Marriage

Originally posted by sh76
State recognition and regulation of marriage is an anachronism; a relic of the days when it was considered proper for the state to regulate sex and when sex was considered moral only in the context of marriage.

What's an appropriate role for the state if a man makes a woman pregnant three times and then promptly disappears?

Originally posted by FMF
What's an appropriate role for the state if a man makes a woman pregnant three times and then promptly disappears?

Child support obligations are not dependent on marriage. In fact, marriage is essentially irrelevant, at least under US law, in determining child support obligations.

Originally posted by DrKF
Your suggestion that the state grant the full panoply of benefits attached to marriage to anyone who asks is injurious to the maintenance of common forms of life (and, ultimately, possibly also to civil peace): it replaces political settlement with jurisprudence and is, in the last analysis, another example of anarchism by way of the discourse on rights.

Could the same (basic) argument be made against same sex marriage?

Originally posted by sh76
Child support obligations are not dependent on marriage. In fact, marriage is essentially irrelevant, at least under US law, in determining child support obligations.

OK, I see. What about inhertance issues? Where there's no will, perhaps. Are they dependent on marriage?

Originally posted by FMF
OK, I see. What about inhertance issues? Where there's no will, perhaps. Are they dependent on marriage?

Yes, they're dependent on marriage now.

The law could be changed to, for example, make it dependent on status as a domestic partner instead.

As it is, an unmarried couple (as more and more couple choose to remain) have no rights of inheritance to each other's estates in the absence of a will.

Originally posted by sh76
State recognition and regulation of marriage is an anachronism; a relic of the days when it was considered proper for the state to regulate sex and when sex was considered moral only in the context of marriage.

So since those days are behind us, so to is the role that the state plays in marriage. My thoughts exactly!!

I think this is the case even though it would be a hard sell to the left and right. It would be a hard sell to the left because it would reduce state control and possible entitlements. It would be a hard sell on the right because many think that the state should subsidize the family and that such entitlements promote marriage which promotes the family structure.

Originally posted by sh76
Could the same (basic) argument be made against same sex marriage?

Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. The state should (and, in most western states does) entirely tolerate same-sex living arrangements, and I would hope homosexuals who choose to make binding private contracts (re, for example, the division of assets in the event of the failure of the relationship) would see those upheld by a court.

The question of same-sex marriage - as opposed to toleration of same-sex living arrangements - is, to my mind a different question entirely. There are countries that are 'ready' to move from simple toleration to formal recognition of same-sex living arrangements, and there are countries (or, notably, US states) that are not. The principle of toleration suffices to assure basic civil liberties for all, whatever their living arrangements; it is not necessary, and may be injurious to civil peace and harmony, to extend certain priveleges to any and all living arrangements.

Originally posted by DrKF
The principle of toleration suffices to assure basic civil liberties for all, whatever their living arrangements; it is not necessary, and may be injurious to civil peace and harmony, to extend certain priveleges to any and all living arrangements.[/b]

Why must the state recognize living arrangements to insure basic civil liberties for all? Of course, we are not really talking about living arragnements, are we? We are really discussing giving people whom you have sexual relations special rights, are we not? Why should the state care who we have sex with?

Originally posted by DrKF
The state entirely tolerates - by continuing to grant the full panoply of basic rights to participants - all manner of 'unconventional' relationships. So long as the living arrangements and sexual relations within those arrangements do not break laws (protecting animals and children, preventing non-consensual arrangments, etc), people can do as they wish. But i ...[text shortened]... ights is peremptory and nihilistic, as always: jurisprudunce taking the place of politics.

non-sub recc

Originally posted by whodey
What say you?

Marriage should be between one man and one woman only

Originally posted by whodey
Why must the state recognize living arrangements to insure basic civil liberties for all? Of course, we are not really talking about living arragnements, are we? We are really discussing giving people whom you have sexual relations special rights, are we not? Why should the state care who we have sex with?

It needn't (there is no must), but since I am not in any way a state-minimalist, the question "Why must the state recognize living arrangements to insure basic civil liberties for all?" is literally nonsensical to me. With or without state recognition of certain forms of sexual or living arrangements, I would hope that the state would tolerate any manner of sexual or living arrangements, by providing the full range of civil liberties to all, regardless of their sexual or living arrangements. I think the state can - as it does - privilege certain forms of co-habitation, and insofar as that acts to preserve common ways of life (and thus acts against anarchism) under conditions of democratic legitimacy, I see no problem with that.

But I point you towards words nine through seventeen above as to the real cause of any disagreement between us.

Originally posted by whodey
Just out of curiosity, how many here think that the state has no business in deciding who can marry and who does not? Should the state OK a marriage or should they keep their nose out of our affairs?

I don't think the state has any business sanctioning relationships. I do think the state has a vested interest in the well-being of children and in social stability, and that this could justify certain tax-related policies.

Originally posted by sh76
Yes, they're dependent on marriage now.

The law could be changed to, for example, make it dependent on status as a domestic partner instead.

As it is, an unmarried couple (as more and more couple choose to remain) have no rights of inheritance to each other's estates in the absence of a will.

common-law marriage?

Originally posted by bbarr
I don't think the state has any business sanctioning relationships. I do think the state has a vested interest in the well-being of children and in social stability, and that this could justify certain tax-related policies.

Marriage has nothing to do with having children though. Tax breaks could be then given to both mother and father, assuming they take an active role in the rearing of the child.

Originally posted by whodey
Marriage has nothing to do with having children though. Tax breaks could be then given to both mother and father, assuming they take an active role in the rearing of the child.

You want the government assessing the fatherliness of fathers?

Run your definintion of 'statism' past us again.