Marriage as an institution is an artifact from prior to women’s right to vote. It’s so fucking stupid.
Human beings can choose to be monogamous, choose to be partners in personal finance or choose to be parents without a stupid religious ceremony and an apartheid sourced diamond ring being used to justify it.
I mean there are also a lot of legal benefits and protections extended to a spouse that aren’t extended to a boy/girlfriend. Depending on where you live, could mean tax credits, inheritance, how ownership of accrued assets is handled, priority guest access to ER if one gets injured, etc.
You can get married in a courthouse without any religious connotations and call it a civil union instead if you want. The religious elements are strictly optional, and I think some codified protections for a significant other significant enough to be your spouse make sense in a way that they don’t for your new girlfriend of 3 weeks.
Because it makes others like banks, the state, hospitals easier to legally deal with it. And it obviously gives both partners more security. The standard example being one partner focuses on childcare instead of career who without marriage would be left with nothing in case of a split up.
The modern legal structure of “marriage” exists largly to protect the person who takes on what was traditionally the women’s role in a marriage. There is no longer a legal obligation to have sex, leave the workforce, or dispraportionatly give up your property rights.
However, if an individual chooses to procreate, marriage helps insure the other party remains on the hook for the child. If an individual chooses to leave the workforce, and the relationship subsequently fails, marriage provides that individual substantial financial protections in the form of an equal claim to marital assets (and, potentially, alimony).
Without marriage, someone who chooses to take on the role of a homemaker places themselves in a very vulnerable and dependent position.
While these protections are no longer specific to women, they still disproportionately protect women; because heterosexual couples still disproportionately adopt a relatively traditional relationship.
There is also absolutely no requirement for a religious ceremony or diamond ring.
I agree with this, but I understand why people would want the ceremony, the reception party, and the honeymoon vacation.
What I don’t understand at all is why anyone would make it a legal contract. Why pull the government into a private relationship? And, since they do often give certain small benefits, ask why they do that? What’s in it for your government if people are legally bound to each other? And, do the benefits for you outweigh the detriments.
The thing is, no one asks this before the marriage, when they’re all lovey-dovey and imagine “they’re the one!” and all that. And, no one who knows better is going to suggest they slow down and reconsider, evidence being all the downvotes this comment would get if this post weren’t one day old.
You’re better off leaving the government out of your private relationships, every time. You can do the ceremony however you want, it doesn’t need to be religious, and all the rest without making it a legal contract. Wouldn’t you rather have a spouse that chooses every day to be with you without any coercion, who is free to easily walk away at any point? Imagine waking up every day and they’re still there only because they want to be there with you and for no other reason.
The government has an interest in children being raised by multiple adults (more resources, more attention, more perspectives, etc). So governments incentivize it and disincentivize ending it.
Additionally, even if you don’t want kids, I think you probably want some kind of legal protection when you pool money with someone for really large expenses (houses). If they stab you in the back, you probably want some means of getting your money back.
Marriage as an institution is an artifact from prior to women’s right to vote. It’s so fucking stupid.
Human beings can choose to be monogamous, choose to be partners in personal finance or choose to be parents without a stupid religious ceremony and an apartheid sourced diamond ring being used to justify it.
It’s a legally codified religious practice with tax benefits, I hate it so much
I mean there are also a lot of legal benefits and protections extended to a spouse that aren’t extended to a boy/girlfriend. Depending on where you live, could mean tax credits, inheritance, how ownership of accrued assets is handled, priority guest access to ER if one gets injured, etc.
I call that: state sponsored religious entrapment.
You can get married in a courthouse without any religious connotations and call it a civil union instead if you want. The religious elements are strictly optional, and I think some codified protections for a significant other significant enough to be your spouse make sense in a way that they don’t for your new girlfriend of 3 weeks.
There was and is absolutely nothing religious about my marriage. Where are you getting this from? It’s a strictly legal contract, not more not less.
But, why even make it a legal contract?
Because it makes others like banks, the state, hospitals easier to legally deal with it. And it obviously gives both partners more security. The standard example being one partner focuses on childcare instead of career who without marriage would be left with nothing in case of a split up.
The modern legal structure of “marriage” exists largly to protect the person who takes on what was traditionally the women’s role in a marriage. There is no longer a legal obligation to have sex, leave the workforce, or dispraportionatly give up your property rights.
However, if an individual chooses to procreate, marriage helps insure the other party remains on the hook for the child. If an individual chooses to leave the workforce, and the relationship subsequently fails, marriage provides that individual substantial financial protections in the form of an equal claim to marital assets (and, potentially, alimony).
Without marriage, someone who chooses to take on the role of a homemaker places themselves in a very vulnerable and dependent position.
While these protections are no longer specific to women, they still disproportionately protect women; because heterosexual couples still disproportionately adopt a relatively traditional relationship.
There is also absolutely no requirement for a religious ceremony or diamond ring.
I agree with this, but I understand why people would want the ceremony, the reception party, and the honeymoon vacation.
What I don’t understand at all is why anyone would make it a legal contract. Why pull the government into a private relationship? And, since they do often give certain small benefits, ask why they do that? What’s in it for your government if people are legally bound to each other? And, do the benefits for you outweigh the detriments.
The thing is, no one asks this before the marriage, when they’re all lovey-dovey and imagine “they’re the one!” and all that. And, no one who knows better is going to suggest they slow down and reconsider, evidence being all the downvotes this comment would get if this post weren’t one day old.
You’re better off leaving the government out of your private relationships, every time. You can do the ceremony however you want, it doesn’t need to be religious, and all the rest without making it a legal contract. Wouldn’t you rather have a spouse that chooses every day to be with you without any coercion, who is free to easily walk away at any point? Imagine waking up every day and they’re still there only because they want to be there with you and for no other reason.
The government has an interest in children being raised by multiple adults (more resources, more attention, more perspectives, etc). So governments incentivize it and disincentivize ending it.
Additionally, even if you don’t want kids, I think you probably want some kind of legal protection when you pool money with someone for really large expenses (houses). If they stab you in the back, you probably want some means of getting your money back.