It's not possible to let couples decide whethre there is a marriage. Tax and securities laws, among others, provide for certain consequences with respect to couples that are married. If couples decided this, then couples would then be deciding their fate under these laws.

I think the article is right-on. The state should not be in the business of incentivizing certain relationships.

"The state should not be in the business of incentivizing certain relationships."

Why not, if certain relationships provide a net positive to society?

2:53, have a recent study showing that "certain relationships" have a net positive effect? (btw, nice PC wordplay with "certain relationships," when it's pretty obvious you only mean straight relationships. Way to encode your bigotry.)

As for tax and security law consequences, maybe they simply aren't legitimate. Let's get rid of them and limit legal marriage/civil union benefits to interpersonal rights and obligations, e.g., visitation rights, survivorship, power of attorney upon incapacity, wrongful death, etc.

240 -

The law already permits couples to make decisions that may have "certain consequences" under tax and other laws.

For example: a married couple can choose to file individual tax returns, but often don't because the tax benefit is higher when filing as a married couple; an individual can choose their retirement vehicle which will have long term tax consequences (i.e., pay the tax now or pay the tax later) and will alter the amount of income tax owed immediately.

So what is the problem with letting the individual, as opposed to the state, decide their own fates under the various laws. As long as their decision is an informed one, then I have no problem with it. In fact, this may shift the role of the matrimonial bar to include an advisory capacity (not unlike the function of many tax attorneys).

For those few of us without a Facebook account, what does the link show?

It's also worth noting that if the state *really* cared about "families" as much as it claimed to, it would allow families to incorporate for the tax benefits. But the current law is that the rearing of a family is not a legitimate business purpose, therefore families get no tax benefits.

Oh, but my bad. It's soooo much better for children to make sure the people raising them have exactly one penis and one vagina between the two of them. That's way more important to a kid's development than things like enough money for basic nutrition, decent housing, and education.

Gay marriage should be allowed.

How long until this degenerates to the following exchange?

"{Random liberal}: The conservatives always claim they want the government out of everyone's lives, but they want to tell people if they can marry or not! Privatization would be good! Those terrible Conservatives!"

"{Random conservative}: The liberals want to erode traditional values in America! Who cares about privatization---that is beside the point! Those Godless lliberals are subverting our culture!"

Gay marriage vs. No Gay Marriage free-for-all cluster***k in 3, 2...

Down with marriage laws. Down with legal and fiscal consequences of marriage. Down with the IRC. Viva la revolucion!

Maybe they could let Dudley marry Mr Horton and help run the bicycle shop. Then Arnold and Willis could both viist them.

Why not just do a sort of hybrid of the two philosophies...gov't does not recognize marriage, but allows civil unions, straight or gay. Then it's up to each couple's church, mosque, synagogue, etc. if they want to give them a "marriage" or not, without having to worry about any of the legal stuff.

Pleases some of the more moderate conservatives who are ok with civil unions but not marriage, and pleases progressives who want everyone treated equally in the eyes of the law. Civil unions can exist for the purposes of tax incentives, etc., but the word "marriage" is avoided entirely, and left up to the private/religious side of the community.

This is the marriage model that most urbanites under 30 are already employing. The problem is that the people who actually make the decision about whether we bestow any legal benefit to these arrangements are 20-50 years older. Add that to the fact that people tend to become more conservative as they age, and we're looking at a 30-to 40-year process.

This may be a great idea, but it's going to hit a lot of people in the gut when they realize that one result (of many) of this relationship model is multi-party adult relationships. And 3-ways are sin upon sin: no 3-way is without elements of homosexuality (do the math), and by its terms, the 3-way is extra-marital (at least according to the Bible, which, apparently, is all that matters anymore). All that talk of non-interventionist liberty is going to go right out the door when people realize that (glee upon glee!) they get to be morally outraged by the consequences of its exercise.

These flaws notwithstanding, I support this notion wholeheartedly, if only because it means that my husband and I would obtain enforceable legal protections for our family without having to jump through a ton of hoops.

Obviously, there are some advantages to the 'one-size-fits-all' idea of marital contracts. A good example is joint ownership of property. If every time a couple wants to set up a bank account the bank has to review their marital contract, it would hopelessly complicate the process.

Also, tax code is largely built on a clearly defined legal concept of marriage. So is immigration, inheritance, and even the spousal privilege for testimony. And child custody... the horrors, the horrors...

I wouldn't know where to start.

They should eliminate state control over marriage... but ban gay unions of any type. That seems to be the best solution for everyone.

Filipinos are really really good lovers. Yum...

They should eliminate state control over marriage... but ban gay unions of any type. That seems to be the best solution for everyone.

I agree with simple compromise.

I agree with 3:21.

3:01, what do you call all of the child tax credits and EITC? They're much better than incorporating for all who are raising multiple children but the very wealthy.

I'd love to get the gov't out of my family. Christians have to see that we aren't running this place the way we used to and it's in our interest to get the gov't out of our private/family lives now so that in the future it can't interfere with how we raise our families or practice our religion.

How about every straight couple that is in a miserable marriage, can sell their marriage license to a gay couple? A secondary market for marriage licenses!

And maybe the state should start denying marriage licenses -- not like self-selection is working too well!

Way to go, 3:43. My wife is going to think I wrote that and c*ckpunch me for it when I get home.

Um, those of us who are not members of any religion would not like to have the defining of valid marriages in the hands of clerics.

If I get married and I need that in some way "recognized" to get the various benefits and obligations established, it should be a government registry, not a religious one. The government is tied up with the benefits and obligations, anyway, and the houses of religion are not.

every couple that wants to get married should be subject to review by a jury of its peers who can decide if the marriage would be beneficial to the community or not.

this would ensure that public policy goals are met, while weeding out undesirable unions (like pamela anderson and kid rock, prince charles and lady diana (RIP), ozzie and sharon, or heather's two mommies) and encouraging the union of desirable couples (like george and martha washington, oprah and stedman, brad and angelina, or ellen and portia).

wgwfg

Man Bites Dogma: Isn't the argument made here exactly what you propose, only without the use of the word "marriage"? Said differently, couldn't the government offer something other than "marriage" as the relationship standard at which a family unit (however variously defined) becomes eligible for benefits and subject to obligations? And as a result, whether the relationship constitutes a "marriage" is left to the consideration of private individuals?

Indeed, this is what's occurring in Massachusetts with all teh gay marriages--religious nuts of every stripe refuse to believe that these marriages are "valid," but they nevertheless are for the purposes of defining the relationship's public, legal characteristics. This result is the very one advocated here.

Or is it that your objection is to the idea that "marriage" would be unavailable to be used as public nomenclature? If that's the issue, then remember that Secularists would be able to use it in their private circles as well--"marriage" needn't be co-opted by religion at the moment it is excised from public parlance.

man bites dogma...

What you say is incredibly ironic. You want to be "married", and you don't want any sort of religious component to it. But you fail to see that the entire idea of "marriage" is religious. You can't have it both ways.

If you want a "marriage", you're going to need some sort of cleric (no matter how loosely defined) to put his/her stamp of approval on it because "marriage" is undeniably religious.

Now, if you want civil unions sanctioned by the government, that's a different story...

LOL@"nice PC wordplay with "certain relationships," when it's pretty obvious you only mean straight relationships. Way to encode your bigotry."

Thanks! But you did a much better job of encoding your paranoia.

In any case, we both know that there is overwhelming empirical evidence that societies which have larger proportions of stable, long-term couplings generally enjoy greater collective health and wealth than societies that don't. Why shouldn't the state incentivize an institution that acts to promote the improved well-being of the society as a whole?

3:57: Doesn't your reasoning beg a fundamental question about whether the word "marriage" is susceptible to civil and religious meanings simultaneously?

Moreover, under your reasoning, wouldn't every couple getting hitched in America today have to appear before a cleric before they could be legally "married"? And isn't this view opposed to the reality that religious figures needn't be involved for a "marriage" to legally exist?

4:03, I think you're missing the gist of the proposal. The idea is that the state recognizes a "civil union" for whoever wants it. If that couple wants to have a religious "marriage" ceremony, that's between them and their minister. The state doesn't care either way.

"Moreover, under your reasoning, wouldn't every couple getting hitched in America today have to appear before a cleric before they could be legally "married"?"

Yes. That would be true. Unless, of course, we stop calling the civil part of it "marriage" and called it something else. Then, if you want to be "married", you need some cleric's approval, but if you want to have your relationship defined as the civil equivalent, "_________ (you pick the term)", you wouldn't have to.

It's like"baptism." "Baptism" needs some religious person to say "This person has been validly baptized." If you have a nearly identical civil procedure that you want to recognize, then by all means, recognize it. But it's not "baptism."

Honestly, this is an argument about what we should call things.

3:57 - I was married by a JP, who I don't consider a cleric in any sense. No religion put their stamp of approval on my marriage. However, under the law I am legally married. I do not believe that marriage is undeniably religious, and nor should it be.

Where do I get my baptism license -- my muslim cleric rejected my certification request.

Where do I get my baptism license -- my muslim cleric rejected my certification request.

Is there some way I can kick my gay lover (i.e. roomate) out of apartment and still keep half his stuff?

4:17, you can deny that "marriage" is religious, but you'd be wrong.

You have a valid union under the law (it's a misnomer to call it marriage), and that's perfectly fine. You should have the same rights as someone who was "married" in addition to doing the necessary steps to get that union recognized by the government.

This may sound tautological, but that's just the way it is. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony. The state can no more "marry" people than it can declare people saints or name the next Pope. The fact that it has called your union a "marriage" is unfortunate---that causes confusion---but in the end, it doesn't matter. Your union is just as valid civilly as someone who had that union blessed in a church.

I think Big Love has opened everyone's eyes to the benefit of plural-marriage. Any ideas how I can convice my wife to accept a new "sister" wife?

regards,
"sleeping on couch"

I think Big Love has opened everyone's eyes to the benefit of plural-marriage. Any ideas how I can convice my wife to accept a new "sister" wife?

regards,
"sleeping on couch"

I think Big Love has opened everyone's eyes to the benefit of plural-marriage. Any ideas how I can convice my wife to accept a new "sister" wife?

regards,
"sleeping on couch"

I think that post was funniest the third time I read it...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
mar·riage /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

I think that post was funniest the third time I read it...

4:11: Without starting a shouting match, I think you've misread what I'm saying. My post at 3:53 shows that our characterizations of the proposal are identical in all material respects.

Like 4:17, I'm merely challenging 3:57's idea that "marriage" is "undeniably religious."

4:15: As it stands today, no couple must appear before a religious figure before they can be married--as 4:17 notes, a JP (or magistrate) will suffice.

Even if you're only talking about the proposal, I think it's analytically important for you to explain why Secularists couldn't still be "married" in the private, social sense envisioned under the proposal.

one for each of his new wives

Seems to me all this is pretty simple. You see, for our society to work, we need humans. Humans tend to be mortal, so we need more humans created from time to time to, you know, make society work. Homos can't help in this regard. Is this not reason enough to incentivize relationships that might result in creating more humans? What am I missing here?

(BTW, I'm not up on all the new PC terms for homos, so I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by this term)

Dear "Sleeping on Couch"

I think best approach to adding a new sister wife, is to not tell your first wife for a while. Just carry on with both relationships. Sometimes it is best to have two new sister wives, so you can skip the drama of adding each one.
If the first wife finds out, then remind her that she has all "powers" as first wife. And if that doesn't work, remind her that you hold the keys to her salvation.

Best of luck,

two more cents/3:41, you are clearly retarded. People making 37K a year are "very wealthy"??? Do you even know what website you're visiting????? A 1K tax credit (TOPS) per kid is more valuable than the ability to deduct *every* expense???

Boy, I sure hope you are not an accountant. Then again, if anyone were stupid enough to hire you maybe they're deserve what they were getting.

http://what-sucks.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-suckswhat-mr-horton-did-to-dudley.html

Polygamists have far more children than other forms of relationship, so we should be most incentivized by goverment.

Teh Gay,

I agree with you 100%, but just for the sake of ending confusion, let's not call the private, social union "marriage." I've never once said that secularists cannot be married in any sense of the word---just not religiously.

To be clear, IMO, people who get a union recognized by a JP should have the exact same rights as those who get their union recognized by a Jewish Rabbi, a Catholic Priest, or Baptist Minister. In this sense, I'm in complete agreement with the proposal.

But just as a JP cannot canonize an individual, he/she cannot "marry" them either. If people are confused about my point, I guess I'm arguing that religion already has a monopoly on the term "marriage." The fact that "marriage" has been expanded to include the social sense of the word (as evidenced by its inclusion as such in a dictionary) does not mean that the term hasn't been stretched from its actual meaning.

4:29, until your last line I thought you were serious and that you were actually that stupid. Nicely done. Thanks for the laugh.

(that was directed at 4:29(1), not big love)

4:37: I think you make an important point about the history of the word "marriage" and how it has been repurposed throughout the course of Western civilization.

To press further on just one point (a point raised by the California Supreme Court in the pending same-sex marriage case), would you support removing the word "marriage" from legal & government parlance for *everyone,* even though doing so might technically result in a denial of the fundamental federal constitutional right to "marry"? (I admit that this question might best be responded to by the author of the proposal.)

To all those opposed to gay sex, you should support gay marriage. Lord knows, after I got married, I stopped getting any action.

Teh Gay,

That's a really good question. I suppose that my argument would mean that the USSC would have to say, "What we meant by 'right to marry' is that you have the right to the private, social union. Any religious meaning that was imputed to this term by earlier decisions should be disregarded henceforth."

This is kind of new territory for the country---until about 20-40 years ago, we had no real need to decouple the religious part of marriage from the civil part. I certainly think we do now. It will require a lot of re-clarifying and re-defining.

The next question would be, can civil unions recognize unions between more than one person? Between a person and a non-person? Between two non-people? Once you take the religious ethic out of it, you have a different framework with which to search for answers to these questions.

4:37 - Why not expand your definition of marriage to include unions that are not religiously sanctioned? Any reason a loving commitment, intended to be permanent, between two people shouldn't be called a marriage? Language does tend to evolve over time. So, what's your real problem?

Dear Back to Basics,

I guess old people, sterile people, and really those like myself who just hate kids and don't want any ought to be precluded from marrying as well? Why should there be an incentive if the only reason for the incentive is produce more humans?

4:56, I have no other problem. Language does tend to evolve over time, but this is one term I do not wish to see evolve mostly because it still has salient meaning in its original form to a very large number of people.

A "marriage" should be defined any union blessed by God. I have absolutely no problem if an Episcopal church or a Unitarian church (both of whom bless same-sex marriages, the latter more frequently than the former) says that a union between two loving, same-sex people has been blessed by God---thus turning it into a "marriage." If it has not been blessed by God in some form of religious ceremony, it shouldn't be called a marriage.

The fact that it shouldn't be called a marriage should not diminish anyone's rights in the real world.

How is MARRIAGE an INCENTIVE? I would gladly make babies for a few extra bucks -- but getting married is a disincentive!

5:00,

You get married to put an end to your sex life. See 4:48.

The military actually pays people more if they are married. how about them apples!

5:00,

Why, yes, yes you should be...

Dear Back to Basics,

I guess old people, sterile people, and really those like myself who just hate kids and don't want any ought to be precluded from marrying as well? Why should there be an incentive if the only reason for the incentive is produce more humans?
__________________________________

Because the incentive is not merely based on reproduction; stable marriages promote increased accumulation of wealth, greater health, and longevity, even for couples who do not have children. These are all social positives.

5:17: But the real challenge is explaining why these social positives cannot/do not arise from other kinds of family arrangements, such that they, too, should not enjoy the legal benefits and obligations that accrue to marriage.

Certainly the existence of a net-positive effect of a social arrangement cannot itself supply a justification for excluding willing participants from that arrangement--can it?

"Because the incentive is not merely based on reproduction; stable marriages promote increased accumulation of wealth, greater health, and longevity, even for couples who do not have children. These are all social positives."

You're joking, right? You do know that the wealthiest people are the ones who neglect their families, or have no families to distract them from the pursuit of wealth, don't you? You really think that the rich NY law partners and fatcat CEOs got where they are *because* of their marriages? Oh man, that is a hoot.

Also, how is greater "accumulation" of wealth by one segment of the population a social positive? That's just wealth redistribution, which is a social neutral (or, if it adds to the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, a social *negative*, at least if you think democracy is a social positive). Unless you mean to suggest marriage assists in the "creation" of wealth, which you're gonna have to prove.

Finally, the health benefits of marriage have shown as statistically significant for men only. So you're incentivizing a practice that benefits men and does nothing for women. Sounds a bit like sex discrimination.

"stable marriages promote increased accumulation of wealth, greater health, and longevity, even for couples who do not have children. These are all social positives."

So what's the downside to legalizing same-sex marriage? If society encourages stable, healthy, long-term relationships that would purportedly help promote the accumulate wealth, greater health, and longetivity (even without children), then why not extend the civil right to marry to same-sex relationships?

Mr "Tautological" 4:23:

Unfortunately, that which we call a rose by any other name does not always smell as sweet. It took the governor of New Jersey to write a letter to UPS demanding that they abide by the law before UPS agreed provide benefits under the domestic partnership statute. Why? Because UPS originally claimed it didn't owe its partnered gay employees anything because they weren't technically "married."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/nyregion/31civil.html

Gays who complain that civil unions do not go far enough aren't just pissing and moaning because they want to be able to use the word "marriage." They actually have legitimate legal concerns that any other word just might not fit when companies like UPS try to split hairs.

5:47,

If we would decouple the term "marriage" from whatever we want to call the civil recognition of a union between two people, then problems like what happened with UPS won't occur. Or if they, do, UPS cannot---with a straight face---say that they can validly withhold benefits solely based on the idea that one couple's union was blessed by God. That would surely run afoul of a whole host of laws.

But until the two ideas are split apart in the law, this kind of crap will keep happening. I don't disagree with you that all people who have unions recognized by the state should all possess the same rights. But I do disagree that this MUST be accomplished by using the term "marriage"---for this is what has caused the problem all along.

The article states that "supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry."
Common law marriages were recognized because it was difficult for couples to travel to obtain marriage licenses. They still had to meet specific requirements for thier status to be honored. Now that this problem no longer exists, most states have ceased to recognize them.

It has nothing to do with asserting control or not.

Apparently I'm the only one here who's not going to Hell. So I got that going for me. Which is nice.

"You do know that the wealthiest people are the ones who neglect their families, or have no families to distract them from the pursuit of wealth, don't you?"

No, I didn't know that. Data?

"Also, how is greater "accumulation" of wealth by one segment of the population a social positive?"

The point is to incentive choices that lead to greater wealth accumulation by all segments of society; there is no class, race, or social grouping in our society that can marry that does not realize a collective increase in wealth accumulation vis-a-vis the unmarried of their group.

"Finally, the health benefits of marriage have shown as statistically significant for men only."

Only if the marriage is unhappy; a happy marriage produces a health benefit for both genders. http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20030915/only-happy-marriage-is-healthy-for-women

"So what's the downside to legalizing same-sex marriage?"

Who said there was one? Why do you assume that I oppose same-sex marriage because I point out that incentivizing marriage is good public policy?

And, um, p.s. folks, just because we don't reproduce by accident doesn't mean we don't reproduce. It's not like the first time I had sex with a woman my ovaries shriveled up or something. Queer people have been reproducing for centuries.

4:29 -- You think that marriage is needed to incentivize childbearing? Wow. Just look at how many single women have children.

"Queer people have been reproducing for centuries"
1) "Queer People" as in queer "couples" have never reproduced.
2) "Queer people" as a grouping of singular queer persons have likely been reproducing.
3) In addition, two "queer people" of different sexes (not a couple) could reproduce.

I think the unstated assumption that you are replying to is that society benefits from children born into traditional families -- rather than children born out of wedlock. (But, we really don't hold anyone responsible for having kids or even raising them poorly).

But I am not even sure what your non sequiter comment is in response to...

We don't really care how people reproduce (or how much) or even how they raise their children (outside "neglect" standard). So gay couples, christians, neo-nazi's, single black mothers, and circus "carnies" can all reproduce and raise children with their views. That is why america is so great!

357 and others with the "marriage is religious" meme:

No, actually, organized religions do not have any ownership over the word "marriage." It does not require a religious component. You do not get to tell me or anyone else that I'm not married, or that I can't use the word "marriage," if I don't get anointed by a cleric.

I would argue that a marriage is a commitment between two people, but especially for a law-related discussion, I'll go with the dictionary definition, which marks it as recognized by civil OR religious authority. Just as you wouldn't accept it if the state said "what we validate is marriage. What churches validate are 'religious unions,'" I don't accept your claim, on behalf of religion, to the word marriage.

"Civil unions" are merely marriages that make religious people* angry.
.
.
.

*only some, and other people too, but I'm being glib.

I was very excited to read this article in today's NYT, as it clearly detailed and substantianted an argument I've been making since my marriage in mid-2005. We were married by a Cantor and a priest...so we have Certificates of Marriage from our respective religions: Jewish and Catholic. The ONLY document that my employer, the federal government, state, or any creditor were interested in however was the Marriage License issued by the county for the state of California....mainly related to providing me with new identification in my married name and for other legal purposes.

As excited as I was to be married; I felt very guilty about my friends in committed LGBT relationships who were not yet afforded the legal benefits/protections for their relationships when it is recognized by the state.

My senior-citizen mother, on the other hand -- married in a religious ceremony ONLY precisely because she did not want to lose pension and ss benefits that would end if it was "legal" and recognized by the state. They were religious enough that God's recognition was all she and her husband wanted. She has led me to believe that this is a frequent practice among senior citizens -- yet it rarely comes up in these forums.

Stephanie Coontz failed to make a constitutional argument in her article --- and I'm eager to read her book to see if it's there --- the separation of church and state: The assumption of the term "marriage" was a government transgression into religion committed many years ago. The only way to correct it now would be to declare all "Marriage Licenses" ever issued and any to be issued in the future as "Civil Unions" and that any legal benefits accruing or associated with marriage be henceforth interpreted as accruing instead to "Civil Unions".

A poster at 4:15 PM made an good analogy....the state issues Birth Certificates; religions issue certificates of baptism, etc. Why should it be any different with marriage?

There are just as many single dads as single moms (as a percentage of total population of each gender).

7:52 -- Birth certificates and baptism are about as similar as marriage and drivers license. Baptism is a purely church function.

Marriage, Birth, Drivers license -- all have a legitimate state interest in controlling, encouraging, recording and regulating. Baptism is "one of the kids doing its own thing".

I would like a marriage contract with a defined period (10-years?) and a buy-out clause.

Do away with the legal aspect of marriage all together and let people form contractual relationships and document such relationships in writing. People can still have ceremonies if they want and call it marriage. The government should treat every adult individual the same, regardless of whether they are "married" or not. There should be no different tax treatment. Issues about benefits at work can be set by individual employers and driven by the market.

what would the founding fathers say? tsk tsk...

re: actually ...

not really a non sequitur (or even a non sequiter) if you think about it, or read the posts above. Either way.

An entirely market-driven approach can't work. There would be significant overhead costs to creating a different contractual relationship for every couple in the country.

And what about immigration? No amount of contracting between private parties will get a green card for your hot French bride.

Spousal immunity? Can parties contract their way to not having to testify? This is a very established component of legal marriage.

Also, it's impossible to say that there can be no differential tax treatment in a reasonable system. This is particularly true for inheritance taxes as applied to a surviving spouse.

You just can't do everything with contracts.

I also worry about the effect of delegalizing marriage in the child support context. While we might want to assume that men would volunteer to assume caretaking responsibilities for their children, many would be reluctant to contract themselves to do so absent the societal pressures that come with marriage.

An entirely market-driven approach can't work. There would be significant overhead costs to creating a different contractual relationship for every couple in the country.

And what about immigration? No amount of contracting between private parties will get a green card for your hot French bride.

Spousal immunity? Can parties contract their way to not having to testify? This is a very established component of legal marriage.

Also, it's impossible to say that there can be no differential tax treatment in a reasonable system. This is particularly true for inheritance taxes as applied to a surviving spouse.

You just can't do everything with contracts.

I also worry about the effect of delegalizing marriage in the child support context. While we might want to assume that men would volunteer to assume caretaking responsibilities for their children, many would be reluctant to contract themselves to do so absent the societal pressures that come with marriage.

man bites dogma,

Obviously, you disagree with me (I'm 3:57)---that is fine. I've articulated my viewpoint cogently and without being an ass, and you responded with glibness. You are free to argue for an expanded definition of the word "marriage." I'll disagree, and if you ever feel like debating the history of the word or the merits of defining it certain ways, let me know.

I'll reiterate one last time lest people misunderstand what I'm arguing---all unions between ANY two people, should be referred to as "civil unions" or _______ (whatever you want to call it). The term "marriage" should be dropped from any meaningful aspect of civil/social life.

I would simply like to interject into this mature conversation of social policy the fact that, based on my experience of having f*cked two Filipino girls in my lifetime, one of them repeatedly during the course of a 2 1/2 year relationship, I totally concur with Lat's assessment of his co-ethnicists' amorous abilities. I mean, damn.

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/archive/106/2/rosenbury.pdf

Marriage between a man and a woman, who commit to each other for life is a tried and tested bedrock institution in all major human cultures. In our modern era of modern states, the best way to properly ensure that such an important institution survives is to accord it the enhanced recognition that only government can give. Marriage today means making a legal commitment that both parties understand to be binding. In the medieval era, government was not necessary to make such a binding commitment because everyone believed in God and acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. Therefore, when two people exchanged vows before God (whether or not it was in a church, as the article points out), they understood that they were entering into a binding relationship that was for life in the eyes of the church and god. In our pluralistic society, the only institution capable of administering marriage and setting out rules that make it binding is the government. Any private institution would not be universally recognized like government. The best way to ensure that couples enter into a commitment that they feel to be as binding as marriage vows were in medieval times, is for the government to control marriage.

The truth is that there is good empirical scientific research that traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the optimal relationship, from a societal perspective. The benefits are so great that marriage between a man and a woman should be the only kind of relationship actively encouraged by government. Cohabitation leads to bad results and so does homosexual relationships. Some facts:

Cohabitation:

1. Cohabiting couples have MUCH less stable relationships and are much more likely to separate. For example, according to the CDC, a the probability for a first marriage to end within 5 years is 20%, but the probability within 5 years of a cohabiting couple breaking up is 49%. After 10 years for marrieds it is 33% and 62% for cohabiters. ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf ). You may think that an explanation for this is that cohabiting couples break up more often because they are "trying out" the relationship first before marriage, and thus you would expect them to break up more often, but that if they have "proven" their relationship and gotten married, their divorce rates would be lower. That is incorrect. Married couples who cohabited before marriage have MUCH higher divorce rates--twice as high. (see David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Should We Live Together?: What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation Before Marriage, A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1999 (Rutgers University)).

2. Divorce has significant negative effects on children: compared to children of married parents, the likelihood of children of divorced couple being expelled from school or having a teen pregnancy are 3 times greater. They are also 5 times more likely to live in poverty. (see, e.g., "Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce" by Elizabeth Marquardt)

3. Cohabiting women are more likely to be victims of physical and sexual abuse from their partners--such abuse may be two times higher among cohabiters. (see Linda J. Waite & Maggie Gallagher, The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially (New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 41 note 6).

4. Married couples are better off financially than equivalent cohabiting couples. (same source as above).

5. Cohabiting couples do not have the increased health benefits of marrieds: (mortality rates are 50% higher for women and 250% higher for men who are singles or cohabiters). (See Popenoe and Whitehead above).

6. Married people are happier than cohabiters. (See Popenoe and Whitehead above).

7. Married people even report higher levels of satisfaction from sex than cohabitors. (see The National Marriage Project, "The state of our unions 2000: The social health of marriage in America" (Rutgers University), 2000).

Homosexual marriage and parenting:

1. All the studies indicating a neutral or positive effect on children in homosexual households had serious methodological flaws: such as they weren't longitudinal studies, they had bad samples (either too small or used biased selection), inadequate controls, etc. (see, e.g. Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. "No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting," Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.").

2. The characteristics of families and couples that lead to positive outcomes for children (and hence society) are much less likely to be found in homosexual couples:

a. Violence and abuse are two to three times more likely in homosexual couples than in heterosexual couples (see, e.g., Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59; D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14; Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492; "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2; Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.)

b. Homosexual relationships are much more unstable and are much more likely to dissolve much more quickly. Since homosexuals generally can't marry, it is may not be fair to compare dissolution rates for homosexuals to divorce rates, however this is even true when comparing homosexuals to non-married cohabiting heterosexual couples. The homosexual relationship lasts only 2-3 years on average. (see, e.g., David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253; M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982); M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.

c. Homosexuals have significantly higher rates of mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, and shorter life spans. (see, e.g. J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81 Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91; Bailey, J.M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...."; Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244; R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874; Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939; Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657). Some have argued that these things are only true because homosexuals are not accepted in our society, and this lack of tolerance and acceptance causes these things. Similar higher rates of these characteristics also occur in other societies (such as certain European countries) where homosexuality is much more widely accepted. (see, e.g. Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91).

d. Children raised by homosexual couples have higher rates of homosexuality and are more likely to engage in other kinds of sexual experimentation. (see, e.g., F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213; J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129; F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7; Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179). People who become homosexual are at increased risk for mental illness and substance (see above).

When people propose such sweeping changes to fundamental cultural institutions, such as traditional marriage, especially where there is significant evidence that marriage is the optimal family arrangement, the burden of proof should be on them to prove why we should change. I have yet to see any evidence that is convincing enough to show why we should allow such tinkering with marriage, since government is the only institution capable of fulfilling the role that the church and god did in medieval times--ensuring that marriage is a binding legal commitment.

Marriage between a man and a woman, who commit to each other for life is a tried and tested bedrock institution in all major human cultures. In our modern era of modern states, the best way to properly ensure that such an important institution survives is to accord it the enhanced recognition that only government can give. Marriage today means making a legal commitment that both parties understand to be binding. In the medieval era, government was not necessary to make such a binding commitment because everyone believed in God and acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. Therefore, when two people exchanged vows before God (whether or not it was in a church, as the article points out), they understood that they were entering into a binding relationship that was for life in the eyes of the church and god. In our pluralistic society, the only institution capable of administering marriage and setting out rules that make it binding is the government. Any private institution would not be universally recognized like government. The best way to ensure that couples enter into a commitment that they feel to be as binding as marriage vows were in medieval times, is for the government to control marriage.

The truth is that there is good empirical scientific research that traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the optimal relationship, from a societal perspective. The benefits are so great that marriage between a man and a woman should be the only kind of relationship actively encouraged by government. Cohabitation leads to bad results and so does homosexual relationships. Some facts:

Cohabitation:

1. Cohabiting couples have MUCH less stable relationships and are much more likely to separate. For example, according to the CDC, a the probability for a first marriage to end within 5 years is 20%, but the probability within 5 years of a cohabiting couple breaking up is 49%. After 10 years for marrieds it is 33% and 62% for cohabiters. ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf ). You may think that an explanation for this is that cohabiting couples break up more often because they are "trying out" the relationship first before marriage, and thus you would expect them to break up more often, but that if they have "proven" their relationship and gotten married, their divorce rates would be lower. That is incorrect. Married couples who cohabited before marriage have MUCH higher divorce rates--twice as high. (see David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Should We Live Together?: What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation Before Marriage, A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1999 (Rutgers University)).

2. Divorce has significant negative effects on children: compared to children of married parents, the likelihood of children of divorced couple being expelled from school or having a teen pregnancy are 3 times greater. They are also 5 times more likely to live in poverty. (see, e.g., "Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce" by Elizabeth Marquardt)

3. Cohabiting women are more likely to be victims of physical and sexual abuse from their partners--such abuse may be two times higher among cohabiters. (see Linda J. Waite & Maggie Gallagher, The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially (New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 41 note 6).

4. Married couples are better off financially than equivalent cohabiting couples. (same source as above).

5. Cohabiting couples do not have the increased health benefits of marrieds: (mortality rates are 50% higher for women and 250% higher for men who are singles or cohabiters). (See Popenoe and Whitehead above).

6. Married people are happier than cohabiters. (See Popenoe and Whitehead above).

7. Married people even report higher levels of satisfaction from sex than cohabitors. (see The National Marriage Project, "The state of our unions 2000: The social health of marriage in America" (Rutgers University), 2000).

Homosexual marriage and parenting:

1. All the studies indicating a neutral or positive effect on children in homosexual households had serious methodological flaws: such as they weren't longitudinal studies, they had bad samples (either too small or used biased selection), inadequate controls, etc. (see, e.g. Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. "No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting," Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.").

2. The characteristics of families and couples that lead to positive outcomes for children (and hence society) are much less likely to be found in homosexual couples:

a. Violence and abuse are two to three times more likely in homosexual couples than in heterosexual couples (see, e.g., Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59; D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14; Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492; "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2; Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.)

b. Homosexual relationships are much more unstable and are much more likely to dissolve much more quickly. Since homosexuals generally can't marry, it is may not be fair to compare dissolution rates for homosexuals to divorce rates, however this is even true when comparing homosexuals to non-married cohabiting heterosexual couples. The homosexual relationship lasts only 2-3 years on average. (see, e.g., David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253; M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982); M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.

c. Homosexuals have significantly higher rates of mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, and shorter life spans. (see, e.g. J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81 Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91; Bailey, J.M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...."; Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244; R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874; Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939; Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journa