Posted on 05/13/2008 10:35:21 AM PDT by bs9021
How to Commit Marriage
by: Malcolm A. Kline, May 13, 2008
A couple of professors from the University of Chicago think they have found a way out of what they see as a national impasse over state marriage laws. “To respect the liberty of religious groups while protecting individual freedom in general, we propose that marriage, as such, should be completely privatized,” Richard A. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein write in Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness.
“Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government.”
Thaler is a professor of Behavioral Science and Economics at UChi, Sunstein is a visiting professor in the law school there.
“Under our approach, the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people,” the authors of Nudge promise. In an asterisk attached to that sentence just quoted the authors set off more alarm bells.
“We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people,” they admit. Judges with lifetime appointments have not been known to duck such questions.
In tackling them, moreover, many magistrates show a bias towards the novel at the expense of the traditional. Thaler and Sunstein’s text is one that such jurists are likely to find inspirational.
“Within broad limits, marriage-granting organizations would be free to choose whatever rules they like for a marriage conducted under their auspices,” Thaler and Sunstein avow. “So, for example, a church could decide that it would marry only members of that church, and a scuba-diving club could decide that it would restrict its ceremonies to certified divers.”...
(Excerpt) Read more at campusreportonline.net ...
In other words....”How to break down our society in one easy lesson.”
Why is marriage something the government has it’s hands in anyway?
Why do I need a licence like a dog? It isn’t like there is a test or something. It’s just a money maker.
Yup. We’ve just GOTTA change those rules. We’re real professors. We have absolutely NO accomplishments (save for those in useless journals that no one ever reads). Trust us.
“Under our approach, the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people,” the authors of Nudge promise. In an asterisk attached to that sentence just quoted the authors set off more alarm bells.
“We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people,” they admit. Judges with lifetime appointments have not been known to duck such questions.
So then marriage as we know it will just not exist in the law if these people have their way. That side steps the issue of same-sex marriage, because marriage itself won’t be a state or governmental issue any longer. How clever of them. Yep, we should leave it up to the scuba diving club to decide if their members can be “married”.
But in the end, judges could still come along and declare a 2 person civil union discriminatory against those who want more than 1 other partner.
If there is no marriage, then the children belong to the state.
Marriage is the foundation of society. It seems evident that these professors have not considered one awkward matter—children. Children need stable families to thrive, and a nation needs healthy children to thrive. Without stable marriage, there is no hope for the future—of the children, of the society, of the nation.
I would venture to guess that these professors favor abortion.
Enforcement of contract law. Full Faith and Credit. Etc...
No, it isn’t just a money-maker. Governments don’t concern themselves with marriages just to sanction cultural traditions. Government derives a real benefit from marriages, including having a stable institution (ideally) to raise young citizens and gaining the stability of two unrelated clans being indissolubly joined in the DNA of the offspring. Due to this anticipated benefit to the government, that government has a legitimate interest in ensuring the proposed unions are best for that offspring in terms of age, mental capacity and gender. In the past, those safeguards for offspring included laws against miscegenation but is no longer an issue. Nevertheless, the licensing procedure is prelude to obtaining certain rights and benefits from the government for creating a relation to produce these stabilizing offspring. Now you can argue that other relationships can provide at least some of these stabilizing influences for government, and you would be right, but no other relationship, except legal marriage between the potential mother and potential father can do it all. This is why traditional marriage is favored all around the world and why it is worthy of being protected to the point of allowing it certain privileges and requiring certain safeguards as evidenced by the license. It is not equal to all other adult relationships and shouldn’t be treated as such.
So when I did that with my mom it wasn't legal?
This is the thing, when my mom and I lived together, I couldn't put her on my insurance, but everything else we owned together. The house, the cars, the bank accounts, etc.
So let's take the word marriage out of it. Let me go to my priest and get married. Sign a contract and it's done. Why does the Government have to license me?
Richard “Hey” Thaler is a behavioral finance professor at UofC. Again, a professor that is opining outside of his area of expertise.
His solution is not meant to be optimal, simply a way to minimize costs.
But why not take away all laws governing sex with children? That would lower the number of court cases as well. But, Professor Thaler, reducing costs is not the only criteria.
Because our society is based on moral underpinnings.
Alimony. Community property. Child custody. Visitation agreements. Child support. Tax-free inheritance rights. Etc. Etc.
>>Alimony. Community property. Child custody. Visitation agreements. Child support. Tax-free inheritance rights. Etc. Etc.<<
Can all be taken care of with planning and contracts.
I did it with my mom.
...legitimacy of children. Prevention of polygamy. Etc...
“We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people,” they admit.
Why stop at two? I have always been against gay marriage because it leaves bisexuals without an ability to marry each partner.
I’m not against marriage. I’m married and am for it all the way.
But I lived with my mom and we combined things, yet I couldn’t put her on my health insurance.
I lived with my sister and her two kids, same thing, she couldn’t include me.
The government want 120.00 bucks to say that my hubby is my hubby when actually, we pledged to each other.
Licensing marriage is the government's way of giving the relationship legal recognition and standing. That has wide legal implications, from parental rights to property rights. It also allows the government to regulate the institution - forbidding polygamy, incest, young teenage girls in intimate relationships with much older men, etc. In fact, the government may, by establishing age limits, be guarding against even pedophilia. Mohammed was married to the nine-year-old he fooled around with, and to this day Muslim men have been known to marry young girls.
You name a father on a birth certificate. Legitimate means nothing.
That license has done nothing to prevent polygamy, seriously.
I am sure to ignite a Firestorm but here goes. The whole concept of Marriage in Colonial America was simple. A couple decided to get Married. Went to their Church did the ceremony, publicly posted their commitment. Government did not interfere, marriages were plentiful, Divorces were rare. Society was stable. Now we have Nanny Government. Which wants to read our Thermostats in the People’s Republic of Calif.
Hilliary is an expert at getting people to do her bidding. Bill even said so. Bill can kiss my hairy ass. Marriage and the West is dying. Italian Men are refusing to Marry now. Their Wives no longer cook, clean, or apparently want to raise children. They are not replacing their numbers.
This is happening everywhere Feminism has infected the culture and institutions. Get Government out of our personal lives and our Marriages. Stop the Indentured Servitude of men with the Child Support Scam.
The So called War on Dead Beat Dads is a war on Low income Fathers. One just died running from the Police, he owed back child support. Was unemployed, lived with his Mother and Step Father. One more Wage Slave running from the Slave Masters. What the hell has happened to America?
We need another Boston Tea Party. And a Declaration of Independence from nanny Government. I predict if this continues we can stop worrying about Insurgents in Iraq. And start worrying about Insurgents in the US fighting to restore our Liberties.
We have no borders effectively anymore. Where the hell is the GOP on this? Our prisons, Emergency Rooms, Maternity Wards, Schools are full of citizens of other nations here illegally. One party wants cheap Labor the other Voters. Forgotten is the $365 Billion tab to pick up the costs.
Why do American Men continue to tolerate this nonsense?
The professors are exactly right. The government’s job is to enforce legal contracts, not to define “marriage” in a religious sense. Leave marriage (as a sacred institution) to the churches, and leave government-enforced contracts to the parties who choose to enter into them.
>> forbidding polygamy, incest, young teenage girls in intimate relationships with much older men, etc.<<
So they skip the license and do it anyway. A license prevents none of this from being done. It’s all under the table.
Both the church and the secular state and society have an interest in marriage.
The state/society’s interest is that monogamous marriage of and adult male and female has proven to restrain the stupidity of men, protect females, and do the best job of producing large numbers of well-cared for children. These children grow up to be productive laborers and defend against enemies.
The church’s interest in marriage is that it is a reasonable compromise between God’s demand that we serve him alone, and man’s sinful proclivity to run from God to wide varieties of the flesh.
The state therefore rewards monogamous heterosexal marriage by OBLIGATING THIRD PARTIES TO RECOGNIZE AND DO CERTAIN THINGS TO THOSE CONTRACTED IN MARRIAGE. This is why marriage matters: the obligation to third parties not in the contract.
Note that any two or three or 500 individuals can contract for anything they want to contract for. They can be male or female. If they wanna call themselves Best Friends or Buddies for Life, and subject themselves to all sorts of obligations to each other, they can do it. But nothing they do obligates a third party to recognize or honor their contract. The state government makes marriage special by forcing third parties to honor this particular contract.
When considering homosexual marriage, or polygomous marriage, or interracial marriage, or marriage by children, or marriage to trees or beasts, please stop to consider why the state takes an interest in marriage in the first place. The state’s interest is not out of warm fuzzy feelings for the happy young couple. It wants wild young men to settle down, take care of women, and produce large numbers of healthy children.
Homosexual marriage might be doing homosexuals a warm fuzzy favor, but it is contrary to the state’s motivations for creating the special marriage contract in the first place. Ergo, it shouldn’t do it.
By the way... homosexuals complain about marriage on a civil rights, equal protection basis. This is a false argument. The homosexual has exactly the same rights under the law as a heterosexual: the man can marry any woman he wants, and the woman can marry any man she wants.
I may prefer to drive down sidewalks, as it is my preference as a sidewalk driver. But the state treats my driving privilidges the same as it does those who have a road driving preference. As a sidewalk preferrer, I cannot claim discrimination on an equal protection basis.
mb
Thank you!
i can describe the author of this article in one word...stupidfrigginjacka$$
Most states have removed the preexisting impediments to inheritance by natural children of intestate parents, but historically perhaps the main reason for marriage was to ensure inheritance by legitimate children.
One can argue both sides of the question if removing legal impediments against bastardy was a good or bad thing.
And why do you think it is done under the table? Because it is illegal. And by making it illegal, the government gives itself the right to prosecute those they do catch.
The whole argument is nonsense.
Homosexuals are not having any rights denied them, they are free to marry.. they just have to do it with someone of the opposite sex if they wish it state recognized. They choose not to do that, that isn’t an infringement on their rights.
The only reason the state has any interest in a marriage at all is because a true marriage can functionally produce offspring.. homomsexuals doing whatever they do to each other can do that all they want and will not get pregnant. A government/society does have an interest in the next generation so there is an argument for state recognition of marriage... For its own self propetuation. Gays cannot reproduce naturally by the same constructs, so there is absolutely no reason for the state to sanction or give a rats arse about their relationship.
Its a complete red herring, no ones rights are being trampled and there is no reason the state should give a care what 2 people are doing with each other.
You seem to think I’m talking about Homosexuals. I’m not.
My Dad died, my mom and I shared bank accounts, co-ownership in a house and cars. We were related and lived together yet, Sue and John next door had more legal rights because they paid the government to get a license.
And were divorced in two years.
> Went to their Church did the ceremony, publicly posted their commitment. Government did not interfere, marriages were plentiful.....
Colonial governments enacted laws protecting women in the marriage covenant. Look at deeds for land and you’ll see the woman’s signature. This was from law protecting the wife’s property interests. Governments weren’t entirely disinterested.
Otherwise, your post is well-taken.
But you could buy individual health insurance for her. So why is it necessary that you put her on your health insurance?
Probably because it's group insurance and is subsidized by your employer or it accepts preexisting conditions.
Sounds good on the surface, but society as a whole has a vested interest in protecting marriage and the family. Break down the family, and the society breaks down. (It’s happening before our eyes.)
Really?
A fifteen year old goes to the government financed Planned Parenthood and tells them that she is impregnated by a 28 year old man and the government does nothing.
People have affairs constantly. Some even have kids. You can call it an affair, or temporary polygamy. Ongoing problems
>>But you could buy individual health insurance for her. So why is it necessary that you put her on your health insurance?
Probably because it’s group insurance and is subsidized by your employer or it accepts preexisting conditions. <<
Mom, healthy woman, related to me, living with me, cannot be put on my “family” policy.
Dude I met up the street, got license, not even living with me yet on my health insurance.
Oh that makes sense.
It has certainly prevented it from becoming legally recognized.
How does the state punish an adulterer, then?
Throughout this thread, you bring up several points that are real concerns. However, eliminating government involvement in marriage won’t solve those problems. It will just make society’s problems worse.
You’re welcome, and you’re spot-on on this thread. I’ve said for a long time that the only good solution to the so-called “marriage debate” is to get the government out of the issue entirely.
Your words. They must mean something to you.
Not exactly. Until 1924, there was no required recordkeeping of births, deaths and marriages by state, county or local entities. It was hit-or-miss. In that year Congress passed a number of laws aimed at curbing immigration, establishing criteria of citizenship and standardizing recordkeeping. Congress laid an unfunded mandate upon the states to maintain birth, death and marriage records. President Coolidge signed these bills into law.
The prime mover for the birth-death-marriage recordkeeping provisions was the Federal Reserve. (Don't ask me why; I don't know.) So it's only been 84 years since government has been involved in these matters.
Interesting information - thank you.
Actually it does.
The regulations for employer provided group coverage support traditional families. You have to draw the line somewhere. That’s a logical place to draw it. Just because there is no provision for extended family members or even adult non-spousal immediate family members, doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.
What I think doesn’t make sense is that if you get a protracted illness you are almost certain to lose your job, then your health insurance goes through the roof with Cobra and ends in 6 months.
1924 was about 11 years after the Income Tax in 1913. I bet income taxes had a lot to do with it.
“... regulations for employer provided health coverage support traditional families.”
The local state university recently did a random place-of-residence audit on employees and their “spouses” who were covered under a family health insurance plan. A surprisingly large number of “marriages” were determined to be complete shams that were entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining insurance coverage for the non-employee.
But far from prevented it.
One marriage is legal, all the other women are “wives” but not legally. Doesn’t make a bit of difference.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
>>The regulations for employer provided group coverage support traditional families.<<
Why?
My mom and I were related, owned a house together, cars together, bank accounts together, so why shouldn’t I be able to carry her on my health insurance.
Other people put another adult on. Make the regulation that they must be in contract somehow. Why punish my mom who has been with me longer than any husband could be>
At the same time, my hubby and I had a commuter marriage. He was in Detroit and I was in Cleveland and I carried him on my health insurance.
That was fair?
Exactly. As goes our marriages, so goes America.
From a social, moral, economic and political standpoint, marriages matter to the viability of the US.
This is true of any country. Throughout history.
It is no accident that feminism and homosexuals have convinced the government to destabilize marriages with no fault divorces, civil unions, welfare checks replacing fathers and on and on.
And as a direct result of the breakdown of marriage, we have a breakdown of America. Clinton and Clinton is a perfect case in point of the political fallout that comes as a result of our disintergation.
Remember the recent study showing 112 Billion Dollars per year is wasted annually by bastard chidlren?
Marriage Matters.
Our prison are full of felons from broken homes.
Marriage Matters.
Our schools are turning out idiots who can’t read. Why? They come from broken homes.
Marriage Matters.
I could go on and on with more points but either you get it or you don’t.
As goes our marriages... so goes America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.