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?
> Why is it not "registration of a marriage" as opposed to "application for marriage"?
Because you cannot be married to two different people at the same time. Marriage is not an event that happens, it's a legal contract that cannot be in conflict with an existing legal contract. A new marriage does not immediately nullify the existing contract, so an application must be processed to verify this.
There are also other things that need to be verified like age.
If we are to use the biblical sense of marriage, the Old Testament has a few incidents where a man was married to multiple wives[1]. Then if we are to be traditional, can a marriage not be among multiple people?
Since we have denied same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds, are we saying we should deny the right for a man to marry multiple men or women or a woman to marry multiple men or women because of our beliefs? Isn't that the same reason that we're denying same-sex marriage(s)?
Age verification is OK, since minors aren't recognized to be capable of forming contracts.
The argument for denying plural marriage is that, in the US, polygamy has been primarily a tool for subjugating women. Legally recognizing these unions would be granting legal cover to people like Warren Jeffs.
If this view is outdated, and our laws against polygamy are causing people real pain, then by all means let them make their case; perhaps times have changed. But we do not make laws in the abstract, and polygamy in the USA is intimately connected to subjugation, abuse, FLDS, and other ugliness.
> A marriage should be recognized in the same manner that we issue a birth certificate
In the case of a birth there is a clear indisputable fact: a child is born, therefore a new human being that must be taken care of and have rights as a citizen is added to the world.
That's a pretty clear event to which a birth certificate can be attached. Is there such an equivalent for marriage?
If two people agree to marry, isn't that indisputable fact? What else do we need to require to prove a marriage? A "Registration of Marriage" would be sufficient, not an "Application for Marriage License." Marriage is a right, not a privilege. Or do we need to let the government decide who can marry still and continue with the permitting process?
Edit: I would like to know why you might disagree if you are down voting me. yellowapple and I have similar sentiments, I think.
I agree with you that marriage is a right, but there are various reasons why a marriage may be invalid. Perhaps one or the other is underage, or it is incestuous, or bigamous, or immigration fraud. You both must prove eligibility in order to acquire the special legal rights associated with marriage, and rightly so. But of course there is no eligibility requirement for being born!
> If two people agree to marry, isn't that indisputable fact?
Why just two? Why people?
And what exactly is the reason for the State to recognise that two folks like to bump uglies? At lease in the case of traditional marriage, there's the creation of children to contend with.
> At lease in the case of traditional marriage, there's the creation of children to contend with.
Huh? Sterile people have always been permitted to marry. Always. Everywhere. Under all circumstances. Ever. Sometimes inability to bear children has been grounds for divorce or--in the case of royalty--annulment, but there has neveranywhere been a test for non-sterility prior to marriage. So what does "the creation of children" have to do with "traditional marriage", given "traditional marriage" could and did trivially take place between sterile individuals.
And whose tradition? One man, one woman, the man's concubines, the odd houseslave, and perhaps a sheep or two? Is that the traditional marriage you're talking about? It's by far the most common kind over most of the world before industrial capitalism.
"Why just two people?" is of course trivially easily answered: humans are a socially pair-bonded species. This seems to be basic to our biology, and is the case in every society ever observed. While bonds between more individuals are possible, they are rare and complicated (the modern poly community is small, for example, and most frequently consists of multi-pair-bonded networks).
> Sometimes inability to bear children has been grounds for divorce or--in the case of royalty--annulment
Not just royalty. An annulment means that there was never a marriage…because a marriage which cannot produce children wasn't regarded as a marriage (or as less of one), which suffices to demonstrate a strong connexion between childbearing and marriage.
> "Why just two people?" is of course trivially easily answered: humans are a socially pair-bonded species.
We are also, you may have noticed, two-sexed. This is even more basic to our biology.
> 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.
Because you're applying for an official recognition of your marriage for which the government grants various benefits, and the government can in fact refuse it (for siblings for instance)
For the sake of argument, if you want to marry your sibling, and your sibling consents, are we to judge that? Aren't we holding a double standard if our religious or moral standards are opposed to that? Or are you saying the government should still deny those marriages? A segment of society wants to deny same-sex marriage because their moral and religious beliefs are against it.
Yes, many religions are against sibling marriages, but many religions are also against same-sex marriage.
> For the sake of argument, if you want to marry your sibling, and your sibling consents, are we to judge that? Aren't we holding a double standard if our religious or moral standards are opposed to that?
Most of the US puts a value judgement on incestual relationships and I can't say I agree with them, but I do believe there is an argument to be made against incestual marriage: because of the genetic risks to offsprings and the historical tendency to abuse, it is not in the state's interest to promote or encourage incestual relationships through marriage, the social advantages don't compensate for the issues.
> Or are you saying the government should still deny those marriages?
For the reasons above, yes I would say that. But I'm open to the idea that it's only a rationalisation of separately-held beliefs.
I think it's such a rare incident that the state not be concerned about sibling marriages, or whoever wants to get married at all, so long as they are capable of forming a marriage contract (of age, human/entity/Delaware C corporation, just kidding sorta, sound mind, without duress). But the true keyword is whether or not it's in the "state's interest"--and that reminds me of China.
Interestingly, Americans love pure-bred dogs despite the genetic problems these pets have.
> But the true keyword is whether or not it's in the "state's interest"--and that reminds me of China.
Why so? That's pretty much what the state does, it provides advantages for situations it wants to see happen more (tax breaks for instance, dispensations or fast tracks, direct monetary grants) and disadvantages for those it doesn't (fines and privation of liberty, mostly). Would you find replacing "the state" by "society" more palatable?
Then by what you wrote, gay marriage shouldn't be palatable to the state or society, since same-sex marriages usually do not result in natural children with today's technology. So we shouldn't provide any advantages to gay marriages by your argument.
What about "traditional" opposite-sex marriages where children are not produced within the optimal reproductive age window? Should we take away their "advantages"?
> Then by what you wrote, gay marriage shouldn't be palatable to the state or society, since same-sex marriages usually do not result in natural children with today's technology.
Why do you believe creating children is the only social value of marriage? If it figures there at all, it's very low on the totem pole, after all society could simply subsidise rape if that were the point.
> Why so? That's pretty much what the state does, it provides advantages for situations it wants to see happen more (tax breaks for instance, dispensations or fast tracks, direct monetary grants) and disadvantages for those it doesn't (fines and privation of liberty, mostly). Would you find replacing "the state" by "society" more palatable?
The problem isn't encouraging natural children, it's discouraging the birth of crippled children that has a high likelihood of occurring between closely-related family members producing children together.
Said crippled children are often a drain on society. It's not the children's fault of course, but it's still the case.
All of these things are failures only of bureaucracy to keep up. I should be able to notify the government of who my default estate recipient should be. Maybe it's my best friend or some stranger. No marriage required. Tax treatments for married couples need to disappear and flatten out in general. Insurance should be an individual matter or if it's going to be provided by the government (read: all of us are forced to pay for each other), healthcare issues disappear. The only thing basically left is an adoption issue which is more or less an edge case in all this.
Right. So we need permission from the government to marry with a "marriage license"? Why not just record the marriage? License implies a privilege not a right. I'm OK with "Certificate of Marriage." My issue lies with the "Application for Marriage" that implies marriage awaits an approval or denial decision from government. What's next? Do we need to take a marriage test, like we do with driving?
Why do we let the government deny our marriages in the first place? The law should be changed so that we record and acknowledge marriages, not have a bureau officer approve or deny it.
It's kinda a permission thing but not really. When I got married it was just like registering a birth. The city clerk took our information down (name, address, etc.) and had us sign the license under oath that it was accurate. Then the civil officiant just checked our IDs and signed off on the license that we agreed to be married and submitted it the the clerk. We then went back to the clerk to get a copy. The city clerk wouldn't have gave us our license if we showed up without ID or if we were like 12 or something but there really wasn't an "approval" process.
My problem is that the application for marriage created the marriage inequality problem in the first place. We should change the institution to recording instead of application. Just because you were issued one doesn't mean that it was automatic until today.
When you buy real estate, you simply record it. You don't need governmental approval to buy property as far as I know. You will, though, have to pay property tax.
It wasn't an application though. There was nothing that said "approve" or "deny" just that we were truthful. Its reasonable for the clerk to make sure that someone else wasn't trying to impersonate me to get married or we weren't children.
It wasn't the fact it was an "application" that was the problem - you could just say "previously some states refused to register same sex marriages" instead of "previously some states refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples" and it means the same thing.
The Lovings (of Loving v Virgina) were arrested for getting married in DC.
Refusing to register or to give a license is the same as denying an application.
I can apply for a liquor license and the state ABC can refuse to give me a liquor license or refuse to register a liquor license and it means the same thing.
Have you gotten married in the US? I think there's substantially less red tape in practice than you're imagining. People get married on the spot all the time.
Yes, I have gotten married in the US. I'm not sure how that is relevant. My problem is the wording--"application" as opposed to "registration." Even if it's as easy as applying for a passport, there is still room for denial.
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?