© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/is-that-uncle-sam-in-your-bedroom/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
There are real criminals roving our streets. Law enforcement knows about them. Law enforcement has apprehended them; in fact, the justice system has already convicted them. The criminals have been sentenced, imprisoned, and release after only a bare fraction of their term because there wasn’t room in “the system”.
Not enough money or resources to detain known and proven criminals, and we’re squandering the time of lawyers and judges and courthouses to mediate marital problems between couples.
The government shouldn’t be involved in our marriages to begin with. We don’t need Uncle Sam telling us who we can or cannot marry. It’s really none of his business is it? Who wants the feds in their bed?
Maybe it’s a somewhat laissez-faire attitude, but what is the purpose of a marriage license? Does the government do anything to facilitate the union—besides update their records for tax purposes? Why are we paying judges to dismantle marriages when there are criminals with a Sixth Amendment Right waiting months or years for trial? Why are there debates over allowing gay marriage or polygamy?
It’s high time to get the government out of the marriage racket.
Marriage is a personal matter, not a legal one. As is divorce. Wouldn’t it be better to bend the use of current divorce courts to handling accused criminals? And there is a way:
The state no longer cares about who you marry. Replace the current need for a license with a legal contract between two people. It can be set up with a term, set to expire after an appointed amount of time if not specifically renewed, and have conditions on what will occur when the contract is dissolved. It’s like a super-prenup, but now the state is out of the entire business and can devote its attention to other things.
A couple can still have a ceremony, those are often religious in nature anyhow, so the state shouldn’t care, but unlike the current system there needn’t be one if it’s not wanted.
There will be some backlash, of course. Under this system anyone could “marry”, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, 4 men and 12 women, but what’s wrong with that? So long as all are adult, and entering into the contract with ken of the situation, what’s it matter. They’ll have the same contract detailing means of escaping a bad marriage, and the same recourse as anyone else in a contract.
Sure, the government won’t go for such an idea easily. They’ll lose the income of marriage fees, which is really easy money for them. Some will complain that dissolution of a marriage is too easy, or that entering into it needs to be restricted, but who elected any state official based on his/her judgement on whom we should love?
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/is-that-uncle-sam-in-your-bedroom/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
I agree, the only difference I would make, if a religious person wanted a until death termination, they should have it, if they marry in a religious service, with a minister of their faith. Two men/Two women, I have no problem with. If they want a religious service, they would have to find a minister who would preform it for them, but no minister would have to do any marriage outside of their faith and beliefs.
The premise is fundamentally flawed. It argues that marriage is not a legal matter. Not true. The purpose of all law, regardless of moral, ethical or historical patina is to organize society. Laws are the mechanisims that allow social structures to function. Laws are essential to social equilibrium. The family unit is a fundamental unit of society. Without it society cannot exist. Laws regulating marriage are not only necessary, they are indispensible to maintaining social structure. Marriage thus requires regulation; i.e., marriage laws are essential for society to function. Not only can we not get government out of the bedroom, we must recognize that it is essential that government be in the bedroom; that government define and control the legal parameters of marriage.
I concur that laws are meant to organize society, and I concur that the rule of law must be paramount to allow society to function, but there my ability to agree with you ends.
“The family unit is a fundamental unit of society.” > True, but incidental. “Without it society cannot exist.” > Maybe true, but you must bear in mind that pseudo families have existed throughout history, and societies that have relied on such support structures have functioned. “Laws regulating marriage are not only necessary, they are indispensable to maintaining social structure.” > That doesn’t follow at all, and would label it as Affirming the Consequent.
I don’t condone the abolition of all marriage regulation, I’d merely proposing all the laws currently held can be pared down to one (in two parts), 1) Draw up the binding as a legal contract, 2) Enter into the contract legally. Were that the law, I doubt most marriages would change at all. How will that destroy society?
Do would think your congressman is a good person to arrange anyone’s marriage (besides his own)?
Let me further expand on Jason’s disagreement with Zoltan:
Zoltan writes:
> The family unit is a fundamental unit of society.
Presumably you define “family unit” as being a man, a women, and — most
importantly — some number of children: the traditional nuclear family.
This is a structure that is designed to propagate the species — to manage
and facilitate our procreation — through the generations in a particular
economic and technological context. In the context for which it evolved,
it works very well, along with all the “division of labor” rules that
typically go with it.
The nuclear family structure is not the only way to organize the
mechanisms of procreation, however, and indeed, that structure is not
appropriate for all economic and technological contexts. For a long
time now, our society’s economics and technology have been evolving to
the point that, while the nuclear family is not quite yet an obsolete
structure, it is very, very close, and more importantly, other
structures are possible, appropriate, and even necessary.
Two important aspects of the change in the current economic context
from that of centuries and millennia past: 1) Women are able to earn
income “outside the home” comparable (though perhaps not yet equal) to
what men can earn; and 2) children are no longer economic assets,
because they can’t really contribute (economic) value until their
early 20s or so, rather than starting in their pre-adolescence as in
an agrarian (or even a factory-feudalism) society.
These changes and others have many consequences. Most of the stress
that we see placed on (and resulting from) the nuclear family
structure — from high divorce rates, to abused, neglected, and
poorly raised children, to all the fuss over gay marriage — is a
symptom of the fact that the nuclear family structure no longer serves
the economic, social, or organizational purposes that it did in an
earlier time.
The government long ago enshrined the nuclear family structure in
secular law to provide economic incentive to encourage people to
procreate, and to facilitate that procreation. The law has adapted
slightly to changing economic, technological, and social conditions.
For example, the so-called “marriage penalty tax” wasn’t such a
“penalty” when women didn’t earn incomes “outside the home.” But once
they did, it was necessary to change the tax structure to keep an
economic incentive to marry (and, by assumption, procreate) in place.
But such “tweaks” to an can only take us so far…
> Without [the family unit] society cannot exist.
On the contrary — the nuclear family structure is nearly obsolete
given our current and rapidly advancing technological level, and our
economic and social state. Failure to recognize and adapt to that
fact would lead (and is leading) to the destruction of society, not
the preservation of it. The problem with the dogmatic (religious or
otherwise) is that they fail to see or acknowledge these changes, and
by clinging to obsolete social structures, they become actively
(self-)genocidal. (…and the problem with that is that they threaten
to take me with them!)
> Not only can we not get government out of the bedroom, we must recognize that it is essential that government be in the bedroom
The government may have a role in ensuring that contracts between
legal entities (individuals, including corporations) are faithfully
maintained, and also that children are raised to be capable members of
society. Given, however, that technology (birth control and abortion)
break the causal relation between sex and procreation (or simply
parenthood), the government can fully ensure a peaceful, functioning,
and enduring society *without* intruding into people’s bedrooms.
“That government is best which governs least.”
If “marriage” is about social structures that facilitate
procreation, then the government may have a role in incentivizing
useful structures (and such structures need not be, and probably
should no longer be, nuclear families). But if “marriage” is about
specific relationships between individuals (and what they do in their
bedrooms), then the government of a free society has absolutely no
business whatsoever intruding in those relationships.
I think it would be a great idea. Our current structure of monogamy causes people a lot of pain, and minimizes happiness. I mean, I’d certainly like to have both of the men who are after me.
Thre’s a fundamental problem with the argument. So we turn the instutution of marriage into a matter of contract. Sure – I’m fine with that. However if marriage becomes a matter of contract, then all the divorce trials will simply become breach-of-contract trials, which will not resolve the issue that was pointed out as the reason for doing it.
On the other hand I can see how it would resolve problems like one Dementia has. Good luck with that one, man. Hope it all works out to mutual satisfaction.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with this. You asked the fundamental question – why not? I don’t see any reason. Excellent article.
In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, priests and ministers were banned from marrying people, and marriage was seen entirely as a legal contractual matter… So there’s history behind this as well… Remember, these weren’t exactly secular people. There’s a reason they had to leave England. They were too fanatical.
EuGenus is spot on; in fact, if you are so inclined (and can phrase the contract such that it can viewed as something other than an agreement for sexual services) you CAN make a contract that replicates the rights and obligations of a statutorily recognized marriage. Of course, that begs the question; why the hell would you want to do such a thing?
The fact of the matter is that marriage is not necessary; rather, it is an anachronism left over from a less progressive age. If you don’t like it, just don’t do it (but don’t tell my fiance I said so).
Dementia said: “I think it would be a great idea. Our current structure of monogamy causes people a lot of pain, and minimizes happiness. I mean, I’d certainly like to have both of the men who are after me.”
I agree! The idea of shareing three or four “husbands” with one “wife-in-law” has always appealed to me. Just think…one to mow the lawn, one to fix things around the house and one to fill in when the other two are too tired. LOL
Oh and of course all the husbands would be bringing in the cash with outside jobs while I cooked and kept the house & the wife-in-law made and raised the three kids. Utopia! LOL
Seriously, why is polygamy restricted to just a mans privelege? I say horney women unite! “Snatch” yourself up two or three of ’em and keep them in the basement. LMAO with great affection. ;)+
Is anyone here familiar with the marriage arrangements in Robert Heinlein’s books “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” and “Friday”? He outlined in them different forms of “line marriages” with asymmetrical numbers of the different sexes of differing ages and discussed the reasons and motivations that could be involved.
Some of the ideas involved were “buying in” to the marriage, so that no one member is freeloading off the others, and communal raising of the children. Much like the phrase that is floating about these days: “It takes a village to raise a child.” (My own opinion is that nowadays no one should be getting married without some kind of prenuptual agreement in place. Then again, I’m starting to think no one should be getting married unless they are definately planning on having children.)
Things that might make differing marriage structures work nowadays are prejudices like in India and China (where it is illegal for a doctor to tell parents the sex of a child before birth because female fetuses will be killed) where male children are what everyone desires (after all, it takes male children to take care of their parents in their old age). With that kind of introduced imbalance in the number of men and women, problems _will_ develop. People will be more willing to abandon such brutal practices when they have larger families that will care for them without all of them being the children.
Also, with the gaps in appetite for sex (both quantity, practices and variety) a larger marriage will most likely result in much fewer people “stepping out” of the marriage to get their needs satisfied. It would take a little getting used to at first, because when you would bring someone new into the marriage, you would have to gain the approval of all the other people involved in the marriage.
Many people also say that marriage is a lot of work. Of physical labor I’ve read that two people working in concert can do 3 times the work of a single person, and as you add more people to the equation (to a point) the benefits of each additional person is greater than one person’s individual labor. For example, one large physical house means a little more housework and yardwork, but with twice the number of people to do it, that still means less house and yard work for each person. The cost to pay for the house is divided among more people, as are the groceries, etc.
Health insurance could be a problem, though.
Tink: I think the reason that polygamy was historically restricted to being a man’s privilege was a combination of religion and sex. Through most of recorded history, women were trained by society that sex was not something they were supposed to enjoy and they should only participate because it was their “duty”. That and the discrimination against women in all things such as working, voting and owning property. I won’t even go into the specifics of the fanatic’s interpreting of the phrase “be fruitful and multiply” or the whole muslim thing.
I am simply shocked, that after all the excellent, and frankly “Damned Interesting” contributions from Jason Bellows, that he would attach his name to this 8th grade creative writing class schlock. Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of this blog, but in the very interesting and rewarding period I’ve been reading it the one constant has been that I’ve been fascinated and educated by everything. Perhaps suggesting that there is a formula to this is simplistic, but the one I’ve noticed is this: Relate some lesser know element of current events or history, add background and details, provide the writer’s analysis.
Would it have been so difficult to prop this up with some recent news about the state and legal ramifications of marriage? Perhaps some history of the same? The most flattering way I can describe this article is as a lazy op-ed. I am not informed, and the only thought provoked for the first five paragraphs is “What in the hell is he talking about?” It is a question that is never really answered, except to say the author has indulged himself in a wandering exploration of his thoughts on some subject or other that happens to be on his mind. There is value in such journeys of exploration, but I suggest setting up a personal blog for that purpose, this does not fit here.
Not everyone can be interested in everything, Tincup. The purpose of this site is to share topics of interest and get people discussing said topics. I believe this article has achieved its goal.
Within seconds of entering the article, my debate-drama-sense was tingling.
I suppose I’ll have to hop in: Metric system for the win! And I’m American!
Ummm…..wouldn’t enforcing these contracts and questioning their legalities take up the same amount of the “system’s time”?
Instead of everyone playing by the same rules….every married couple would have their own. It would of course become disputed as to who followed them and who didn’t. At which point you would have to award the plaintiff with some form of compensation for the breach of contract. That could be lengthly since you would have to figure out who owns what and what the person that breached the contract can afford.
Good idea…in theory.
Beth, um, no. If you had actually read the words I wrote and processed them with you brain, you would not have had such silly things to say in reply. You’ve interpreted my criticism as “Marriage Freedom Topic = Not interested”, when in fact my argument is “Marriage Freedom Topic = Deserves more rigorous attention”. I AM interested in the topic, but I feel Mr. Bellows has done a very poor job writing about it. That’s it. He didn’t do his homework. The article lacks substance. It’s fluff. Have I missed any other ways I can pulp down and simplify what I’m saying? I think the list of ways he could have accomplished a work of significance in my earlier reply would make a critical reader catch on to my point.
In addition I find the time worn argument of “getting everyone talking” to be rhetorical nonsense. Without focused discussion by discerning minds that is just a another of way saying we’re going to jaw for awhile, making ourselves feel righteous by taking an interest in weighty subjects of import without persuading, without educating, and certainly without solving or resolving anything.
In case all the above words were wasted as well, I’ll summarize in two pieces of advice:
Mr. Bellows: You’re a better writer than this. Read your earlier works and remind yourself.
Beth: You’re a better reader and consumer of ideas than this. Turn your brain on and think critically. Most of all stop congratulating yourself for wallowing in the intellectually one-dimensional exercise of “getting people discussing said topics”.
I have to agree with Tincup. I have read and enjoyed many articles on this site, but this one is not a piece of research but simply some personal opinions and What-ifs.
As to the topic, others already pointed out the biggest flaw: This system would not relieve the law system but grind it to a screeching halt with thousands of custom marriage contracts.
There is one other thing no one has pointed out so far: I don’t know for sure about the US, but in many countries the amount of taxes you pay is greatly dependent on your marital status.
If such a system were implemented there would be three possibilities:
1.) Leave the tax system as it is.
Within weeks 99% of the working population would have entered a marriage contract with whomever just so they are in the lowest tax group. They would neither have to live together nor have sex nor have even met personally. You could probably marry on the internet…
2.) Do away with any distictions in taxes.
This would be grossly unfair against those who really do have to feed a family with a single income.
3.) Amend the tax laws so that it accounts for the broadest variety of marriege contracts possible… Wait, wasn’t this thing supposed to make legal stuff easier?
As I see it there are two (main) reasons to get married
1.) Religion/Tradition
Well nobody needs the state for a church wedding even today. State laws about who you can marry tend to be largely congruent with christian tradition, but if you find the right church you could possibly marry and live with just about anyone. Just don’t expect any legal benefits.
2.) Taxes
The tax distinctions were implemented for a reason (see above). The benefits are there to offset burdens you incur by raising a family. Nobody forces you to become legally married.
Enter your reply text here. OK
Where are the “born agains”?
This topic ercs them because they know the only correct answer.
I am a believer. No your not. What!!!!
This story lacks fundamental information about convicts and cost.
Who to quote first?
theFlesh
First, I have to say that this just points out the fact that we had better family relationships when just Dad worked. Mom and brothers and sisters had more time together and spent more time with meaningful contributions to the family and society.
Society isn’t breaking because the family unit is obselete. Society is failing because it demands so much of families that they aren’t meant to support.
1) One parent should be at home full time to take care of the home. Traditionally this has been women and I must agree that women typically are the better choice.
-Women carry our children and often need less stress etc. Work/hourly wages don’t work well with women who aren’t working. i.e. Breadwinner isn’t winning bread if she’s on bedrest.
-Males, who have traditionally been the bread winners typically work out better as the main source of income.
If all the Mothers left the workforce and went back to mothering we’d see many benefits. hugher demand for workers = better pay.
Obselete? see my response above.
Religion sees the changes. And we ask that we go back to those values…not abandon them further.