Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[Bikeemikey]

So... anarchy.

Not even close.

I fully recognize the importance of govt and its value. I just think as you stray from a narrow mandate focused on consent and physical harm and the enforcement of contracts you start to provide a role for the govt that is to broad.

[wenglund]

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.

As previously mentioned, the intent of this thread isn't to debate whether governments should be regulating marriages or not, but why they have and still are regulating marriage.

And, with regards to the government/society distinction, it may not be an important factor for governments that are of the people and for the people and by the people. Either way, I will be looking at this in terms of those instances where the interests of the government comport with the interests of society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

Again, as the discussion progresses, your bald assertions will be tested and demonstrated to be incorrect--though your repeated fallacious and unwarranted attempts to dismiss the notion is duly noted. You attempts to silence opposing views will not work in this case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 26, 2013 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

As previously mentioned, the intent of this thread isn't to debate whether governments should be regulating marriages or not, but why they have and still are regulating marriage.

And, with regards to the government/society distinction, it may not be an important factor for governments that are of the people and for the people and by the people. Either way, I will be looking at this in terms of those instances where the interests of the government comport with the interests of society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's well and good... But you must first define the nature of the govt that is interested in the investment in marriage.

Those opposed to govts investment in marriage are often times objecting to govt not marriage... And many times are highly supportive of marriage as an important institution of society.

As you are zealously redirecting people to the question of the opening post you need to reduce the conflation between govt and society.

Your question was originally limited to why govt is invested in marriage.

Are you now asking why govts or society is invested?

You should also note in the roman example it appears that the govt only really concerned with monitoring the status if roman citizens relative to marriage. It is unclear that they cared if anyone else got married at all.

[Stone holm]

Not even close.

I fully recognize the importance of govt and its value. I just think as you stray from a narrow mandate focused on consent and physical harm and the enforcement of contracts you start to provide a role for the govt that is to broad.

Well if you couple free and fair playing field with preventing physical harm, you might as well just say "liberal" because that eventually covers about everything except maybe private moral relations. The conservatives would prefer to flip that and only have government regulate private moral relations and the ability to clobber enemies. Neither are particularly a remedy for small government which is what some sectors of the citizenry keep clamoring for -- what they really want is to have government regulate intensely what they want regulated and not what they don't want regulated -- I think the whole small government concept is so corrupted that it adds very little value to any discussion. What needs to be talked about is not the size of the government, but the amount of intrusion into our private lives we are willing to tolerate and at what point does such intrusion become unhealthy, and vice versa. Obviously, some people want bed checks others want gun checks -- both are intrusive, both are dangerous if pushed too far. That isn't about the size of the government, its about the amount of intrusion and when intrusion is beneficial and when it is not. Free and fair has in the past been used to push regulation of the public markets -- the question is to what extent do you want to tolerate scam artists in order to let a man run his own business his own way. Do you want freedom of contract? Which was used in the pre-Lochner days to prevent the passage of industrial safety laws since it interefered with the workers right to contract to place himself in harms way -- so you wind up with buildings collapsing in Bangla Desh killing hundreds of workers working away for pennies a day. You have religious scruples that find sodomy between two people of the same sex disgusting? Don't want your kids potentially charmed into it? You consider it harmful to your children -- wallah, you adopt laws preventing harm to your children's minds and wallah, discriminate against gays in public education, don't provide them marital benefits, reserve the term "married" to the right kind of people -- its harmful to raise children without standards.

[wenglund]

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...."

The wording of that quote is a bit awkward and may rightly be interpreted in the two divergent ways voiced by you and I.

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.

Great! At least we have that in common.

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.

Good point. However, as the discussion continues, I hope to demonstrate that the U.S. government has had, and currently has, reason to not only incentivize procreation, but to do so through incentivizing marriage. I will be looking at tax breaks and the 1000 or so other governmental benefits and so forth.

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

I didn't so much skip that question in my thought process, but for simplicity sake and keeping focused on the question the thread, I wisely chose not to consider it. The issue of the thread has to do more with why the governments became involved with marriage, and not so much whether their involvement worked as intended. Once the question of the thread is addressed, we can then move on to discuss whether their involvement worked or not, and even whether the government should have been, or should still be involved in marriage. But for now...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

That's well and good... But you must first define the nature of the govt that is interested in the investment in marriage.

No, This is an informal discussion, and can reasonably progress using the common vernacular.

Those opposed to govts investment in marriage are often times objecting to govt not marriage... And many times are highly supportive of marriage as an important institution of society.

The question of this thread isn't whether someone objects to marriage or not.

As you are zealously redirecting people to the question of the opening post you need to reduce the conflation between govt and society.

No, I don't. I trust that people here are reasonably intelligent enough to correctly grasp what is being said, and when there is a relevant problem with conflation, it can be addressed. No need to over-complicate things.

Your question was originally limited to why govt is invested in marriage. Are you now asking why govts or society is invested?

My question was why governments have been and still are INVOLVED in marriage--which, particularly in the case of democracies, takes into consideration the INTERESTS of society. I do not wish to get into why society may be INVOLVED or INVESTED in marriage, except as it may relevantly pertain to answering the question of why the government is INVOLVED.

Is that clear?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

fully recognize the importance of govt and its value. I just think as you stray from a narrow mandate focused on consent and physical harm and the enforcement of contracts you start to provide a role for the govt that is to broad.

Why bother with those? Might it be because they are in society's best interests?

[wenglund]

I may be away from home and computer for a few days, and may not be able to post much, if at all, to this thread until I return. Feel free to continue to discuss amongst yourselves and to comment on what I have said, and I promise to get back with you when I can.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

The question asked in the top of the thread is sort of weird... I can't think of any good reasons to exclude Government from regulating what it recognizes as marriage. The government needs to have rules like that to operate.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

The question asked in the top of the thread is sort of weird... I can't think of any good reasons to exclude Government from regulating what it recognizes as marriage. The government needs to have rules like that to operate.

You think that Government would collapse if it didn't regulate marriage? Really?

[CASteinman]

You think that Government would collapse if it didn't regulate marriage? Really?

Maybe. Someone should regulated it. It certainly needs to define for itself what it considers to be legal marriage.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

Maybe. Someone should regulated it. It certainly needs to define for itself what it considers to be legal marriage.

Really? You think that the government would collapse if it got out of the marriage business altogether? I don't see why the government really needs to be involved at all in defining "marriage". So long as no legally enforceable rights or benefits attach to the term.

[CASteinman]

Really? You think that the government would collapse if it got out of the marriage business altogether?

Maybe. God didn't ordain marriage laws because He was bored.

I don't see why the government really needs to be involved at all in defining "marriage".

So that they will know who are spouses for the people who work for the government. And who are the children. And so on.

So long as no legally enforceable rights or benefits attach to the term.

But they do. Always have. That is part of the whole deal.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

No, This is an informal discussion, and can reasonably progress using the common vernacular.

The question of this thread isn't whether someone objects to marriage or not.

No, I don't. I trust that people here are reasonably intelligent enough to correctly grasp what is being said, and when there is a relevant problem with conflation, it can be addressed. No need to over-complicate things.

My question was why governments have been and still are INVOLVED in marriage--which, particularly in the case of democracies, takes into consideration the INTERESTS of society. I do not wish to get into why society may be INVOLVED or INVESTED in marriage, except as it may relevantly pertain to answering the question of why the government is INVOLVED.

Is that clear?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Great... So the answer is easy.

Inheritance and responsibility.

Society was primarily religious. Govt was this also primarily using religious constructs.

The easiest commonly used construct for the govt to use to monitor rights to inheritance and accountability was marriage.

[CASteinman]

The easiest commonly used construct for the govt to use to monitor rights to inheritance and accountability was marriage.

That is not quite so.

The most commonly used construction for inheritance was the "last will and testament". With regard to inheritance, marriage BECAME a mechanism to protect widows.

The most commonly used construction for accountability was actually just "lordship" and the enforcement of the Sovereign Will with brute force. However under law the most commonly used construct was bonding.

Marriage has a somewhat different function: To create family units with the presumptive purpose of creating a home where children can be legitimately born and raised, and where, as a family, they could operate as a unit to help maximize the survivability of the individuals in the family and to provide for the weak and infirm. It was not overtly recognized then but is recognized now that this helped establish a stable social framework, including a compact between generations for the care and maintenance of both the young and the old.

The laws in force on this were religious -- because it was God who from the beginning established and ordained marriage. That knowledge and wisdom persisted even through apostasy but not through the 20th Century. We have in more modern times realized that thousands of years of history are rubbish and that we do, in fact, know better than God how we should arrange our affairs.

[california boy]

Again, as the discussion progresses, your bald assertions will be tested and demonstrated to be incorrect--though your repeated fallacious and unwarranted attempts to dismiss the notion is duly noted. You attempts to silence opposing views will not work in this case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My assertion is that comparing the reasons why government was involved in Roman and Greek times to the reasons why government is involved in it today are completely irrelevant. We do not live under the same conditions that people back then lived under. I am not even sure you or anyone else can divine the motives behind Roman laws. At best, it is pure assumptions and guessing. To project the reasons a government had to be involved in marriage 2000 years ago as being the same reasons today is a ridiculous proposition. The reasons for one does not automatically follow the other. So yes, your premise is totally dismissible as other posters are demonstrating as well.

As far as your assertion that I am trying to silence anyone is just as ridiculous and groundless since this is a discussion board and as far as I can tell, anyone can put up a post after me no matter what I say. Or perhaps my assertion is so irrefutable that you feel your arguments are being silenced. Since that may very well be the case, I can certainly understand why you think my points are silencing your argument.

[Bikeemikey]

Why bother with those? Might it be because they are in society's best interests?

Sure - who ever said other wise?

Just because i do not believe that govt should do/enforce everything that is in the best interests of society does not mean I don't think everything govt does ought to be in the best interest of society.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

That is not quite so.

The most commonly used construction for inheritance was the "last will and testament". With regard to inheritance, marriage BECAME a mechanism to protect widows.

The most commonly used construction for accountability was actually just "lordship" and the enforcement of the Sovereign Will with brute force. However under law the most commonly used construct was bonding.

Marriage has a somewhat different function: To create family units with the presumptive purpose of creating a home where children can be legitimately born and raised, and where, as a family, they could operate as a unit to help maximize the survivability of the individuals in the family and to provide for the weak and infirm. It was not overtly recognized then but is recognized now that this helped establish a stable social framework, including a compact between generations for the care and maintenance of both the young and the old.

The laws in force on this were religious -- because it was God who from the beginning established and ordained marriage. That knowledge and wisdom persisted even through apostasy but not through the 20th Century. We have in more modern times realized that thousands of years of history are rubbish and that we do, in fact, know better than God how we should arrange our affairs.

I was intending suggest accountability to off spring specifically - not accountability in general.

I think your summation of lordship related to general accountability is interesting.

[CASteinman]

Sure - who ever said other wise?

I think someone made a point of declaring "The role of govt ought not be to compel all members of society to do what is in societies best interest."

Just because i do not believe that govt should do/enforce everything that is in the best interests of society does not mean I don't think everything govt does ought to be in the best interest of society.

So Government should or should not compel members of society to do what is in society's best interest?

[CASteinman]

I was intending suggest accountability to off spring specifically - not accountability in general.

Oh... I missed that. Sorry. But not just to offspring. Also to the elderly. The Parents look after the Children when they are small and then the Children look after the Parents whey they are infirm. Its a Generational Covenant. And everyone looks out for everyone else.

Edited April 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law)

Marriage was related to rights to inheritance: including title, surname and monies...

Likewise it was related to a claim of legitimate accountability on the part of the father... If the child was not born in a marriage relationship neither mother or offspring would be legally guaranteed support from a putative father.

Traditionally marriage served as a benchmark that defined a fathers responsibility to provide support. Those children deemed bastards or mothers of ******* children were often not able to make claims for support on the father. A ******* was almost always, though not exclusively, a child born out of wedlock.

As such i still fail to see how marriage was related to a desire to incentivize procreation.

[CASteinman]

As such i still fail to see how marriage was related to a desire to incentivize procreation.

That is its nature. Stable society with intergenerational support is a strong incentive to procreate. Some will say "We don't need incentives to procreate" but actually this is not true as a population. There are times (and we are seeing some in our current lifetime) when populations are willing to "die out". This happens when people are depressed and do not feel the future offers hope. Stable societies help reduce that anxiety and create a basis for confidence. Marriages and Families are a very critical element of a stable society.

This may not have been known to the people of earlier times, but it was known to God who understands human beings and who ordained marriage.

But if you are asking "Did the people actually recognize this benefit?", there is really no evidence to show that. Even today we don't seem to recognize it although it is more clearly attested by research.

Edited April 27, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

That is its nature. Stable society with intergenerational support is a strong incentive to procreate. Some will say "We don't need incentives to procreate" but actually this is not true as a population. There are times (and we are seeing some in our current lifetime) when populations are willing to "die out". This happens when people are depressed and do not feel the future offers hope. Stable societies help reduce that anxiety and create a basis for confidence. Marriages and Families are a very critical element of a stable society.

This may not have been known to the people of earlier times, but it was known to God who understands human beings and who ordained marriage.

But if you are asking "Did the people actually recognize this benefit?", there is really no evidence to show that. Even today we don't seem to recognize it although it is more clearly attested by research.

I'm not sure i follow this...

It appears govt were interested in marriage purely as a means of the judicial branch determining accountability and responsibility for offspring.

The link i posted earlier suggested that It was not until the late 1700s that the English govt even started formally being concerned with marriage as a state institution. Prior to that the only time the govt asked about marriage was during disputes over paternal responsibility. At which point the court would ask if the couple were married and local church confirmation was provided to back up the claim as the govt had no independent records on the matter.

Sex is a motivator to procreate... As for the rest I am sure that helps when birth-control provides a choice regarding the outcomes of sex.

I would also say that a strong financial position provides more guarantee of intergenerational security then state sanctioned marriage... On all accounts however we are being out pro-created by the poorest nations in the world who are extremely destitute and very depressed...

Opps, just proved your point. I guess it must be marriage after all...

[CASteinman]

It appears govt were interested in marriage purely as a means of the judicial branch determining accountability and responsibility for offspring.

When you say judicial branch, you start to make it more modern and I am not talking modern. Also, marriage was not for those purposes. That was an effect but that was not why. The why it was a big deal was because it was God's Law. The reason the Government in England got involved was revenue and demand for shorter waiting periods. The reason government in the States got involved was because the tie between Church and Governors was not well connected and the Churches weren't even always well established. So Government took over -- because someone had to.

The link i posted earlier suggested that It was not until the late 1700s that the English govt even started formally being concerned with marriage as a state institution.

As I have already mentioned, it used to be covered by Banns. Then Government used Bonds and Licensing.

Prior to that the only time the govt asked about marriage was during disputes over paternal responsibility.

If that is true, it must be very rare. In doing a lot of genealogy I have never seen this occur. More often, a widow would have to prove she was married to a man. But -- this was never done by a look at secular state records. It was done by a review of Church records.

Sex is a motivator to procreate...

One would think it would be all that's needed but it isn't.

I would also say that a strong financial position provides more guarantee of intergenerational security then state sanctioned marriage..

Modern data does not bear this out with regard to families. Rather, the opposite. More wealth leads to less procreation.

. On all accounts however we are being out pro-created by the poorest nations in the world who are extremely destitute and very depressed...

There you go. And in those countries, family becomes really important. That is why the AIDS epidemic in Africa is especially horrible. Families are necessary and important and being destroyed by the disease. As much as we whine about it in the modern economies, its not nearly the hit.