WMN: t3_2kose9_t1_clnvtk7

[TITLE]

CMV: The Government should neither regulate marriage; All aspects of a Marriage should be determined by the individuals being Married and grounded in Civil Contracts

[Vanbone]

The title says it all. My nation (the United States) has a long history of controversy in regards to marriage. Up until [1967](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia), inter-racial marriage was illegal in many states. Today, I suspect, most of the public supports the legality of inter-racial marriage. Since [1862](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act) Plural marriages (known mostly for the practice's association with the Mormon church) has been illegal. Then, of course, in recent years there's been the controversy over gay marriage - George W. Bush putting [opposition into law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) and over course his successor, Barack Obama, pushing in the opposite direction. Personally, I just don't see why these issues are any business of the government. During the debate over gay marriage, the 'slippery slope' argument was often cited - that if you legalize gay marriage, next thing you know women will be wanting to marry a zebra or something. Personally, I say if the Zebra can sign the documents and take the vows, who am I to stand in the way of love? Frankly, I don't see it as my business. The issue of plural marriage is more controversial; it's been associated with abuse, forced marriage, sexual assault of minors. But to my mind, it would be more sensible to pass laws against abuse, forced marriage, and sexual assault than to ban plural marriage - which does not inherently include any of this. My opinion is this: I see no advantage and significant disadvantage to Government regulation of marriage. The marriage contract, at it's heart, is just a civil contract that comes with tax incentives and a few other incentives, such as inheritance rights and the ability to visit loved ones in the hospital. This contract should be governed by the people who want to enter into it, and subject to no more or less restriction and oversight than other contracts. I invite you to change my view *Full disclosure: I am currently in a polyamorous relationship with a partner I would very much like to marry some day, but who also has another partner whom she would also like to marry someday. Obviously, this would not currently be legal.*

[Wrestlingisgood]

The unpopular fact is that marriage is made to produce future citizens. It used to be the odd ball that had kids out of wedlock or couldn't have babies or didn't want or have kids. So we should be subsidizing marriages to get future kids.

[Vanbone]

Seems like something we maybe don't need to incentivize? We're not in danger of underpopulation.

[Wrestlingisgood]

We need future soldiers. The world may not be in danger of it, but if we go to war with Russia or china or some world power, we will need a lot of soldiers. Plus it is good for the economy, more workers and more people needing stuff.

[Vanbone]

I really have to disagree with you here. People are capable of generating resource (jobs), but they ALWAYS consume resource. So more people without proportionally more jobs puts further burden on social safety nets. It's a real problem for social security, Medicare, medicade, not to mention crime rates; it's also likely to be linked with higher poverty rates. The reason for incentivizing the birth rate is really unclear to me. And anyway, if babies were what it's all about, that's a simple fix - incentivize having children directly. No need to involve marriage, we all know that's an optional part of it.

[Wrestlingisgood]

Well idealistic my marriage creates good homes for babies. That is the idea. Single parents (as good as they may be and there are a lot of amazing ones out there) are fighting the odds. Single parent homes simply are not as stable as homes with 2 parents. Incentivizing having kids without marriage, at least on paper isn't what we want

[Vanbone]

All the more reason that plural marriage should be legalized. If single parents are fighting the odds, 3 or 4 parent homes easily have the advantage over even 2-parent homes. More parental oversight, wider variety of skills and experiences, lower chance of poverty, more expendable household income to put them through higher education... The list goes on.

[Wrestlingisgood]

We are not arguing poly marriage. You said you don't believe the idea of state marriage, this is about marriage not civil unions

[Vanbone]

Poly marriage is a part of it, but you're right, it's mostly beside the point. I DO believe that the Government has a role to play in marriage, simply not such a large one as it currently occupies. The fact is though, I don't really accept the argument that society benefits from incentivizing marriage, or at least the benefit doesn't seem obvious to me. But I also don't object to the incentives, except insofar as they present barriers to the government taking a step back from the institution - so if those can be preserved, I'm completely fine with that. But if they can't, I'm fine with that too.

[SOLUNAR]

I agree, but then we need to REMOVE all benefits the government awards to what they considered to be a marriage right? Marriage affords people a lot of benefits that the government pays for.

[Vanbone]

I don't view that as necessary, per se. They can bestow benefits based on the status without heavily regulating that status. But I'd be perfectly comfortable with benefits being rescinded if officials decide to do so.

[SOLUNAR]

[STA-CITE]> They can bestow benefits based on the status without heavily regulating that status. [END-CITE]I feel like these are counter-intuitive arguments. If you want the government to bestow benefits based on a definition, you cant ask them to not regulate such definition. I know it might not seem like a lot, but the potential for abuse with lighter regulations would be enormous. I already know of people abusing the system, even inside of the armed forces its very common to find people who marry other armed services personel to get some sweet benefits like added pay, they dissolve those marriages once they leave the forces. If people can make their own arrangements, what would stop someone from actually doing an arrangment entirely based on economic gain, not something like love. Would the govt still have to accept such contracts and award benefits bestowed to a marriage? **Tax Benefits * Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. * Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.** then you have employment benefits, legal benefits, consumer benefits, housing benefits and many more. You could probably launder a lot of money by avoiding taxes by gifting people money under a marriage. Its silly i know, but people are vicious, so if we expect the govt to give benefits, they must be heavily regulated.

[Vanbone]

To be honest, I find the concept of bestowing benefits to people based on marital status to be a bit puzzling. I don't know why marriage needs to be incentivized. But if the reason that a person can't marry someone they love is because the state feels that allowing the marriage would allow for marriage benefits to be exploited, I feel the benefits should change. [STA-CITE]> its very common to find people who marry other armed services personel to get some sweet benefits like added pay, they dissolve those marriages once they leave the forces. [END-CITE]It seems to me like we both agree that the people you're talking about are exploiting the system. They are married for the benefits, rather than for the marriage itself. All the same, they can marry, they have that right. On the other hand, there are people like myself, who would like to be married for the marriage itself - but who cannot because the state forbids it. If the state forbids marriage out of a fear of exploitation of the benefits, it gives the impression that they view marital benefits as more important than marriage itself. But I think relatively few people would say that it is.

[SOLUNAR]

point is, as long as benefits exists, regulation is needed. Which challenges your view that marriage should be less regulated by government and left to individuals to determine. As long as the definition carries benefits that costs us money, then we must regulate.

[Vanbone]

I don't actually oppose all forms of government regulation, I simply feel the current system is inappropriately regulated. Contracts don't traditionally specify one man, one woman. I see no reason why marriage should be any different, or why it is the government's place to put such limitations on it.

[SOLUNAR]

and i agree that our current system is wrong! i think same sex marriage should be allowed and recognized. BUT EVEN THEN!! it will need to be regulated! thats all i am talking about. I think letting people define their own contract is a bad, bad, bad idea. Rather lets change our definition to accept same sex, but still continue to oversee it. To that point: [STA-CITE]> simply feel the current system is inappropriately regulated. [END-CITE]So you are also like me, someone who thinks it needs to be recalibrated, but still regulated. This is very different from your CMV post, which is about letting individuals define it how they see fit.

[Vanbone]

You're absolutely correct, and I apologize for expressing myself poorly. I wrote that I don't think the government should regulate marriage, and that's actually an overstatement of my feelings. What I should have written is that ***I don't believe the government should regulate marriage much beyond the extent that they regulate and enforce other contracts***. I absolutely believe that some regulation is needed. I wouldn't say that I feel the existing system simply needs to be re-calibrated though. Stronger change is needed. As it stands, the government is able to determine who is and is not able to be married, and both historically and presently they do this using somewhat arbitrary (and unfair) standards. I see no advantage to them having that power

[SOLUNAR]

opps i forgot to reply!~ Well i see your point and for the sake of having a rational debate. I ask. 1. Can you name these contracts you keep referring to? [STA-CITE]>the extent that they regulate and enforce other contracts. [END-CITE]What contracts do you think marriage should be comparable to? Remember these contracts should have hefty financial implications to be comparable to marriage.

[Vanbone]

I suppose you could take virtually the same sort of marriage contract. However, it's one of the few contracts I'm aware of in which the state heavily regulates who is allowed to enter into it and who is not - largely based (at least historically) on issues such as race, gender, and the number of individuals entering into it. This sort of regulation strikes me as government over-reach, and I see no obvious advantage to it.

[tweetypi]

If the contract is between people without any government, then the government is not obligated to acknowledge it. You need to have set rules for inheritance and the hospital visit thing, otherwise anyone can say they are married to anyone. Your personal situation interests me more than your cmv, if you get married to her would you also marry her other partner? If you have kids with her, does her other partner have any rights to it? Is she fine with you having more partners? Can you have as many as you want? Can you only do it with another person you are dating or are you all allowed to have one night stands too?

[Vanbone]

You're absolutely correct. I'm afraid my title overstated my position - I did attempt to clarify in the comments, but I apologize because a lot of people seem to have been confused. I don't advocate the complete removal of Government from marital status, I simply feel that marital status should be treated similar to other sorts contracts. Still government enforced, but with less regulation as to what that contract may be and who is allowed to participate. As for my own situation - first, I appreciate your interest. If I were to marry her, it would only be her who I technically marry (in terms of marital status, I would only have one partner to whom I am married). I would envision a specific contract between her and myself; however I also see the four of us signing a broader contract governing shared property, hospital visits, childcare, inheritance, and possibly shared accounts. Of course most of that isn't currently possible. The notion of registering our own LLC as a means of facilitating shared assets has been raised a few times. I envision any children I have would also be her other partners child, and vice versa, for most intents and purposes. I know that he feels the same way about it. As for the decision to have or not have a child, we did once have a pregnancy scare, and we all discussed the matter, with the final decision going to the perspective mother, as usual. I imagine that's how it would work in the future. So far as having other partners go, I guess it's potentially without limits, but time is a factor. One relationship takes a lot of time and effort, two all the more. And it can be a bit tricky - you want to make sure that everyone is on the same page about what's happening and no one's secretly hurt or angry or feeling threatened. I could probably have one night stands (I have had one, with a good friend), but disease is a concern, and the aftermath can easily yield hurt feelings and changes to the fundamental dynamics of the relationship, and none of that is something I take lightly. In general, we're not big on relying on rules (which tend to be open to differing interpretations, abuse, and have no enforcement mechanism to punish someone who breaks them). We rely much more on whether our actions are hurting someone else, or making them uncomfortable. Thanks for your response

[piepi314]

I agree. The only thing I guess I could see creating a problem is single people creating some massive marriage spanning the entirety of the population. This would of course be for anyone who wishes to receive a tax break and be available as soon as they turn 18. Obviously that is ridiculous, but I honestly wouldn't put it past some intelligent entrepreneurs to organize such a thing.

[Vanbone]

This is the biggest obvious hiccup to the concept of allowing plural marriage. Personally, I'm not certain why the government should be providing tax incentives to begin with - I'd certainly be happy enough to go without, and I don't see married couples as inherently adding more to society than non-married couples (which is the only reason I could see for incentivizing it).

[Erratica]

Actually, it's not always a tax incentive; sometimes it's a penalty. There's a nifty little [calculator](http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/marriagepenaltycalculator.cfm) that shows you whether it's best to file jointly or singly, based on income disparity between spouses, tax-deductible costs such as child tax credit, and other factors. So, mass waves of single people getting married for a tax credit they won't necessarily benefit from doesn't seem altogether feasible. Plus, I think cohabitation is required to file jointly anyway. Edit to add: I recognize you from r/poly.

[piepi314]

The tax break of marriage mainly stems from the fact that married people unionize their income. Because of the progressive tax scale, simply combining two incomes would result in married people having to pay massively higher amounts of tax. Imagine two people who each make $30k/yr get married. Before, they would pay a combined total of $8092.5 in federal income tax. After marriage without a tax break, they would pay a combined total of $10,856.25 in federal income tax. There may be other reasons that I am unaware of, but I'm fairly certain that is the primary reason.

[Vanbone]

That makes sense, and I do see this as a barrier that would need to be addressed. It's hard to think that it's large enough to justify barring certain marriages though.

[piepi314]

Right. I was just addressing a possible issue. I'm sure there would easy ways to rectify the issue.

[mrgoodnighthairdo]

Marriage unites two unrelated people into kinship. How do you propose it be possible to create familial relationships via private contract without state oversight?

[Vanbone]

I would suggest limited state oversight, rather than none. But I don't see as the state needs to have a particularly large role in it, aside from the normal judicial sense for settling contract disputes when they arise. They already do quite a bit of this for marital disputes.

[cdb03b]

Then why does your title state you want none?

[Vanbone]

A mistake on my part; my apologize. I also got the grammar wrong. Clearly I needed to proofread better. I did attempt to clarify my position in the text though.

[cdb03b]

I should point out one of your clarifications. If something is governed by the people that means it is governed by society. The way that society governs things if by establishing "Governments" which then set policy and law.

[Vanbone]

In an abstract and theoretical sense, yes. But sometimes society is governed by dictators, kings, democracies, plutocracies, etc. The government does not always represent the will of society. Moreover, slavery was the will of society too. In my personal view, popular opinion should not always dictate the rights of the people (even if, in practice, it generally does).

[PepperoniFire]

The issue is that marriage as it stands is basically a default scheme predicated upon that legal status. As you've mentioned, it deals from issues ranging from inheritance to taxes to medical decisions to child custody. These default rules can be modified via prenuptial agreements, but it still stands as a basic package for people with a legally recognized relationship. Your suggestion flows from good intentions where couples who want to formalize their romantic relationship create their own contract and dictate its terms. The problem with this is that marriage touches on so many aspects - [over 1,000 federal laws alone](http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/223674.pdf) ([2004 update](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf)) - that building it from the ground up is cumbersome, time consuming, and probably expensive to the extent it would require a lawyer. You would be asking people to contemplate all the circumstances and likelihoods that matrimonial law effectively does already by virtue of having the same issues arise for hundreds of years. In a way, marriage functions as a very egalitarian institution because it is within easy reach of broad swaths of people. For ~$40.00 you can get what you or an attorney would (for a fee) have to draft. You would have to hope it contemplates all of the same things and that every clause is legally enforceable. Making it more costly - actually (legal fees and associated costs) and through time/effort spent - makes marriage far less accessible. We already have an access-to-justice problem. Low-income people can't get the legal representation they need, particularly with civil issues, because it's too costly and pro bono/legal aid societies can't effectively pick up the slack. Requiring people to create marriage-like agreements piecemeal and then be on the alert to update it every time their circumstance changes is not only problematic generally, but will just exacerbate this access issue and predominantly affect people in lower socioeconomic circles. Even when we talk about boilerplate forms one can download off the Internet, these oftentimes fall short and would still require the creation and formalization (probably notarized too) of each and every right and responsibility flowing from marriage as it stands today. Also, this ignores another issue: non-marital laws still work in conjunction with and refer to marital status. Social Security is not matrimonial law but it still creates benefits based on marital status. Inheritance law is not matrimonial law but it still creates rights and presumptions based on marital status. Evidence law is not matrimonial law but it still creates privileges based on marital status. Bearing this in mind: 1. You can't just get the government 'out of marriage' by turning it into a traditional contractual relationship because you would still have to get rid of statutorily created rights/benefits/privileges/presumptions that were drafted independently, and; 2. Since it's unlikely that we'll just reform these laws piecemeal, each individual law can still dictate what kind of relationships it chooses to acknowledges for the purpose of that statute, i.e., still discriminate against 'peculiar' kinds of relationships. We saw (2) arise when some states legalized gay marriage but those couples only had equal status in state law, not federal law, pre-*Windsor*. You (general you) and your four partners can draft your contract, but the SSA and Congress can still be jerks and say their death benefits are only for monogamous two-party couples so long as they have a rational basis for it. Moreover, the law that would govern traditional contracts is ill-suited for the nature of marriage. Contract law is designed to facilitate *arms-length* economic transactions to allow the economic pie to grow bigger. It is enforced, in part, by the state. Marriage is by definition intimate. We don't breach marriages. We don't sue our partners for damages if things don't work out. Instead, we have equitable dissolution, the parameters of which are outlined primarily by state marriage (not contract) laws. It was created to ensure both parties leave in the best way possible (even if it is imperfect) rather than "making them pay." Sure, we could keep these rules, but then we'd be circling right back to a special body of law that caters to the unique circumstances arising out of marriage that we just don't care about in a standard contracts. If we're going to discuss marriage equality between monogamous and non-monogamous couples, it would probably be better to do things with an eye towards reform of present marriage law rather than non-monogamous couples deferring to recreating a marriage-like scenario from the ground up. This is what gay and lesbian couples have historically had to do and there is a reason they pushed for marriage equality beyond the ability to make a solemn, public declaration, and that's because the extent to which that status affects the partners is massive. Marriage creates sensible rights, defined contours and presumptions for important issues of natural consequence when we invest our lives, finances and future into a community of interests. Getting government out of it is unlikely to solve its inequities.

[Vanbone]

First of all, thank you for your well written and thoughtful response. You make a number of very good points, but they seem largely pragmatic, based in the difficulty of changing or re-making the gargantuan system that currently exists. This is certainly valid, but I confess that I find it somewhat difficult to reconcile with my views, which I confess are largely philosophical. [STA-CITE]> Even when we talk about boilerplate forms one can download off the Internet, these oftentimes fall short and would still require the creation and formalization (probably notarized too) of each and every right and responsibility flowing from marriage as it stands today. [END-CITE]To my view, though I certainly have not dealt in writing contracts professionally, a good deal of society relies on contracts, which are open to customization, but largely standardized. I would envision marriage contracts could be similarly standardized, while still allowing for the individual needs and desires to the participants. [STA-CITE]> We don't breach marriages. We don't sue our partners for damages if things don't work out. Instead, we have equitable dissolution - the parameters of which are outlined primarily by state marriage (not contract) laws - that was created to ensure both parties leave in the best way possible (even if it is imperfect) rather than "making them pay." Sure, we could keep these rules, but then we'd be circling right back to a special body of law that caters to the unique circumstances arising out of marriage that we just don't care about in a standard contracts. [END-CITE]You make a good point here. I suppose on some level you've changed my view - I don't necessarily feel that society should be torn down and reformed so that it's systems no longer take marriage into consideration (though considering the divorce rate, there may be other arguments for that). So perhaps marriage should have, if not more oversight, *different* oversight from traditional contracts. I still believe that the Government should have extremely limited power to regulate who can and cannot enter into a marriage, but that is a strong shift in my view at the least. Thank you, I'll award you a delta as soon as I figure out how. edit: ∆ = ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PepperoniFire. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/PepperoniFire)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[PepperoniFire]

[STA-CITE]> So perhaps marriage should have, if not more oversight, different oversight from traditional contracts. [END-CITE]Thanks for the delta. I thought I'd mention that marriage originates out of a more economic relationship -- typically a quid-pro-quo between families for status and resources. So, essentially, the system we have is a direct result of starting out with a contractual relationship in the beginning and naturally transitioning to the different oversight we have now (marital law.)

[ralph-j]

A contract between two (or more) people is usually not binding to other parties. Here is a list of benefits commonly associated with marriage: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html I'd imagine that a lot of these cannot be achieved by me and my spouse signing a private contract between ourselves.

[Vanbone]

True. Perhaps I was unclear with my view (others have also expressed some confusion over my position, so my apology). I don't feel that marital status should be eliminated, simply that it should be subject to such strong government oversight. /u/PepperoniFire convinced me to take this position a step back, and allow it unique oversight at least. My primary concern is that the Government has great authority over who is allowed to enter into a marriage, and I see no reason that it should have such authority, nor advantage in the government having it.

[ralph-j]

Do you think that marriage should only exist to benefit two (or more) private parties, or that it should be balanced against the wider interests of society? I don't see who else but a government should be able to set the rules for who can avail of these benefits? If they were open to anyone and any number, this would severely limit the benefits that can be given. E.g. as a spouse, you are usually exempted from inheritance tax on the share of your spouse. If all one needed to get this exemption, is sign just another piece of paper, everyone would do it all the time just to avoid inheritance tax. To avoid this, you'd have to get rid of exemptions. This means that if a couple owned a house together, and one of them dies, the remaining spouse would suddenly have to pay tax on the other's half of the house, possibly leading to a forced sale.

[Vanbone]

[STA-CITE]> Do you think that marriage should only exist to benefit two (or more) private parties, or that it should be balanced against the wider interests of society? [END-CITE]Yes, more or less. The Government should certainly be able to set rules regarding the benefits availed by marital status, but I take strong objection to their authority to determine who can and cannot access this status. [STA-CITE]> If all one needed to get this exemption, is sign just another piece of paper, everyone would do it all the time just to avoid inheritance tax. [END-CITE]Can't people already get married to access the benefits conferred to marriage? It seems like this is already an option some people are able to exercise - it's just somewhat limited. And the limitations aren't obviously governed by reason or fairness. If I own a house with my current spouse and her other partner, I already find myself more or less in this position, and I see no particular reason why this should be the case.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> Can't people already get married to access the benefits conferred to marriage? [END-CITE]If they solely do it to get access to state benefits, they might be liable to fraud, the most extreme example being obvious sham marriages to enable immigrants to stay in the country. If the government cannot restrict who may enter into a marriage, this cannot be prevented either. [STA-CITE]> If I own a house with my current spouse and her other partner, I already find myself more or less in this position, and I see no particular reason why this should be the case. [END-CITE]Like everything else, marriage needs to be weighed in terms of costs vs. benefits to society. Society benefits when more people can continue to pay taxes etc. Letting two people marry makes it more probable for them to succeed in life and continue to contribute to society. E.g. when one partner falls ill, the government will often not have to pay unemployment benefits because they are married. These benefits to society are already achieved by letting two spouses per family marry, while adding additional spouses changes the equation. If those added spouses work, 3+ families have a monetary advantage over 2-spouse families, and if these spouses don't work, the 3+ family will contribute on average less per head than if those adults were incentivised to enter into 2-spouse marriages.

[Vanbone]

[STA-CITE]> Letting two people marry makes it more probable for them to succeed in life and continue to contribute to society. E.g. when one partner falls ill, the government will often not have to pay unemployment benefits because they are married. [END-CITE]Very true. It's doubly true with 4. But the below seems inconsistent to me: [STA-CITE]> If those added spouses work, 3+ families have a monetary advantage over 2-spouse families, and if these spouses don't work, the 3+ family will contribute on average less per head than if those adults were incentivised to enter into 2-spouse marriages. [END-CITE]Perhaps? But if the success of these individuals is an advantage to society, then one would think greater success would bestow greater advantage. If I understand you, it seems as if you're saying that the benefits bestowed onto two-person marriages hits a sweet spot, and that doing less would harm society while doing more would also harm society. I'll grant you, it's plausible. But what information are you using to assess this? Is it not equally plausible that a 4-person marriage would actually be more beneficial both to those in the marriage and to society? More success equates to more money, which equates to more paid in taxes, smaller likelihood in bankruptcy, or defaulting on (or inability to pay back) loans and bills. Car loans, home loans, medical bills, college loans, you name it, a marriage of 4 is more likely going to be able to repay it. When it comes to children, a marriage of 4 will be better able to supervise and attend to the needs of the children (probably equates to lower crime rate), have a wider variety of skills to teach, and better able to financially put them through higher education (increased chance of success, decreased probability of crime). Surely this sounds as if it COULD be beneficial to society, doesn't it?

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> Is it not equally plausible that a 4-person marriage would actually be more beneficial both to those in the marriage and to society? [END-CITE]I would expect those four people to be more beneficial to society if they were instead incentivised to be in two separate marriages. It would also equalize the economic advantage they have over 2-spouse households. [STA-CITE]> More success equates to more money, which equates to more paid in taxes [END-CITE]Once a certain amount of pooled income is achieved, overall it will be less necessary for all spouses in the marriage to also be earners. And in those families where they *are* all earners, you're still dealing with an unnecessary advantage over 2-spouse households. [STA-CITE]> When it comes to children, a marriage of 4 will be better able to supervise and attend to the needs of the children (probably equates to lower crime rate), have a wider variety of skills to teach, and better able to financially put them through higher education (increased chance of success, decreased probability of crime). Surely this sounds as if it COULD be beneficial to society, doesn't it? [END-CITE]I think I could potentially be persuaded by this argument to some extent. There could probably also be an optimal number of participants, perhaps 3 or 4. Are polygamous setups as stable and long-lasting as monogamous ones, on average? To come back to the issue of obvious sham marriages: if you object to governments deciding who can marry, are you willing to accept the consequence of also allowing all marriages solely entered into to circumvent immigration restrictions? If not, on whose authority should they be prevented, if not the government's?

[Vanbone]

I have to say, I am enjoying this line of discussion, but the fact is that it's pure speculation. I don't think we could know what relationship configuration would be optimal for the economy without some good studies and hard numbers. At the moment, only 1-person and 2-person relationships have been studied. The same is true regarding the stability of a plural marriage. I certainly couldn't speak to that (If the comparison is two person marriages, I don't imagine a major difference, but i really have no idea). As for sham marriages, well they already exist. I'd imagine there would need to be an amendment to the citizenship laws, and certainly a number of others. Legislators would, of course, be responsible for making these changes as they see the need. All these are logistical issues though, and if your premise is that marriage is a system existing primarily to bestow benefits on groups of people for choosing to mingle their assets and co-habitate, I would disagree. When a friend tells me that they're getting married, it's a joyous occasion, likely to be followed by celebration. Celebration of joint tax returns to come, or shared health benefits? I really don't think that's it. Marriage, in modern society, is viewed as a deeply meaningful symbolic gesture of love and commitment. That's the part I value. The laws and benefits could all go out the window, and I honestly don't believe our society would be much the worse for it (though obviously there would be a fair bit of legislative reworking to be done).

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> I have to say, I am enjoying this line of discussion, but the fact is that it's pure speculation. I don't think we could know what relationship configuration would be optimal for the economy without some good studies and hard numbers. [END-CITE]Fair enough. I did see a study once, from the 70s or 80s, in which an economics professor found that there is a principle of diminishing returns at work: that by adding more persons to a 2-person marriage, the average output per person is less than if those person were in 2-person marriages. I can't find the study anymore, and parts of it are probably outdated, but I'd be willing to yield to the outcome of a more recent repetition. [STA-CITE]> As for sham marriages, well they already exist. I'd imagine there would need to be an amendment to the citizenship laws, and certainly a number of others. Legislators would, of course, be responsible for making these changes as they see the need. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> All these are logistical issues though [END-CITE]Sham marriages can currently only be prosecuted because it's the government who decides that you may not enter into marriage purely for immigration benefits. If governments can only decide on citizenship laws, but not who may enter into marriages, they will have no option but to eliminate the possibility of achieving citizenship through marriage. [STA-CITE]> Marriage, in modern society, is viewed as a deeply meaningful symbolic gesture of love and commitment. That's the part I value. The laws and benefits could all go out the window [END-CITE]But then you don't need the government at all. Just get a marriage ceremony done by any religious or secular organization to celebrate that love and commitment. You can already do that. You do not need the government to give you permission to enter into an official civil marriage if you don't even value the laws and benefits that come with it.

[Vanbone]

[STA-CITE]> Sham marriages can currently only be prosecuted because it's the government who decides that you may not enter into marriage purely for immigration benefits. If governments can only decide on citizenship laws, but not who may enter into marriages, they will have no option but to eliminate the possibility of achieving citizenship through marriage. [END-CITE]I think there are other options - they could limit the number of citizenships a US citizen could grant through marriage. They could make the citizenship conditional on a number of conditions such as co-habitation. I imagine there are other options too, as I don't do this professionally, and these are off the top of my head. [STA-CITE]> But then you don't need the government at all. [END-CITE]Well there are a few laws that feel important to me, in regards to the sharing of assets, hospital visits, inheritance and the like. And as /u/PepperoniFire pointed out, there are thousands of references to marital status built into US law, it would be impractical to ignore them. But beyond that, Plural Marriage in particular is a [felony](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act), punishable by imprisonment. Social Services certainly does not view such a household as appropriate for children, and parents could easily face loss of custody. So there are plenty of reasons someone in a plural marriage might desire government consent and recognition.

[A_macaroni_pro]

First off, if someone wants to draw up a "civil union contract" that isn't marriage, there's nothing stopping them from doing so right now. However, let's be clear about something: legal contracts inherently involve the government. Are you under the impression that civil suits are brought in "private" courts of some kind? Because they're not. Passing and enforcing laws are what government *does*, so anything "legal" is going to involve the government by definition. Not to mention that many of the rights of marriage are entirely *about* the government, like tax status and immigration. So what you're arguing for isn't "removing government" from marriage contracts. You are arguing that each couple should go through the process of drawing up their own individual contract for their specific civil union, rather than getting to use a standardized contract like what is currently in use, and the government should individually vet each and every one of these individual contracts to see which rights will be extended in each specific case. So, more red tape, more lawyers fees, and more time and energy required, with the benefit of...what, exactly? I think the net result of such a system would be that wealthy people, who have the time and money to go around drawing up personalized contracts, would have legally-recognized marriages, while poor people would not.

[perfidius]

[STA-CITE]> I think the net result of such a system would be that wealthy people, who have the time and money to go around drawing up personalized contracts, would have legally-recognized marriages, while poor people would not. [END-CITE]Personally, I see nothing wrong with this. It's been shown that economics is a major underlying factor in a number of divorces. Specifically, couples that suffer a lot of financial hardship tend to be more prone to divorce, which is a messy and expensive process. Perhaps we shouldn't really be encouraging poor people to get married.

[Vanbone]

You're completely right that I am not truly advocating wholehearted removal of the government from marriage. I attempted to clarify my position in the text, but I understand that the title may be misleading, which I apologize for. [STA-CITE]> You are arguing that each couple should go through the process of drawing up their own individual contract for their specific civil union, rather than getting to use a standardized contract like what is currently in use, and the government should individually vet each and every one of these individual contracts to see which rights will be extended in each specific case. [END-CITE]That's almost certainly not what I'm arguing. At worst, I suspect there would be a few standard contracts that most people choose from - I don't think people should be limited in this regard, but I don't imagine many people want to go to the trouble of writing a contract from scratch either. Our society must use upward of 100,000 contracts for various endeavors, I don't see this as much different. [STA-CITE]> First off, if someone wants to draw up a "civil union contract" that isn't marriage, there's nothing stopping them from doing so right now. [END-CITE]Absolutely correct. So this being the case, why does this inherently involve more red tape, more lawyers fees, more time and energy, ect.?

[A_macaroni_pro]

[STA-CITE]> So this being the case, why does this inherently involve more red tape, more lawyers fees, more time and energy, ect.? [END-CITE]...Because you are drawing up a contract? Because doing a thing requires more time, money, and energy than not doing a thing? I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Vanbone]

But isn't that equally true of a civil union contract? I don't deny that contracts can yield red tape. But our society practically runs on contracts, and there's no doubt to my mind that standard contracts would emerge. I don't see this as a major issue in anything but the short term.

[kataskopo]

There is already a standard contract. It's called marriage.

[BenIncognito]

So why not just keep the status quo, with standard contracts and anyone who wants to do something else is able to? In light of this post I don't understand your view.

[Vanbone]

The status quo is quite limiting in that it puts great restriction on who is and is not allowed to enter a marriage. By way of example, until very recently two people of the same sex were not allowed to enter into a legal marriage.

[BenIncognito]

Anything that deals with the same scope of rights that marriage deals with will have to be limited in some way. Unless you think I should be able to enter into a pseudo-marriage with an unlimited number of immigrants to give them citizenship.

[Vanbone]

Good point! It would complicate the immigration status benefits. I'll have to think about that. But it doesn't seem like an insurmountable issue.

[starlitepony]

There's also health insurance, for another example. Many businesses offer insurance to their employees and their employees' spouse. If I marry 1000 people, do they have to give healthcare to all 1000? Also, you can't be forced to testify in court against your spouse. Can I marry anyone who might have to testify against me?

[Vanbone]

I imagine each healthcare provider would have to make those policy decisions, but I doubt it would become an insurance free-for-all. As for spouses not being able to testify against each other, I have it on good authority (an episode of the Sopranos) that that law is mostly false in practice.

[BrellK]

What about Spousal Privilege? Should I be able to marry as many people as I can so that I am immune from having people testify against me in court?

[Vanbone]

Sure? My understanding of that law (which admittedly comes primarily from an episode of the Sopranos) is that those protections are actually quite limited. But that law is subject to change in any case, should legislators so desire.