Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[EllenMaksoud]

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.

If you take a close look at birth rates, Muslims and Mormons are procreating like crazy. The birth rates in Europe, the UK and the rest of us in the US is not sustainable. Of course with around 7 billion people on earth, I don't think we need a lot more people unless we find a nice close planet that we can desecrate right away.

[Stone holm]

If you take a close look at birth rates, Muslims and Mormons are procreating like crazy. The birth rates in Europe, the UK and the rest of us in the US is not sustainable. Of course with around 7 billion people on earth, I don't think we need a lot more people unless we find a nice close planet that we can desecrate right away.

I suspect you will find that even Mormon birth rates are falling. Ultimately the modern economic disincentive on average overcomes the religious or emotional incentive. Amongst the poor lack of access to birth control and the concept that offspring provide status and economic security are the compelling factors. As the saying goes, the rich get richer and the poor have children. Pat Buchanan had a somewhat racist mantra that the Caucasian race was committing racial suicide because it was failing to spawn babies and in many formerly white countries they were not even creating enough kids to replace themselves. I guess if he is correct the whites in America will eventually be predominantly Mormon, Muslim, and Amish.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Judicial governance has been around for a thousand years or more.

Disputes in England were taken before local magistrates for legal judgement to be made.

As for the rest your first paragraph asserts that govts for involved in marriage either for revenue or due to limited record sharing between church and govt. that seems to be a conclusion not shared in the opening post.

Like all contracts the only time govt need to be involve is through judicial oversight relating to disputes.

The govt doesn't make a list of every other contact I enter into with others. Though everyone of them is enforceable via judicial oversight.

[EllenMaksoud]

I suspect you will find that even Mormon birth rates are falling. Ultimately the modern economic disincentive on average overcomes the religious or emotional incentive. Amongst the poor lack of access to birth control and the concept that offspring provide status and economic security are the compelling factors. As the saying goes, the rich get richer and the poor have children. Pat Buchanan had a somewhat racist mantra that the Caucasian race was committing racial suicide because it was failing to spawn babies and in many formerly white countries they were not even creating enough kids to replace themselves. I guess if he is correct the whites in America will eventually be predominantly Mormon, Muslim, and Amish.

Well, some Muslims intend to take over the world. I have heard them say it. What better way to do that than to out populate the other nations. Of course if you have a look at Muslims around Dearborn, MI, I wonder if they are becoming just like the rest of Americans??

[Bikeemikey]

I suspect you will find that even Mormon birth rates are falling. Ultimately the modern economic disincentive on average overcomes the religious or emotional incentive. Amongst the poor lack of access to birth control and the concept that offspring provide status and economic security are the compelling factors. As the saying goes, the rich get richer and the poor have children. Pat Buchanan had a somewhat racist mantra that the Caucasian race was committing racial suicide because it was failing to spawn babies and in many formerly white countries they were not even creating enough kids to replace themselves. I guess if he is correct the whites in America will eventually be predominantly Mormon, Muslim, and Amish.

Gods commandment wasn't to have a specific number of babies, only to make them. Why does it matter if our actions result in and earth with a smaller population?

It's likely better for an environmental position. Is it somehow bad from a Mormon theological position?

[CASteinman]

Judicial governance has been around for a thousand years or more.

Disputes in England were taken before local magistrates for legal judgement to be made.

I was referring to the notion of "Judicial BRANCH". Thats a new concept starting with America.

As for the rest your first paragraph asserts that govts for involved in marriage either for revenue or due to limited record sharing between church and govt. that seems to be a conclusion not shared in the opening post.

I don't know about the opening post. I'm just relating what I have learned through Genealogy Work.

Like all contracts the only time govt need to be involve is through judicial oversight relating to disputes

Not true in the USA.

The govt doesn't make a list of every other contact I enter into with others. Though everyone of them is enforceable via judicial oversight.

Perhaps not every other contract but it does make lists of some.

[Bikeemikey]

I was referring to the notion of "Judicial BRANCH". Thats a new concept starting with America.

I don't know about the opening post. I'm just relating what I have learned through Genealogy Work.

Not true in the USA.

Perhaps not every other contract but it does make lists of some.

I'm curious, apart from marriage what other contracts does the govt keep a record of? By govt I am mean state and ferderL and ignoring municipal who have to record land transactions for practical tax purposes.

Cheers.

[CASteinman]

I'm curious, apart from marriage what other contracts does the govt keep a record of? By govt I am mean state and ferderL and ignoring municipal who have to record land transactions for practical tax purposes.

Oh there's a bunch.

School Loans

Meat Packing

Employment

Waterway maintenance

Importation of Firearms

Export of Weapons Systems to foreign governments

These are just a few that I can think of really quick.

Edited April 27, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

Oh there's a bunch.

School Loans

Meat Packing

Employment

Waterway maintenance

Importation of Firearms

Export of Weapons Systems to foreign governments

These are just a few that I can think of really quick.

The only two I can comment are school loans and employment.

As an employer I have never had the govt ask for any of my employment contracts. They do ask for me to keep i9 and w4 forms on file... These are not contracts. These are forms that ensure I am taxing correctly.

As for student loans. The govt only keeps copies of loan agreements in which they are the lender... I don't think you can fault someone for overreach in keeping loan docs they are a lender for.

As for the rest... Those may be legitimate examples. I am not sure that the govt keeping records of private contracts is the same as the govt requiring paper work for mandated regulation.

I am also in favor of some regulation, though not all we currently have.

I think marriage contracts are currently a form of regulation... Though distinct from the examples you cited above because the govt is not a party in the agreement.

[Stone holm]

Gods commandment wasn't to have a specific number of babies, only to make them. Why does it matter if our actions result in and earth with a smaller population?

It's likely better for an environmental position. Is it somehow bad from a Mormon theological position?

Multiply and replenish as the saying goes, I do not think it is a population problem, we have not reached the Earth's capacity to sustain human life comfortably, but it is a lifestyle and distribution problem. We cannot continue to ignore the environment in our lifestyles if we want the Earth to be able to accommodate all God's spirit children, and I doubt that we can allow wealth to continue to concentrate under unregulated free market capitalism, we will need to revert to a more collaborative communitarian system.

[wenglund]

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.

Well said. I will add those two reasons to the list and discuss them further once I have fully vetted the procreation reason--which relates to inheritance and accountability.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

Wrong. The Greco-Roman evidence is relevant in: 1) establishing "tradition;" 2) setting forth an historical precedent--which is important when one understand that the system of laws today were built on the shoulders of systems of law of yesterday; 3) It is also important to understanding how marital laws became civil rights; and 4) It also helps establish some semblance in consistency in rationale throughout time and across cultures.

You are wrong about our not being able to ascertain the reasons being the Greco-Roman marital laws. As indicated in several of the linked articles, some of the laws explicitly declared the reasons. And, other laws implicitly given self-evident reasons for the laws-at least to the reasonably minded.

And, again, even though the cultures today may, in many ways, be quite different than ancient Greece and Rome, it will be shown that there are certain relevant elements in common--your bald assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

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.

Wrong again. When you repeatedly, and regardless of lack of warrant, dismiss out of hand what I say, and thus close your mind, at the very least I am silenced in your mind. And, your publicly dismissing repetitively what I say out of hand, is clearly an attempt to get others to to do likewise, even if the attempt fails miserably. Busted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

Wrong. The Greco-Roman evidence is relevant in: 1) establishing "tradition;" 2) setting forth an historical precedent--which is important when one understand that the system of laws today were built on the shoulders of systems of law of yesterday; 3) It is also important to understanding how marital laws became civil rights; and 4) It also helps establish some semblance in consistency in rationale throughout time and across cultures.

You are wrong about our not being able to ascertain the reasons being the Greco-Roman marital laws. As indicated in several of the linked articles, some of the laws explicitly declared the reasons. And, other laws implicitly given self-evident reasons for the laws-at least to the reasonably minded.

And, again, even though the cultures today may, in many ways, be quite different than ancient Greece and Rome, it will be shown that there are certain relevant elements in common--your bald assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Wrong. As I have stated repeatedly which you have not addressed and completely ignore, marriage is no longer based on the foregone conclusion that a couple will have offspring. Two important things have changed. Birth control has allowed couples to choose whether to have children or not. And people are living longer which is causing many more older marriages where at least one of the partners is past the age where children would be assumed. You can't duck these two issues as if they do not exist. So the Greco-Roman reasons for marriage are no longer the principle reason for marriage. And like I have repeatedly said, the ability or choice of having children is not part of the marriage license process. Until you can address these two points, then your whole assumption is wrong and baseless.

When you repeatedly, and regardless of lack of warrant, dismiss out of hand what I say concerning these two issues then you can not proceed with your premise. You can not even tie modern concept to marriage law directly to Roman law. Is all you can say is that in Roman marital laws, childbearing was an important fact. That is all you can say.

Wrong again. When you repeatedly, and regardless of lack of warrant, dismiss out of hand what I say, and thus close your mind, at the very least I am silenced in your mind. And, your publicly dismissing repetitively what I say out of hand, is clearly an attempt to get others to to do likewise, even if the attempt fails miserably. Busted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LOL. My repeated dismissal of your "theory" being dismissed out of hand is influencing others to dismiss it as well? Of course it is. That is the point of exposing your position as being completely groundless for the repeated reasons I have stated. My hands are up in the air. Of course I am "busted" for exposing the flaws of your argument.

[CASteinman]

The only two I can comment are school loans and employment.

As an employer I have never had the govt ask for any of my employment contracts. They do ask for me to keep i9 and w4 forms on file... These are not contracts. These are forms that ensure I am taxing correctly.

As for student loans. The govt only keeps copies of loan agreements in which they are the lender... I don't think you can fault someone for overreach in keeping loan docs they are a lender for.

As for the rest... Those may be legitimate examples. I am not sure that the govt keeping records of private contracts is the same as the govt requiring paper work for mandated regulation.

I am also in favor of some regulation, though not all we currently have.

I think marriage contracts are currently a form of regulation... Though distinct from the examples you cited above because the govt is not a party in the agreement.

All employment agreements are contracts. Highly regulated and monitored contracts. There is offer. Acceptance. Consideration

[gree0232]

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-

Taxes.

It really boils down to a simple answer of money as to why the state is involved in marriage. This may be a little off track, but using the French Revolution as an example, the Catholic Church in France controlled access to birth and marriage records in France prior to the Revolution. That gave the church an enormous leverage against the state, whereby it could withhold or otherwise doctor records to hide or mislead the government in terms of taxation, conscription, property transfer, etc. This essentially gave legal status to the church in dissolution of assets, etc. because it held the records and thus the authority.

Similar issues remain today. The issuance of social security numbers for children, the marriage itself, inherentence, dissolution of marriages and the assets, the payment of benefits (either individually or as a collective family unit), etc. all require that same tracking mechanism, and, at times, an appropriate authority to adjudicate issues that arise. Were it not the government, it would be left to the various churches to adjudicate these things ... and not all churches are created equal. Imagine a divorce proceeding taking place in an Islamic community following Sharia law? In an increasingly interconnected world, cross faith marriages being common - who then decides the adjudicative issues? The alternative is courts - government.

There is also, once you acknowledge that basis and requirement for government involvement (even if viewed entirely as a contract adjudicator), there is also the fact that there is money involved. We collect taxes differently for married couples than single people (or even common law marriages), we distribute all kinds of benefits differently, from insurance, to credits, incentives, etc. and the point behind these is to create a cost benefit situation in which we encourage, through the use of money and benefits, certain behavioral choices in our society without resorting to compulsion.

If we decide that marriage is best, it is possible to simply line people up and force them to get married ala mass shotgun weddings ... which would obviously not work that well. However, in the modern age, when our citizens see cohabitation or single parent households as valid life choices, we can also acknowledge the fact that dual parent household, statistically at least, tend to create the 'best' future citizens for our state. We thus have an obligation not toward equality in all choices, but to use taxation to encourage choices - i.e. reward not just 'love' but commitment to spouse and family.

When presented with the choice of cohabitation or marriage, if there is a strong financial incentive toward formal marriage, some will make the choice to marry formally - and that level of commitment, once made, has consequences ... both within a relationship, and collectively, within our society.

Because both money and values are involved in institute of marriage, there is not real alternative to government involvement.

Questions about how best to do that are debateable, but whether the government should be there or not is, IMHO, less important than finding the best involvement for government in the issue.

[Stone holm]

Taxes.

It really boils down to a simple answer of money as to why the state is involved in marriage. This may be a little off track, but using the French Revolution as an example, the Catholic Church in France controlled access to birth and marriage records in France prior to the Revolution. That gave the church an enormous leverage against the state, whereby it could withhold or otherwise doctor records to hide or mislead the government in terms of taxation, conscription, property transfer, etc. This essentially gave legal status to the church in dissolution of assets, etc. because it held the records and thus the authority.

Similar issues remain today. The issuance of social security numbers for children, the marriage itself, inherentence, dissolution of marriages and the assets, the payment of benefits (either individually or as a collective family unit), etc. all require that same tracking mechanism, and, at times, an appropriate authority to adjudicate issues that arise. Were it not the government, it would be left to the various churches to adjudicate these things ... and not all churches are created equal. Imagine a divorce proceeding taking place in an Islamic community following Sharia law? In an increasingly interconnected world, cross faith marriages being common - who then decides the adjudicative issues? The alternative is courts - government.

There is also, once you acknowledge that basis and requirement for government involvement (even if viewed entirely as a contract adjudicator), there is also the fact that there is money involved. We collect taxes differently for married couples than single people (or even common law marriages), we distribute all kinds of benefits differently, from insurance, to credits, incentives, etc. and the point behind these is to create a cost benefit situation in which we encourage, through the use of money and benefits, certain behavioral choices in our society without resorting to compulsion.

If we decide that marriage is best, it is possible to simply line people up and force them to get married ala mass shotgun weddings ... which would obviously not work that well. However, in the modern age, when our citizens see cohabitation or single parent households as valid life choices, we can also acknowledge the fact that dual parent household, statistically at least, tend to create the 'best' future citizens for our state. We thus have an obligation not toward equality in all choices, but to use taxation to encourage choices - i.e. reward not just 'love' but commitment to spouse and family.

When presented with the choice of cohabitation or marriage, if there is a strong financial incentive toward formal marriage, some will make the choice to marry formally - and that level of commitment, once made, has consequences ... both within a relationship, and collectively, within our society.

Because both money and values are involved in institute of marriage, there is not real alternative to government involvement.

Questions about how best to do that are debateable, but whether the government should be there or not is, IMHO, less important than finding the best involvement for government in the issue.

If we leave the religious issue out of it, does the government have an interest as to whether a 60 year old Jack marries a 60 year old Jill or a 60 year old Bob?

[gree0232]

If we leave the religious issue out of it, does the government have an interest as to whether a 60 year old Jack marries a 60 year old Jill or a 60 year old Bob?

Yes, 60 year olds have property, and ostensibly people who will inherit that property, possible previous marriages, with legal obligations, etc. Who else should document and adjudicate that potential mess other than government?

[Bikeemikey]

All employment agreements are contracts. Highly regulated and monitored contracts. There is offer. Acceptance. Consideration

Agreed. But the govt does not require that they either endorse, issue licenses for, or keep copies of such contracts. In fact many states operate with no legal requirement for contracts at all... Unless you are being hired by a union and the. The requirement is mandated by the h ion and the state have simply supported such union rights.

[Stone holm]

Yes, 60 year olds have property, and ostensibly people who will inherit that property, possible previous marriages, with legal obligations, etc. Who else should document and adjudicate that potential mess other than government?

And that answered the specific question how?

[gree0232]

Agreed. But the govt does not require that they either endorse, issue licenses for, or keep copies of such contracts. In fact many states operate with no legal requirement for contracts at all... Unless you are being hired by a union and the. The requirement is mandated by the h ion and the state have simply supported such union rights.

No, the government does - its the government that keeps the records. What is at issue is how, without records, which you claim are not needed or required, you sort through the inheritance and property issues with absolutely no documentation and plenty of emotion/temptation to lie or otherwise commit intrigue? There is no government on earth that is not heavily involved in this process ...

Indeed, its absence can be seen in such calamities as the Hatfields and McCoy's or Somalia, where the best connected or those with the most guns win. If we are to be governed by logic, reason, and a sense of righteousness - how do you do that without documentation? Records keeping?

There are very good reasons that every government on earth is involved in this process.

[gree0232]

And that answered the specific question how?

You asked why government are involved with or should care about two 60 year olds getting married absent religion. You have an answer. As with my first post, it comes down to issues of taxation, benefits, and property. Exactly what question did you think was not answered?

[Stone holm]

You asked why government are involved with or should care about two 60 year olds getting married absent religion. You have an answer. As with my first post, it comes down to issues of taxation, benefits, and property. Exactly what question did you think was not answered?

Umh, you deleted half the question. I will repeat why absent religion does government have an interest in whether Jack marries a Jill or a Bob?

[gree0232]

Umh, you deleted half the question. I will repeat why absent religion does government have an interest in whether Jack marries a Jill or a Bob?

I will direct you to same answer. Nothing was deleted in the question, and indeed your question remains exactly the same does it not? Absent religion ... property, taxes, benefits, i.e. money.

I am honestly not sure what part of that is not answering your question?

[Calm]

I suspect you will find that even Mormon birth rates are falling.

IIRC we are one more child than the average rate.

[wenglund]

Wrong. As I have stated repeatedly which you have not addressed and completely ignore, marriage is no longer based on the foregone conclusion that a couple will have offspring.

What part of the following statement from me do you not understand: "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"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-