a bit more hesitant to get married, and a bit quicker to try and reconcile.

Some churches do not allow divorce. The question is whether secular civil authorities should have the power to forbid it.

quadraginta · 19th July 2010, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by linusrichard

I'm with Loss Leader and ponderingturtle here. Marriage resembles a contract in a lot of superficial ways and maybe in some important ways, but on examination, the idea of marriage as contract falls apart. To take just one example - has a breach of contract suit ever been maintained (in modern times--don't give me something from 1380) for the breach of a marriage? And be careful - I don't mean a contract where the parties promise to get married.

And no, a divorce action is not a breach of contract action.

The question of whether marriage should or could be a contract is different, but it definitely is not.

I think that the resemblances are much more than superficial in nearly every way which counts. Perhaps we are treading on a matter of semantics here, but in practice I see nothing in the legal treatment of marriages which is fundamentally or functionally different from a contract. Certainly a special, limited subset of contracts with considerations which may not normally apply in a business encounter, but still quite addressable from that perspective.

I'm more than willing to be enlightened, though. Outside of religious issues, what sort of things are part of a marriage agreement which are not addressable as a contract agreement?

For example, why would a divorce action predicated on one partner's infidelity be different in any fundamental terms from a breach of contract action?

geni · 19th July 2010, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

"Marriage can be dissolved due to adultery, horrible disfigurment, cheating at board games, incompatible jobs, disagreements on how to raise the kids, volcanoes, earthquakes, competing dinner reservations, getting tired of each other, rock, paper, scissors, alien invasion, or any other unforseeable act of nature or mankind." See? It's not hard to cover everything.

So one partner turning out to be a terrorist (it's a hobby not a job) is not a valid reason for divorce?

Loss Leader · 19th July 2010, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Which other functions of marriage cannot be expressed as a contract?

Off the top of my head: the non-durational nature of support; the monetarily unlimited nature of support; undivided ownership by the entirety; undivided nature of child custody; substituted judgment; substituted judgment of matters up to and including death; inalienability of inheritance; and about fifty more but it's late. Anyway, try drafting a legally binding contract in which I, for any amount of consideration in the world, get to tell a doctor that it's okay to kill you.

Originally Posted by imagineaa

Haven't some states made it really difficult to get a divorce already? Not prohibiting divorce, but coming closer to it...
What's it called....super duper extra holy marriage or something like that.
You can get a regular marriage or an extra holy one.

The concept has been tossed around, but AFAIK, no state has yet to enact the two-tiered approach. I think it would be a disaster.

Originally Posted by geni

So one partner turning out to be a terrorist (it's a hobby not a job) is not a valid reason for divorce?

I don't think so. Being in jail for a number of years is usually a reason for divorce. So, if you live in New York and find out your husband is a terrorist, upon his third year in jail, you can file for divorce.

However, in the 49 other states, you need no fault whatsoever for divorce. So, the court won't ask you for your reason. They'll just assume that the differences between one spouse who wants to blow up federal buildings and one who doesn't are probably irreconcilable.

19th July 2010, 10:39 AM	#1
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Banning gay marriage? Why not ban divorce, too? http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-...018?source=rss Quote: SACRAMENTO — John Marcotte had a revelation after he voted against Proposition 8, the 2008 California initiative that banned same-sex marriage — in part, its backers said, to preserve traditional marriage. If saving traditional marriage was the aim, then there has to be a better way, thought the Sacramento father of two. "Don't stop gay people from getting married; stop straight people from getting divorced! Makes sense to me. If people are so fired up to protect marriage, then protect the marriages that already exist. I wonder if other law makers will follow suit in other states. I wonder how many divorcees voted against gay marriage... Personally, I think marriages should just be more like contracts that end at a certain date or under certain circumstances, and should be equal whether between a man and woman or with partners of the same sex. If religions want to view it in their own light then let them, but religious vows shouldn't be legally binding nor should religions dictate to governments what a marriage should be. Does baptism grant any legal status? Does communion? Does confession? No. So why should a religious ceremony between a couple be so binding? Yes, we have centuries of habit to get rid of, but this is just the way I see it.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

19th July 2010, 10:55 AM	#3
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Originally Posted by geni Not vaible due to the issue of unforeseen circumstances. That's why I said "At a certain date or under certain circumstances". Just like an insurance contract has an answer for virtually everything so could a marriage contract. If nothing else you could have an "marriage can be dissolved due to unforseeable act of nature" or some such clause. (I hate the phrase, "act of god".) Otherwise there's not much that can be unforseeable. "Marriage can be dissolved due to adultery, horrible disfigurment, cheating at board games, incompatible jobs, disagreements on how to raise the kids, volcanoes, earthquakes, competing dinner reservations, getting tired of each other, rock, paper, scissors, alien invasion, or any other unforseeable act of nature or mankind." See? It's not hard to cover everything.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

19th July 2010, 11:03 AM	#5
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Why have marriage at all? Good question. I would do away with it completely except as a religious association but there are just too many laws defining custody of children, ownership of property, etc., to do away with it completely. Maybe it would be possible to phase it out over a few generations but there is no way to suddenly abolish it.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

19th July 2010, 11:06 AM	#7
jonlindsay New Blood Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2	Statistics show ... Marriage is the number one cause of divorce.
jonlindsay New Blood Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2

19th July 2010, 11:19 AM	#8
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Originally Posted by Starthinker Good question. I would do away with it completely except as a religious association but there are just too many laws defining custody of children, ownership of property, etc., to do away with it completely. Maybe it would be possible to phase it out over a few generations but there is no way to suddenly abolish it. I agree. It's already weaker than it was, and it can keep on getting weaker.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

19th July 2010, 10:45 AM	#2
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,570	Originally Posted by Starthinker Personally, I think marriages should just be more like contracts that end at a certain date or under certain circumstances, . Not vaible due to the issue of unforeseen circumstances.

19th July 2010, 10:57 AM	#4
bynmdsue Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,385	Why have marriage at all?

19th July 2010, 11:04 AM	#6
phantomb Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 567	The issue with changing marriage to be that dynamic is in the way that many organizations, public and private, take marriage status into account. Many workers have benefit plans that cover their spouses, for example. I'm not saying that this means we couldn't or shouldn't move in that direction, just that we'd have to make sure that as marriages become easier to start or end, the legal implications we place on marriage status change to match.

19th July 2010, 11:30 AM	#9
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Why have marriage at all? Because people want to have someone other than a blood relative as next of kin? There are many things that only marriage does that people want done.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

19th July 2010, 11:32 AM	#10
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by Starthinker Good question. I would do away with it completely except as a religious association but there are just too many laws defining custody of children, ownership of property, etc., to do away with it completely. Maybe it would be possible to phase it out over a few generations but there is no way to suddenly abolish it. So there should be no difference between a ****buddy roommate and a spouse legally? Should we start a list of various people who need to be deported because they only have legal status because they married the person they had sex with?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

19th July 2010, 11:35 AM	#11
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by phantomb The issue with changing marriage to be that dynamic is in the way that many organizations, public and private, take marriage status into account. Many workers have benefit plans that cover their spouses, for example. I'm not saying that this means we couldn't or shouldn't move in that direction, just that we'd have to make sure that as marriages become easier to start or end, the legal implications we place on marriage status change to match. There are a lot of things that marriage does that most people will say should be done in some fashion. I think it is good to bundle them because it saves having a 20 page document with specific effects of marriage that either apply to you or do not. It means that it will take a massive amount of paperwork to determine how any bureaucracy treats a couple. Because they have to look at the individual clauses in their partnership agreement. It also sidesteps the issue of say which clauses are needed to qualify for a marriage visa, or be treated as married by the military or...
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

19th July 2010, 11:39 AM	#12
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Because people want to have someone other than a blood relative as next of kin? There are many things that only marriage does that people want done. The second sentence is correct but the first sentence is not a good example. You can grant inheritance rights to your partner regardless of sexual orientation.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

19th July 2010, 11:47 AM	#13
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 The second sentence is correct but the first sentence is not a good example. You can grant inheritance rights to your partner regardless of sexual orientation. I was using next of kin in a broader sense than just inheritance, including things like right to sue for wrongful death, legal standing to make decisions with out power of attorney and so on. Of course you can't give them the same rights, as inheritance tax is exempted for married couples, so you would have to go through some come complex legal means to get that if you wanted to for a same sex couple.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

19th July 2010, 12:09 PM	#14
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So there should be no difference between a ****buddy roommate and a spouse legally? Should we start a list of various people who need to be deported because they only have legal status because they married the person they had sex with? I don't get what you are saying, and I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You can have a legal spouse, with all the benefits of a spouse, regardless if they're the same sex or not, it would just be a contract, and not a "marriage". If you want to define a marriage as "Between Bob and Mary for a period of 12 years" then at least they know at the end of 12 years it will be dissolved and they can prepare for it. Sure, it may end up being a 20 page or 100 page contract but is that any different from a 20 page or 100 page divorce decree? We already have pre-nups which are a step in this very direction. Pre-nups are contracts that tells what happens when a marriage is over, why not just make all marriages like that? That takes religion right out of it and if your particular religion wants to do something different, well, that's up to you but it wouldn't be legally binding. Which brings up another point, if there are people so worried that gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage in general, what about pre-nups? Maybe we should outlaw those, too, after all they are just preperations for a marriage to fail. (sarcasm)
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

19th July 2010, 12:19 PM	#15
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,086	If homophobes were bright, they'd legalize gay marriage and spread the suffering.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

19th July 2010, 12:55 PM	#16
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	Originally Posted by Starthinker So why should a religious ceremony between a couple be so binding? It's not, marriage licenses are issued by the state.

19th July 2010, 12:57 PM	#17
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 The second sentence is correct but the first sentence is not a good example. You can grant inheritance rights to your partner regardless of sexual orientation. You can, but under the law it defaults to your spouse.

19th July 2010, 12:57 PM	#18
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	Originally Posted by Starthinker Which brings up another point, if there are people so worried that gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage in general, what about pre-nups? Maybe we should outlaw those, too, after all they are just preperations for a marriage to fail. (sarcasm) I would not be surprised if a lot of opponents of gay marriage are not happy about pe-nups either.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

19th July 2010, 01:06 PM	#19
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,843	If this proposition makes the ballot, it is the ultimate proof that it is way,way, too easy to get a propostion on the California ballot.

19th July 2010, 01:08 PM	#20
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by Starthinker I don't get what you are saying, and I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You can have a legal spouse, with all the benefits of a spouse, regardless if they're the same sex or not, it would just be a contract, and not a "marriage". If you want to define a marriage as "Between Bob and Mary for a period of 12 years" then at least they know at the end of 12 years it will be dissolved and they can prepare for it. Sure, it may end up being a 20 page or 100 page contract but is that any different from a 20 page or 100 page divorce decree? We already have pre-nups which are a step in this very direction. Pre-nups are contracts that tells what happens when a marriage is over, why not just make all marriages like that? That takes religion right out of it and if your particular religion wants to do something different, well, that's up to you but it wouldn't be legally binding. And adds all the unique things of marriage to contracts. And permits you to have a only some of the part of marriage and not others. Marriage is not just a contract it is a status. And legally religion has no part in it.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

19th July 2010, 01:11 PM	#21
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,910	Originally Posted by phantomb The issue with changing marriage to be that dynamic is in the way that many organizations, public and private, take marriage status into account. Many workers have benefit plans that cover their spouses, for example. I'm not saying that this means we couldn't or shouldn't move in that direction, just that we'd have to make sure that as marriages become easier to start or end, the legal implications we place on marriage status change to match. How much easier can they get to start? Over 21 (or 18, or even 16 in some jurisdictions). Maybe pass a blood test in some places. Pay for a license and dredge up a magistrate or JoP. Heck, some places you just have to live together long enough and act like you're married. As long as the gender thing is obeyed. I've always thought that the whole thing is bass-ackwards. It needs to be a whole lot tougher to get married, and much easier to get divorced. ------------------------------ To the OP. One problem is that the meaning of the term "marriage" is a moving target, and it generally gets moved by people who are defending "traditional values". Marriage is already a contract from a legal perspective, and other than the possible exception of states electing sometimes to delegate the authority to bestow that status to certain church authorities that is all it is from the state's POV. Questions of inheritance, division of assets, child custody and support, etc., etc. are all purely legal ones, and are adjudicated only under the direct auspices of state authority as a contract. Lesser entities, such as insurance companies or corporations with benefits can pretty much apply any standard they choose. My marriage is no less "legal" because it was sanctioned by a magistrate than if it had been performed by a Baptist preacher. Maybe more-so. The problem is that this meaning of the word gets swapped around with "traditional" marriage, which is strictly a definition implied by the moral authority of some church. The best thing IMO would be to abolish "marriage" as a concept with any legal relevance to the state, and replace it with "civil unions" ... for everyone. If some couple (or more than a couple) chooses to buttress that legal association with the sanction of whatever flavor of church they prefer then fine, but it should bestow no additional legal privileges or obligations as a result of that sanction. Divorce would be (is?) the dissolution of that "civil union" contract. All of the legal consequences of such a dissolution are well rehearsed and replayed in courts every day. Nothing new there. The real problem is religion's involvement with the state's jurisdiction over contract law. That's what needs to be weeded out.
	__________________ "It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."

19th July 2010, 01:13 PM	#22
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by quadraginta Marriage is already a contract from a legal perspective, and other than the possible exception of states electing sometimes to delegate the authority to bestow that status to certain church authorities that is all it is from the state's POV. Questions of inheritance, division of assets, child custody and support, etc., etc. are all purely legal ones, and are adjudicated only under the direct auspices of state authority as a contract. Lesser entities, such as insurance companies or corporations with benefits can pretty much apply any standard they choose. No it is a status. You either have the status of being married or you do not. It is not a contract.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

19th July 2010, 01:25 PM	#23
Nogbad Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,515	Originally Posted by jonlindsay Statistics show ... Marriage is the number one cause of divorce. Isn't it just
	__________________ Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.

19th July 2010, 01:30 PM	#24
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by Starthinker Personally, I think marriages should just be more like contracts that end at a certain date or under certain circumstances No, it's impossible. It can't be done. I really mean it. I'm an actual divorce lawyer and I'm telling you it cannot be done.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

19th July 2010, 01:33 PM	#26
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	I have no issue with abolishing divorce. If marriage were irrevocable, perhaps people would be a bit more hesitant to get married, and a bit quicker to try and reconcile.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

19th July 2010, 01:35 PM	#28
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by quadraginta Divorce would be (is?) the dissolution of that "civil union" contract. All of the legal consequences of such a dissolution are well rehearsed and replayed in courts every day. Nothing new there. You're completely wrong. There are innovations and evolutions in divorce law literally every single day. As anyone here who has gotten divorced can tell you, it is far from an automatic or bureaucratic process. It is individualized, difficult and deliberate. (Which is not to say that it cannot or should not be made more efficient, or that any one particular divorce could not be quick, friendly, cheap and relatively easy.)
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

19th July 2010, 01:37 PM	#29
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	Originally Posted by Loss Leader No, it's impossible. It can't be done. I really mean it. I'm an actual divorce lawyer and I'm telling you it cannot be done. Assuming your spoiler is not a joke, and what you truly believe, my answer is: Only because you stand to lose a lot of money if it WERE done.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

19th July 2010, 01:41 PM	#30
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 It is both. It is a contract between two people. That contract gives you a special status with the government. Originally Posted by quadraginta It's both. I don't disagree with your statement that it is a status, but the many of the rights and obligations incurred by assuming that status have no functional difference from a contract in the eyes of the state. No, it's not. It's not both. It's not a contract at all. Some facets of a marriage are sort of analogous to a contract, but that doesn't matter. Some facets of monitor lizards are analogous to humans; I still wouldn't want one as my cardiologist. Marriage is a status. It cannot be reinterpreted through contract law any more than Ender's Game can be interpreted with a flute.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

19th July 2010, 01:43 PM	#31
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by Mark6 Assuming your spoiler is not a joke, and what you truly believe, my answer is: Only because you stand to lose a lot of money if it WERE done. And my answer to you would contain a profanity and an invitation for you to go do it to yourself.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

19th July 2010, 01:45 PM	#32
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,910	Originally Posted by Loss Leader You're completely wrong. There are innovations and evolutions in divorce law literally every single day. As anyone here who has gotten divorced can tell you, it is far from an automatic or bureaucratic process. It is individualized, difficult and deliberate. (Which is not to say that it cannot or should not be made more efficient, or that any one particular divorce could not be quick, friendly, cheap and relatively easy.) Okay. I probably should have said "Most of ..." instead of "All of ...". I know what you mean, and I have been divorced. Aside from the fact (which I cheerfully acknowledge) that human relationships can provide an endless source of permutations do you disagree that many, if not most of the issues involved in divorce are fairly well trodden paths? I don't think that contract law is any less vulnerable to human foibles or creativity. My point is that there is plenty of room to separate the legal issues from the religious ones, and that the crux of the objections to "gay marriage" bans is dependent on that need for separation.
	__________________ "It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."

19th July 2010, 01:53 PM	#33
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,910	Originally Posted by Loss Leader No, it's not. It's not both. It's not a contract at all. Some facets of a marriage are sort of analogous to a contract, but that doesn't matter. Some facets of monitor lizards are analogous to humans; I still wouldn't want one as my cardiologist. Marriage is a status. It cannot be reinterpreted through contract law any more than Ender's Game can be interpreted with a flute. Why? Once the religious aspects are set aside what are the fundamental differences? Which other functions of marriage cannot be expressed as a contract? If you dress up a monitor lizard in Popes' robes and a pointy hat it's still a monitor lizard. If someone chooses to take communion from it, it's still a lizard.
	__________________ "It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it." Last edited by quadraginta; 19th July 2010 at 02:56 PM.

19th July 2010, 02:23 PM	#34
Aoidoi Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,418	Originally Posted by jonlindsay Statistics show ... Marriage is the number one cause of divorce. And the only other way out is worse!
Aoidoi Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,418	__________________ "The priests used to say that faith can move mountains, and nobody believed them. Today the scientists say that they can level mountains, and nobody doubts them." - Joseph Campbell We cannot defend freedom abroad by abandoning it at home. —Edward R. Murrow

19th July 2010, 03:43 PM	#35
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,665	I'm with Loss Leader and ponderingturtle here. Marriage resembles a contract in a lot of superficial ways and maybe in some important ways, but on examination, the idea of marriage as contract falls apart. To take just one example - has a breach of contract suit ever been maintained (in modern times--don't give me something from 1380) for the breach of a marriage? And be careful - I don't mean a contract where the parties promise to get married. And no, a divorce action is not a breach of contract action. The question of whether marriage should or could be a contract is different, but it definitely is not.
	__________________ "We are talking about an old ladies genitals after all." - ponderingturtle

19th July 2010, 04:09 PM	#36
MatildaGage Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Risa Posts: 799	Haven't some states made it really difficult to get a divorce already? Not prohibiting divorce, but coming closer to it... What's it called....super duper extra holy marriage or something like that. You can get a regular marriage or an extra holy one.

19th July 2010, 04:31 PM	#37
MontagK505 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Peoples Republick of Kalifornia Posts: 1,800	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I have no issue with abolishing divorce. If marriage were irrevocable, perhaps people would be a bit more hesitant to get married, and a bit quicker to try and reconcile. Some churches do not allow divorce. The question is whether secular civil authorities should have the power to forbid it.