Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[wenglund]

This question is being discussed on another thread, but since it is tangential to that thread, I have brought it here.

To me, answering the topical question of this thread is of great value, particularly in relation to the controversial issue of so-called same-sex marriage, because it orients things somewhat away from a purely emotive perspective and towards a more rational and pragmatic perspective.

And, while it may be of some use to consider the topical question in terms of whether the government should or shouldn't be involved in marriage, I prefer to concentrate the discussion more on vetting the reasons why governments in general, and the U.S. in particular, have been and continue to be involved in marriages.

Also, my intent here is to look at governmental involvement not just in terms of regulatory restrictions, but also in terms of government incentives.

I will be approaching this question with the proposition in mind that governments, including the U.S. government, have become involved in marriage because, in terms of costs/benefits, it has been in the people's (or state's) interest to do so, particularly in relation to bearing and raising children, and this net positive interest applies to heterosexual and not homosexual relationships, and may even work against government regulation and promotion of homosexual relationships.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

This question is being discussed on another thread, but since it is tangential to that thread, I have brought it here.

To me, answering the topical question of this thread is of great value, particularly in relation to the controversial issue of so-called same-sex marriage, because it orients things somewhat away from a purely emotive perspective and towards a more rational and pragmatic perspective.

And, while it may be of some use to consider the topical question in terms of whether the government should or shouldn't be involved in marriage, I prefer to concentrate the discussion more on vetting the reasons why governments in general, and the U.S. in particular, have been and continue to be involved in marriages.

Also, my intent here is to look at governmental involvement not just in terms of regulatory restrictions, but also in terms of government incentives.

I will be approaching this question with the proposition in mind that governments, including the U.S. government, have become involved in marriage because, in terms of costs/benefits, it has been in the people's (or state's) interest to do so, particularly in relation to bearing and raising children, and this net positive interest applies to heterosexual and not homosexual relationships, and may even work against government regulation and promotion of homosexual relationships.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, as I see it, the governments interest in marriage is multifaceted. The family, child rearing, issues being only one of them. other reasons include the recognition of estate claims, tax benefit issues and others. The list certainly is not conclusive. The problem with marriage as we now have it is the problem that government did not adhere to the separation of church and state. Government found that marital status was a convenient vehicle for accomplishing governmental objectives. This works and has worked fine until church and governmental objectives diverge. The ideal solution is to return marriage to the churches and for government to create its own classification. The problem is that governmental and church objectives have been intertwined so long that separating the two is going to be extremely difficult.

[thesometimesaint]

We have to competing governmental issues here.

One. Is the ability of two adult people to make a contract, and marriage is a contract, that is legally enforceable in a court of law. The other is the governments desire for continuance. There is no substantive issue with the ability of two people to make a contract, and unless there is duress or fraud there should be a minimal amount of governmental interference.

Two. Is the desire for the continuance of the State. Historically marriage has given that continuance through the successful raising of children to good, honest citizens.

The tension between these two goals comes into play with SSM. There is little support for the idea that same sex couples can not raise good, honest citizens, at least after birth. However how do we ensure the right to make contract and still put limits on and delegitimatize SSM?

I'm not arguing that churches and particularly the Church I belong to can't categorize SSM as a sin, but I see no legal way to prohibit it.

Edited April 26, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

To answer the question of the thread, let's start at the very beginning when secular governments first began regulating marriage--which, as best as I can tell, occurred during the Greco-Roman era, particularly the reign of Agustus. Scholars have summarized the reasons for the government involvement in marriage as follows: "The chief purpose of Roman matrimony, as stated in marriage contracts and various laws, was the obvious one of producing and bringing up children." (See Roman Marriage)

Also: "Under Augustus, the Leges Juliae of 18–17 BC attempted to elevate both the morals and the numbers of the upper classes in Rome and to increase the population by encouraging marriage and having children (lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus). They also established adultery as a private and public crime (lex Julia de adulteriis). To encourage population expansion, the Leges Juliae offered inducements to marriage and imposed disabilities upon the celibate." (See Moral Legislation of Agustus)

Furthermore: "In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn....Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single...." (See http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html]Marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade, as I see it, the governments interest in marriage is multifaceted. The family, child rearing, issues being only one of them. other reasons include the recognition of estate claims, tax benefit issues and others. The list certainly is not conclusive. The problem with marriage as we now have it is the problem that government did not adhere to the separation of church and state. Government found that marital status was a convenient vehicle for accomplishing governmental objectives. This works and has worked fine until church and governmental objectives diverge. The ideal solution is to return marriage to the churches and for government to create its own classification. The problem is that governmental and church objectives have been intertwined so long that separating the two is going to be extremely difficult.

I appreciate your sentiment. However, as indicated in the OP, the intent of this thread isn't to question whether or not governments should continue to be involved in marriages or not, but rather why they have been involved.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

We have to competing governmental issues here.

One. Is the ability of two adult people to make a contract, and marriage is a contract that is legally enforceable in a court of law. The other is the governments desire for continuance. There is no substantive issue with the ability of two people to make a contract, and unless there is duress or fraud there should be a minimal amount of governmental interference.

How does this address the question of the thread?

Two. Is the desire for the continuance of the State. Historically marriage has given that continuance through the successful raising of children to good, honest citizens.

Okay.

The tension between these two goals comes into play with SSM. There is little support for the idea that same sex couples can not raise good, honest citizens, at least after birth. However how do we ensure the right to make contract and still put limits on and delegitimatize SSM?

How does this address the question of this thread?

I'm not arguing that churches and particularly the Church I belong to can't categorize SSM as a sin, but I see no legal way to prohibit it.

Whether you can see it yet or not, I am at a loss in understanding how your "argument" is relevant to and addresses the question of the thread. Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

To answer the question of the thread, let's start at the very beginning when secular governments first began regulating marriage--which, as best as I can tell, occurred during the Greco-Roman era, particularly the reign of Agustus. Scholars have summarized the reasons for the government involvement in marriage as follows: "The chief purpose of Roman matrimony, as stated in marriage contracts and various laws, was the obvious one of producing and bringing up children." (See Roman Marriage)

Also: "Under Augustus, the Leges Juliae of 18–17 BC attempted to elevate both the morals and the numbers of the upper classes in Rome and to increase the population by encouraging marriage and having children (lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus). They also established adultery as a private and public crime (lex Julia de adulteriis). To encourage population expansion, the Leges Juliae offered inducements to marriage and imposed disabilities upon the celibate." (See Moral Legislation of Agustus)

Furthermore: "In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn....Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single...." (See Marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think at one time you could argue that marriage was about forming a legal contract to cement the relationship of a couple and have those children raised by that couple to be invested in that contract. Quote whoever you want. The initial reasons are just not relevant in todays marriages. When the states involvement began, a marriage would always bring about children unless the couple was infertile. In todays world, many couples that get married choose not to have children regardless if they are fertile. Birth control has made that a choice that just wasn't readily available during the time you are talking about. So that original reason really has no bearing at all on today's marriages. There is no expectation of children when a marriage license is issued in todays world.

Like ERayR said, the current governmental interest in marriage is multifaceted. Every single one of the reasons why the government would be interested in heterosexual marriages also apply to homosexual marriages. Even in regards to the raising of children in a legally committed relationship as pointed out by thesometimesaint.

Wade, we know this seems to be your pet theory why government should be involved in marriage. Heaven knows we have heard it enough. But quite frankly, in my opinion, it just doesn't stand up to this countries view of marriage in todays world. To think that the government has only one reason for encouraging marriage ignores the reality of the many reasons why it is still good for people to marry even if they don't plan or can't have children. Like so many have said who have changed their views on SSM, We should be encouraging all people to marry not discouraging them. It is the gay movement to want to marry that is reminding people of the importance of this institution when many straight couples see less reason to embrace marriage.

[wenglund]

I think at one time you could argue that marriage was about forming a legal contract to cement the relationship of a couple and have those children raised by that couple to be invested in that contract. Quote whoever you want. The initial reasons are just not relevant in todays marriages. When the states involvement began, a marriage would always bring about children unless the couple was infertile. In todays world, many couples that get married choose not to have children regardless if they are fertile. Birth control has made that a choice that just wasn't readily available during the time you are talking about. So that original reason really has no bearing at all on today's marriages. There is no expectation of children when a marriage license is issued in todays world.

As the discussion progresses, we will test your claim that birth and raising of children is no longer a reason for government involvement in marriage. Evidence will be presented to the contrary.

Like ERayR said, the current governmental interest in marriage is multifaceted. Every single one of the reasons why the government would be interested in heterosexual marriages also apply to homosexual marriages. Even in regards to the raising of children in a legally committed relationship as pointed out by thesometimesaint.

Again, as the discussion progresses, we will see if your bald assertions stand up to evidential scrutiny.

Wade, we know this seems to be your pet theory why government should be involved in marriage. Heaven knows we have heard it enough. But quite frankly, in my opinion, it just doesn't stand up to this countries view of marriage in todays world. To think that the government has only one reason for encouraging marriage ignores the reality of the many reasons why it is still good for people to marry even if they don't plan or can't have children. Like so many have said who have changed their views on SSM, We should be encouraging all people to marry not discouraging them. It is the gay movement to want to marry that is reminding people of the importance of this institution when many straight couples see less reason to embrace marriage.

Again, as the conversation progresses we will see if your relevant bald assertions will stand up to evidential scrutiny. But, I understand your inclination to poison the well. I think you can see where this will go, and it won't bode well for your own pet position. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

To answer the question of the thread, let's start at the very beginning when secular governments first began regulating marriage--which, as best as I can tell, occurred during the Greco-Roman era, particularly the reign of Agustus. Scholars have summarized the reasons for the government involvement in marriage as follows: "The chief purpose of Roman matrimony, as stated in marriage contracts and various laws, was the obvious one of producing and bringing up children." (See Roman Marriage)

Also: "Under Augustus, the Leges Juliae of 18–17 BC attempted to elevate both the morals and the numbers of the upper classes in Rome and to increase the population by encouraging marriage and having children (lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus). They also established adultery as a private and public crime (lex Julia de adulteriis). To encourage population expansion, the Leges Juliae offered inducements to marriage and imposed disabilities upon the celibate." (See Moral Legislation of Agustus)

Furthermore: "In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn....Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single...." (See Marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay... so, if I understand correctly, ancient Romans tried to use the power of the government to encourage procreate. And it didn't seem to work.

[BCSpace]

Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

Because society has a vested interest in limiting unrestrained sex which causes all types of societal problems and regulating how children are raised. God Himself understands this which is why we have the law of Chastity.

[Stone holm]

In the prior thread someone asserted that the U.S. via the Constitution adopted the Common Law. What were you referring to? The Constitution only mentions the "common law" in the 7th Amendment which is the right to jury trial in civil cases. Some States have adopted or incorporated the Common Law as it existed at such and such a date, but I know of nothing actually known as the "common law" of the United States. In fact not all States had the common law as their basic civil law, Louisiana had the Code Napoleon, and some of the Western States had what was known as community law. Also, Louisiana recognized concubinage for awhile as did some of the other states I believe, New Orleans had what they called "Morgan Wives" -- not sure if that was officially sanctioned or just a cultural custom, it involved the kept women of African descent who were consorts of wealthy whites.

[EllenMaksoud]

This question is being discussed on another thread, but since it is tangential to that thread, I have brought it here.

To me, answering the topical question of this thread is of great value, particularly in relation to the controversial issue of so-called same-sex marriage, because it orients things somewhat away from a purely emotive perspective and towards a more rational and pragmatic perspective.

And, while it may be of some use to consider the topical question in terms of whether the government should or shouldn't be involved in marriage, I prefer to concentrate the discussion more on vetting the reasons why governments in general, and the U.S. in particular, have been and continue to be involved in marriages.

Also, my intent here is to look at governmental involvement not just in terms of regulatory restrictions, but also in terms of government incentives.

I will be approaching this question with the proposition in mind that governments, including the U.S. government, have become involved in marriage because, in terms of costs/benefits, it has been in the people's (or state's) interest to do so, particularly in relation to bearing and raising children, and this net positive interest applies to heterosexual and not homosexual relationships, and may even work against government regulation and promotion of homosexual relationships.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I hope that this does not infuriate too many people. Personally, I think that the government is the only entity that should record marriages, and that for legal rights only.

Now, I think that churches should have the right to regulate who they recognize as married within their own membership. In my mind, the two issues are separate. If two gay guys want to get married, then the LDS church has the right to not recognize that.

I think that the GBLT activist groups deviously try to manipulate the arguments to create a huge hue and cry in an effort to change public opinion. This fact has caused my opinion of those activist groups to sour in recent years. I do not know if the LDS church has used equally devious arguments. I would hope not.

[CASteinman]

Okay... so, if I understand correctly, ancient Romans tried to use the power of the government to encourage procreate. And it didn't seem to work.

Romans didn't reproduce?

[Bikeemikey]

Because society has a vested interest in limiting unrestrained sex which causes all types of societal problems and regulating how children are raised. God Himself understands this which is why we have the law of Chastity.

The question is why govt is interested in marriage, not why is society interested in marriage.

As an advocate for limited govt I find it very frustrating that people ignore the distinction between society and govt.

The role of govt ought not be to compel all members of society to do what is in societies beat interest... In my opinion govt should be limited to providing a free and fair playing field for people to express their beliefs and ideas and then society can make moral decisions around belief and action with out govt compulsion.

[CASteinman]

The role of govt ought not be to compel all members of society to do what is in societies beat interest... In my opinion govt should be limited to providing a free and fair playing field for people to express their beliefs and ideas and then society can make moral decisions around belief and action with out govt compulsion.

So... anarchy.

[wenglund]

Okay... so, if I understand correctly, ancient Romans tried to use the power of the government to encourage procreate. And it didn't seem to work.

CFR that it didn't work.

Whether it worked or not, can we at least agree that the Greek and Roman governments rationally believed it was in their interest to encourage procreation? In other words, if they viewed procreation as vital to the survival and continuance of their respective nations, it would make good sense to encourage it? And, if it makes sense for the Greeks and Romans, then logically wouldn't the same hold true for other nations, including the U.S.? (Here is where we begin to test Californiaboy's bald assertion that procreation isn't currently a governmental concern)

I believe so. And, for those who agree, the question then becomes: "Since procreation doesn't require marriage, then why would it be in the government's interest to promote procreation through promoting marriage rather than just promoting procreation itself?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Romans didn't reproduce?

Ha. No, I'm sure they did. But the sources Wade provided to support his claims about the Romans also indicated that birth rates dropped during the time of those policies.

[wenglund]

In the prior thread someone asserted that the U.S. via the Constitution adopted the Common Law. What were you referring to? The Constitution only mentions the "common law" in the 7th Amendment which is the right to jury trial in civil cases. Some States have adopted or incorporated the Common Law as it existed at such and such a date, but I know of nothing actually known as the "common law" of the United States. In fact not all States had the common law as their basic civil law, Louisiana had the Code Napoleon, and some of the Western States had what was known as community law. Also, Louisiana recognized concubinage for awhile as did some of the other states I believe, New Orleans had what they called "Morgan Wives" -- not sure if that was officially sanctioned or just a cultural custom, it involved the kept women of African descent who were consorts of wealthy whites.

I will get into the U.S. adoption of Common Law after I move from the beginning of government involvement in marriage to Western European governments involvement in marriage--the British involvement in particular.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

CFR that it didn't work.

Whether it worked or not, can we at least agree that the Greek and Roman governments rationally believed it was in their interest to encourage procreation? In other words, if they viewed procreation as vital to the survival and continuance of their respective nations, it would make good sense to encourage it? And, if it makes sense for the Greeks and Romans, then logically wouldn't the same hold true for other nations, including the U.S.? (Here is where we begin to test Californiaboy's bald assertion that procreation isn't currently a governmental concern)

I believe so. And, for those who agree, the question then becomes: "Since procreation doesn't require marriage, then why would it be in the government's interest to promote procreation through promoting marriage rather than just promoting procreation itself?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As I asserted. Completely irrelevant. Marriage today has the choice to have children or not have children. We are not living in Roman times where there was no birth control. And the survival of our nation is not dependent on a dwindling population.

Edited April 26, 2013 by california boy

[Stone holm]

The question is why govt is interested in marriage, not why is society interested in marriage.

As an advocate for limited govt I find it very frustrating that people ignore the distinction between society and govt.

The role of govt ought not be to compel all members of society to do what is in societies beat interest... In my opinion govt should be limited to providing a free and fair playing field for people to express their beliefs and ideas and then society can make moral decisions around belief and action with out govt compulsion.

Other than possibly an interest in assigning responsibility for the care and education of minors, assignment of rights and benefits between adults due to a stated relationship, and possibly discouraging promiscuity for public health reasons -- I don't see why government should be interested, and all of these could be handled via some type of relationship other than marriage. It would certainly resolve some of the Constitutional issues if instead of the governments licensing and regulating "marriage", if they would just provide domestic partnerships or civil unions to both heterosexuals and homosexuals and get out of the marriage business altogether. Then you could simply avoid "state action" and any of the religious issues. Government involvement in marriage is simply a holdover from the medieval days when religion and the Church were considered an arm of the State. This was true in all of the so-called Christian countries of the period and where the government left off and the church started was always murky. It doesn't help that we have such a heavy reliance on the Old Testament where most of the time they were operating under something very akin to a theocracy, if not an actual theocracy, and during the New Testament times you have a theocracy being used administratively by an occupying state. Trying to sort out the whole marriage and government thingy by resort to the Bible or even the Book of Mormon is a pretty doubtful endeavor because of the fact that the United States was established on Enlightenment principles and is, despite protests to the contrary, the most secular State that probably existed when it was created.

[CASteinman]

Ha. No, I'm sure they did. But the sources Wade provided to support his claims about the Romans also indicated that birth rates dropped during the time of those policies.

You mean policies that were in effect for hundreds of years?

[rockpond]

CFR that it didn't work.

Your quote from post #4: "Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single...."

Whether it worked or not, can we at least agree that the Greek and Roman governments rationally believed it was in their interest to encourage procreation? In other words, if they viewed procreation as vital to the survival and continuance of their respective nations, it would make good sense to encourage it? And, if it makes sense for the Greeks and Romans, then logically wouldn't the same hold true for other nations, including the U.S.? (Here is where we begin to test Californiaboy's bald assertion that procreation isn't currently a governmental concern)

I'm not prepared to speak on behalf of all Greek/Roman governments. But, I do believe it's possible for a government to view procreation as vital to the survival and continuance of their nation. Whether it makes sense to legally incentivize procreation seems to be an interesting question. China would, apparently, disagree. Other nations might feel that it's important to push for more procreation. Our current tax structure seeks to reduce a little of the financial burden of raising children although that's not an incentive to have kids since they still cost more than the tax breaks.

And, for those who agree, the question then becomes: "Since procreation doesn't require marriage, then why would it be in the government's interest to promote procreation through promoting marriage rather than just promoting procreation itself?"

You've skipped a question or two in your thought process: Has the government promoted procreation through promoting marriage?

[rockpond]

You mean policies that were in effect for hundreds of years?

I don't know. I didn't see that much information in Wade's sources.

[wenglund]

Ha. No, I'm sure they did. But the sources Wade provided to support his claims about the Romans also indicated that birth rates dropped during the time of those policies.

It was my impression that the policies were implemented because of the decline in birth rates. If so, then if there was further decline in birth rates after the policies were implemented (I will have to see evidence for that), it may be due to the preexisting conditions and in spite of the new policies, In other words, the new policies may have worked, not by putting birth rates on the rise, but by diminishing the rate at which the birthrate dropped. We'll see.

Either way, my follow-up question, in my previous post to you, stands.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

CFR that it didn't work.

Whether it worked or not, can we at least agree that the Greek and Roman governments rationally believed it was in their interest to encourage procreation? In other words, if they viewed procreation as vital to the survival and continuance of their respective nations, it would make good sense to encourage it? And, if it makes sense for the Greeks and Romans, then logically wouldn't the same hold true for other nations, including the U.S.? (Here is where we begin to test Californiaboy's bald assertion that procreation isn't currently a governmental concern)

I believe so. And, for those who agree, the question then becomes: "Since procreation doesn't require marriage, then why would it be in the government's interest to promote procreation through promoting marriage rather than just promoting procreation itself?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Seems a bit questionable, since the Romans appeared to have relatively minimal kin loyalties and the patrician classes were very prone to disinheriting their children and adopting strangers if they felt it best in family interests. Marriage had to do more with the legitimacy of heirs than it did with encouraging procreation. The Abrahamic religions were interested in curbing promiscuity. Procreation is something that seems to depend on its perceived economic benefits -- and apparently in modern times it is not considered terribly economically helpful since the number of children on average usually drops percipitively as people rise in economic status. The dependency of the parents on the labor of children, or the parents expectancy of elder care from children seems to be the primary driver. Given the fact that children are more likely to be a liability than an asset in modern society and increasingly so as we move away from an agrarian economy, the size of families is going to continue to decline -- even amongst Mormons the size is declining.