Is There Any Rational Reason To Get Married?

[konerko14]

I have never been able to think of a good reason to get married. Are there any? What seperates marriage from being a couple, besides documentation?

[DavidOdden]

I have never been able to think of a good reason to get married. Are there any? What seperates marriage from being a couple, besides documentation?

If you mean legally, there are a number of differences. Assume X & Y are married, A & B are shacked up. Usually (the details vary by state) X automatically inherits Y's property when Y dies intestate but that doesn't go for A & B; employee medical benefits will be more automatic for X & Y; there are tax consequences (which can go either way, but tends to favor marriage); only your spouse can receive spousal SS and Medicare benefits and there are; there are Schiavo-type problems where a spouse has a privileged position in making conservatorship decisions that a squeeze doesn't have; certain immigration rights; the "marital communication" right to refuse to testify; inheritance-tax exemptions; rights in a wrongful death / loss of consortium suit. Apart from legal issues involved in state recognition, there are certain moral benefits in solemnifying and acknowledging the deep personal significance of a relationship.

[Hal]

I'd say the only benefits are legal, but they shouldnt be underestimated. To be honest, it would be rational to agree to marry someone you were friends with as soon as you turned 18, just to have the bit of paper that lets you pay less tax. You can always get divorced later if you want to actually get married properly.

Edited April 22, 2006 by Hal

[konerko14]

Isnt there another way to receive all those legal benefits without having to get married, like a legal documentation you and your partner sign that acknowledges to the state you are a couple? If there isnt, I think its ridiculous to almost force people to choose marriage to collect any legal benefits.

[Maarten]

So you want to make a duplicate marriage with a different name? What would be the point of that? It seems like too much fuss to make for a name...

[konerko14]

Im still reluctant to change my views but I cant address positively what emotion I am feeling over the issue. I think it may be uncertainty. Marriage is supposedly a life long commitment, but I doubt most relationships can have everlasting love. When its time for the divorce, that seems like it would be a very awkward period. Also having a marriage license may put pressure on the people in the relationship to fulfill the expectation for that lifelong bond.

[DavidOdden]

Isnt there another way to receive all those legal benefits without having to get married, like a legal documentation you and your partner sign that acknowledges to the state you are a couple? If there isnt, I think its ridiculous to almost force people to choose marriage to collect any legal benefits.

Legal marriage instantly replaces a slew of explicit agreements. For example, you could give your squeeze a right of conservatorship if you remember to do so before you need it; similarly, never die intestate. There is no negotiating the tax advantages -- the federal government does not recognise non-marriages. Your employer may be open to negotiation, so they may offer equivalent benefits to your partner even though you're not legally married -- or they may not. If you work for the state, it depends. We have a new constitutional amendment in Ohio which, under one reading, prohibits any such legal agreements that approximate marriage, and it remains to be seen how that holds up in court. One thing is certain, you will have to approach the problem piecemeal, and when you're dealing with the government, there is almost no flexibility. Of course we're speaking of the US -- the category "samboer" a.k.a. "domestic partner" is a common status in Norway, maybe about as common as "married", although even that is not equivalent to "married" (and you still have to register).

I don't see how being married vs. just living together changes the difficulty of splitting up except, of course, the paperwork issue. It doesn't change the personal cost. In the old days, alimony used to be a big deal but now that we have palimony and alimony isn't automatic, there's probably a comparable risk of having to pay after a divorce or break-up. From a practical POV, the greater ease of being able to drop off the key and get on the bus is probably the main legal advantage of not getting hitched. That assumes you think you'd split up sometime down the line, and if you do, then marriage would not be a wise choice for you. At the very least, if you do decide to get married for convenience's sake without the moral certainty that it is to last a lifetime, then it would be a good idea for the two of you to see attorneys to protect yourselves legally with a prenup. Above all I think it's important to get clear on why you're doing it in the first place -- is it about your emotions or your wallet?

[khaight]

Marriage is supposedly a life long commitment, but I doubt most relationships can have everlasting love... having a marriage license may put pressure on the people in the relationship to fulfill the expectation for that lifelong bond.

I think there's truth in the latter half of this, but the point is made in an overly negative way. Turn it around: finding a partner you can stay with for a lifetime is a profound value. It can be done -- my paternal grandparents were happily married for over 75 years, until death did them part. But it doesn't happen automatically. A lifelong romantic relationship requires a mutual ongoing effort that lasts for, well, a lifetime.

Before taking on such a massive project, both you and your partner must be clear that you are doing so, and that you are both willing to make the extensive cross-time commitment to making it work. Standing up with him or her in front of your other loved ones and explicitly pledging yourself to each other is simultaneously a celebration of the values you find in each other currently and a concretization of your mutual commitment to build on those values as a fundamental part of the remainder of your life.

That lifelong project is what a marriage is. Formalizing your commitment to it in public is what a wedding is. (Note that none of this has anything to do with legal or economic benefits.)

Because people are fallible, just because you have committed to this project doesn't mean it will succeed. But it sure increases the odds -- I know of a lot more married couples whose relationship lasted until the natural death of one of the partners than I do co-habiting couples. And just because you failed once doesn't mean you can't try again... each of my parents had a failed first marriage that lasted a few years. Their marriage to each other is now going on 40 years and shows all the signs of lasting until death.

If you accept finding a lifelong romantic partner as a rational and desirable goal, marriage is (IMHO) the best means to achieve that end within our existing cultural context. That's why I got married. (10 years this December and absolutely no regrets.)

[Qwertz]

On a related note - and feel free to tell me to shut up if I've asked this before - is the facilitation of issues such as conservatorship, inheritance, spousal benefits from private companies, etc. a proper function of government? I'm setting aside the issue of tax, social security and medicare, since these are inappropriate for other reasons.

-Q

[JMeganSnow]

Since inheritance, conservatorship, etc. are all contractual/legal issues, its in the interests of the government to have some kind of format set up to make it easy to do it, but that doesn't mean that there needs to be some kind of "department of marriages" . . . it basically falls under the heading of contract security, which, btw, IS a proper function of the government.

[Qwertz]

Since these sorts of things fall under contract security then, is it proper that the government regulates who may enter into such contracts, or provides access to the facilitating 'format' on a restrictive basis? I can draw up a contract of conservatorship with my mother, but I cannot at present take advantage of the government's facilitating format (civil marriage) because its availability is restricted, and in certain states, it may not even be enforceable (e.g. Ohio?) Also, is there any justification for a government function like this separate from the government's contract-enforcing function? Should government funds be spent on a marriage registry? I tend to think that the process of acquiring a marriage license and solemnizing the contract with a government approved official is redundant to the private processes of contract.

-Q

[JMeganSnow]

The only reason for the government's involvement, period, is to act as guarantor regarding the contractual aspects of marriage; basically the contract has to be notarized before the government can recognize it or some such. There are plenty of rational reasons for placing restrictions on contractual relationships; you cannot, for instance, form a company with a two-year-old (at least, I don't think so). As for marriage, there's usually a clause along the lines of "if first spouse sleeps with anyone else a breach of contract can be declared if second spouse desires", and I don't think you'd want to have THAT contract with, say, your sister.

[Lathanar]

I think it was Heinlein who proposed in one of his books that civil unions be done by signing contracts of varying lengths and doing away with 'till death do us part' which is a religious thing anyways. If you still liked or were in love with your partner at the end of the contract, you simply renewed. Divorce was then regulated to an early breach of contract, or you could just wait out the term of the contract to expire. Probably better in theory than practice, but an amusing idea. I don't like the term marriage too much simply because I view marriage as a church ceremony where you're joined together in the eyes of god.

[DavidOdden]

Since these sorts of things fall under contract security then, is it proper that the government regulates who may enter into such contracts, or provides access to the facilitating 'format' on a restrictive basis?

The only business the government properly has in marriages is enforcing an agreement, and all that is required is to show that there has been an agreement, and to judge whether there has been a breach. Like the case of contract law, courts have to address the situation of the less-than-perfect agreement, such as when the parties fail to anticipate a situation that does arise, where a decision must be made to X or to not-X, but it isn't obvious what principle should govern the situation. Frinstance: suppose two people feel certain that they will never have children, so there is no custody statement. Well, foolishly they do have a child but never address the custody issue in the contract. Then these people split, with mom wanting to take the infant child and a job in Germany and dad wanting the child and a job in New Zealand. Obviously both outcomes can't be realised. So the government needs to make a definitive decision, hence the need for default law. And since there is a child's rights at stake here, the government can't simply wash its hand of the matter, i.e. it cannot say "We will not enforce a contract that fails to be exhaustive in the following matters..."

Child custody would be such an obvious point that anyone would check for such a clause and insist that it be in the agreement. Standard-form agreements can probably cover 99% of all issues that would arise, and private mediation or arbitration can cover anything else. So the role of the government in marriage can actually be reduced to a virtual zero if the government requires all disputes in agreements to be submitted to private binding arbitration whose decisions will be enforced, and declares unenforceable any agreement witout such a clause.

[khaight]

I don't like the term marriage too much simply because I view marriage as a church ceremony where you're joined together in the eyes of god.

I think this is a mistake. Rand wrote at some length in the "Introduction to The Fountainhead" about the need to reclaim various concepts pertaining to moral values that have been taken over by religion. She talked about concepts like 'sacred' and 'exalted'; I think 'marriage' is another one. There is a wholly secular value at stake here, which has no necessary connection to religion and no necessary connection to any given set of governmental institutions. Don't just cede marriage to religion; it's too important. Instead of thinking of it as a church ceremony where you and your partner are joined in the eyes of God, think of it as a secular ceremony in which you and your partner celebrate the values you have found in each other in the company of other people you also value (close family and friends).

There is a more general point about religion that should be mentioned here. Religion is in many ways a primitive form of philosophy. It is an attempt to answer basic questions about the nature of the universe, the source of knowledge, and how to behave. The answers it provides are often deeply wrong, even deadly -- but that doesn't invalidate the questions or the needs it is trying to satisfy. This means that simply dismissing religious ceremonies without examination, simply because they are religious, is a mistake. Ask yourself why the ceremony exists. What need are people trying to satisfy through it? Often you will find that the need is real and valid, even though the religious response to it is flawed.

Idle side question: how many of the people contributing to this thread are actually married? I'd think that if you're really trying to identify the reasons for marriage, a good place to start would be by asking married people why they got married and what considerations went into the decision. So far the bulk of this thread has dealt with legal and economic issues which I can say from personal experience played virtually no role in my own decision to marry. Given that the cultural institution of marriage has existed in pretty much every society in recorded human history, I'm dubious that the basic reasons for it can be found in a legal system that has existed for only a small fraction of that time. Something more fundamental is going on here.

[JMeganSnow]

How about people like me who've had long-term relationships and decided not to get married, and for the reason that it would be a huge legal hassle to detach my affairs from my ex's should we decide to split. (Not to mention his parents riding me about "when are you going to have kids?") Now, if I hadn't been anticipating a potential split in the future, I probably would have married him, but the legal issues do play a huge part in whether you decide to marry/not marry someone.

Personally, I'm a romantic and I figure I'd like to get married at some point in the future for "the look of the thing", but I'm not delusional enough to think that marriage is anything other than a legal agreement, albeit one that has cultural baggage.

[khaight]

I'm not delusional enough to think that marriage is anything other than a legal agreement, albeit one that has cultural baggage.

My approach to marriage is almost the exact opposite of this -- I think of it as primarily a cultural/value issue which happens to carry legal baggage.

[JMeganSnow]

So eliminate the legal baggage. Invite a horde of your friends over for a catered dinner and "pledge your love" or some such thing without any contract of any kind whatsoever. Serve cake. Get a tux. Dance with drunken relatives. Lots of things get done on handshake agreements. You can worry about the future when it gets here.

In other words: its up to you whether you want to pay for insurance.

[Illuminaughty]

The premise of a relationship is flawed.

Imagine your best platonic friend coming up to you one day and asking suddenly "promise me you'll still be friends with me tomorrow". Is that something an honest person can do? NO. An honest person knows their friends define themselves by actions, thus the friendship could be ended by certian actions. Yet the first thing you do in any relationship with a title is make that promise. The first thing you do is satiate your insecurity of what could and possibly will happen. Nothing more than comforting words of no value meant to ensare someone into a relationship they don't want to be in by using guilt of the original commitment to keep them after they're grown disinterested (how many married couples can you say still act like newlyweds?).

Marriage is a corrupt institution that has no place in a rational mans' life.