Why should the state allow anyone to marry?

[Devil'sAdvocate]

I'm curious why the state or government should play any role in marriage, and why it should be anything other than a private ceremony between individuals, churches, communities, etc.

There are some problems with the state being involved in marriage:

1. A good percentage of (if not most) 'married people' aren't in an emotionally mature relationship, and married (or stayed) in marriage for more mercenary reasons, such as financial co-dependence, unexpected pregnancy, or simply thinking a bad marriage is "better than nothing", etc


So by the state granting a legal privilege for anyone to marry regardless of merits, this just gives meaningless marriages a false veil of legitimacy.

It would probably be more in the interest of a culture for the state to encourage emotionally undeveloped people to work on enlightening themselves as individuals, rather than seeking false comfort in physical companionship.

[Standing Wolf]

From a legal standpoint, the status of being married impacts individuals in thousands of ways. Recording and - in some ways - regulating that status (or its dissolution) is something that the State and only the State is in any way equipped to do. As long as the State is tasked with enforcing a child's right to support from its lawful parents, or dividing property in the event of a marital dissolution, etc., etc., the State has a very real and vital interest in knowing who is eligible to marry, who is already married, who is whose legal parent, and all the rest of it.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

From a legal standpoint, the status of being married impacts individuals in thousands of ways. Recording and - in some ways - regulating that status (or its dissolution) is something that the State and only the State is in any way equipped to do. As long as the State is tasked with enforcing a child's right to support from its lawful parents, or dividing property in the even of a marital dissolution, etc., etc., the State has a very real and vital interest in knowing who is eligible to marry, who is already married, who is whose legal parent, and all the rest of it.
That makes sense pragmatically speaking, but culturally-speaking, that lends credence to the notion that marriage is a vapid or dead institution solely concerned with the state and economics rather than 'higher' notions such as love, quality of life, etc.

[Adelaide]

That makes sense pragmatically speaking, but culturally-speaking, that lends credence to the notion that marriage is a vapid or dead institution solely concerned with the state and economics rather than 'higher' notions such as love, quality of life, etc.

Why can't it be both? There has to be the pragmatic aspect, but that doesn't diminish the institution in other ways.

[Common]

From a legal standpoint, the status of being married impacts individuals in thousands of ways. Recording and - in some ways - regulating that status (or its dissolution) is something that the State and only the State is in any way equipped to do. As long as the State is tasked with enforcing a child's right to support from its lawful parents, or dividing property in the even of a marital dissolution, etc., etc., the State has a very real and vital interest in knowing who is eligible to marry, who is already married, who is whose legal parent, and all the rest of it.
Best explanation ive ever read

[Chris]

The state's only involvement should be in protecting marriage as a contract. Let society and the various religions take it from there.

[Common]

Marriage certificate, the main reason for those and requiring blood tests was to minimize the spread of disease

If the govt were not involved in any way in marriage many women and kids would be left destitute if the marriage went bad

[Cthulhu]

Marriage certificate, the main reason for those and requiring blood tests was to minimize the spread of disease

If the govt were not involved in any way in marriage many women and kids would be left destitute if the marriage went badThat still happens despite laws being the books.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[The Xl]

Marriage should just be a religious ceremony and/or a comprehensive contract that the state can't wind up taking liberties with in the event of a divorce. But there is no money in that for lawyers and judges, so the status quo will continue.

[Standing Wolf]

Marriage should just be a religious ceremony and/or a comprehensive contract that the state can't wind up taking liberties with in the event of a divorce. But there is no money in that for lawyers and judges, so the status quo will continue.

Any contract is subject to dispute and litigation. There is no type of contract that is so "comprehensive", simple and ironclad that one or both parties cannot have cause to take it to court - particularly when you consider the acrimonious nature of most divorces. As for allowing it to be, in some cases, "just...a religious ceremony", see Post #2, and also consider this: what, given that scenario, is to stop a "church" from sanctioning the marriage of an adult man to a twelve-year-old girl? We have already had, in fact, some examples of churches doing that very thing.

[The Xl]

Any contract is subject to dispute and litigation. There is no type of contract that is so "comprehensive", simple and ironclad that one or both parties cannot have cause to take it to court - particularly when you consider the acrimonious nature of most divorces. As for allowing it to be, in some cases, "just...a religious ceremony", see Post #2, and also consider this: what, given that scenario, is to stop a "church" from sanctioning the marriage of an adult man to a twelve-year-old girl? We have already had, in fact, some examples of churches doing that very thing.
There are certainly some nuanced scenarios, but many are pretty clear cut and the subject of judicial adventurism.

[Peter1469]

Contracts and trusts can get you all the protections of a state marriage, even more in many instances.

And state marriages have created an entire industry for divorce lawyers. Contracts and trusts properly created would mitigate a lot of that.

[Standing Wolf]

Contracts and trusts can get you all the protections of a state marriage, even more in many instances.

And state marriages have created an entire industry for divorce lawyers. Contracts and trusts properly created would mitigate a lot of that.

The objections to that idea are at least twofold. First, we have a very strong cultural attachment to the word (and the institution of) "marriage". Hard to imagine a young man or woman calling their parents with the good news that their significant other has agreed to enter into a number of contracts and trusts with them. Secondly, contrast having to cobble together any number of contracts, agreements, releases and powers of attorney in order to simulate marital status with the simple act of buying a license and having the marriage solemnized by a clergyman, judge or other official.