Hacker News Reader

So what we should be asking the government is if it's a fundamental right, why do we require a license to get married?

What you're asking for isn't permission to get married. You're asking for government recognition of your marriage.

Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony.

No. Historically, weddings have been religious ceremony.

Marriage is bigger than the wedding. Marriage means legal changes. Being married means that someone can hold you accountable for your spouse's debts. Being married means the joint ownership of property. Being married means next of kin status. Being married means legal presumption of paternity. Being married means survivor's benefits when one spouse dies.

These are all things what are enforced by the government and THAT is why marriage licenses exist.

Want to declare your undying love for your partner and become religiously, spiritually or culturally married? Go ahead. Want the legal protections of the secular institution of marriage? You need a license.

"You're asking for government recognition of your marriage." True, but that's only because, as another user mentioned in this thread, that there are legal benefits of being married. You also touched upon this subject.

But wanting government recognition so that the legal benefits can be had does not inherently require a license. It can and should be done through mere declaration and formal notification to the government. Our laws could absolutely be changed such that any two people (or more, I suppose, but for simplicity we'll leave it at two) could fill out paperwork and declare themselves married. As long as neither of those people have any existing/active declaration of marriage to someone else, then it would be valid and in force until otherwise revoked. This is very similar to what we have now except there is no permission needed. You are basically electing to put yourself into a specific set of rules, just like a contract, that both parties in the marriage agree to. That set of rules is known and defined and the declaration acts as an acceptance/agreement to enter it. And like a contract, it can't just be exited without the other party's explicit agreement to end it - otherwise adjudication would be required, like any contract dispute.

"No. Historically, weddings have been religious ceremony." This seems like a odd point to make. Weddings and marriage go hand in hand. No one has a wedding without being married. But I think what you are trying to get at is the legal aspect. All of that would still exist and does not inherently require a license, as I talked about above.

"Want the legal protections of the secular institution of marriage? You need a license." My entire point is that the government has made it that way, but it doesn't have to be that way. The current licensing requirements restrict human freedom for no apparent reason other than for the government to reject lifestyles and values that are not approved.

You don't need permission to buy a house. You just buy it, usually with a loan from a bank. Then you file paperwork with the government telling them that it was sold to you, what date you bought it, etc. Then you become the legal homeowner and it is recorded in the public record. You then receive all the legal benefits (and responsibilities) of being the homeowner. This is essentially identical to what I am saying for marriage. Why does marriage have to be any different?

As long as neither of those people have any existing/active declaration of marriage to someone else, then it would be valid and in force until otherwise revoked.

There being an ability revoke means you still need government permission. The only difference is that we would assume a default answer of "Yes" when one asks.

This seems like a odd point to make. Weddings and marriage go hand in hand.

Perhaps I was being a bit pedantic but I also wanted to emphasize that there is a very big civil/secular aspect to marriage.

> Our laws could absolutely be changed such that any two people (or more, I suppose, but for simplicity we'll leave it at two) could fill out paperwork and declare themselves married.

That's pretty much what modern civil marriage already _is_, though. The marriage can't be refused unless it's illegal for some reason (one or more participants under age or already married or something). You're essentially giving a notification; the state will reject it if there's something wrong with it; if it's kosher they'll give you an acknowledgement that they accept the notification. The "license" terminology (which isn't used everywhere) is perhaps not appropriate.

> You don't need permission to buy a house. You just buy it, usually with a loan from a bank.

Funnily enough, when I bought my house I had to sign an elaborate declaration that I was not married (or civil union'd). This is because, in Ireland, the spouse automatically has rights to the family home, and it's illegal to clandestinely buy a house on your own in an attempt to avoid this. If I hadn't signed that, my purchase of the house wouldn't have been legal, but, like a civil marriage, it's basically just a declaration that all is in order.

> Marriage means legal changes. Being married means that someone can hold you accountable for your spouse's debts. Being married means the joint ownership of property. Being married means next of kin status. Being married means legal presumption of paternity. Being married means survivor's benefits when one spouse dies.

Why do we tie those to sexual relationship status, though? The only one of those for which that makes any sense is a legal presumption of paternity, which we don't need now that we have accurate genetic tests (save for identical twins).

Why shouldn't my brother, or my best friend, or members of my yacht club, be able to hold joint ownership, or be my next of kin, or get benefits through me?

Secular marriage is just the husk of religious marriage, sapped of what actually makes a marriage marriage.

There's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I'd encourage you to champion it.

In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms.

> In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms.

I did — I supported civil unions when they were on the ballot in my state.

Civil unions aren't the same thing.

I've always wondered this. Why can't we just appoint specific people who have specific rights? Some people never get married — why can't they give a friend access to their property when they pass away? Or the ability to visit them in the hospital if they become injured?

You can do both of these things. For example, by having a will/trust to designate what happens to your property, or by creating a medical power of attorney.

You can for some of them. In many places you can leave your estate to whoever you want to (often with the provision that minor children must be adequately provided for). Though in some cases there may still be inheritance tax benefits to being married. Some countries also allow arbitrary allocation of next of kin right for the purpose of medical decisions, etc.

It's not like you're required to get married. It's just a thing that's available if people want it. I'd certainly be in favour of more devolved rights traditionally associated with marriage being available (right to nominate next of kin etc).

Why do we tie those to sexual relationship status, though?

I understand that this kind of thinking has fallen out of favor but the answer to your question is this, because the primary purpose of marriage is for having and raising children.

Of course, people who will never have children can and do get married. Of course, people who are too old to have children can get married. And now, people for whom it's biologically impossible to reproduce can get married.

Maybe it's time for a whole series of discussions about our society's future plans for marriage.

And in the US, some states don't allow you to marry certain people, like cousins. In Texas, it's criminal to have even light sexual contact with a cousin.

Marriage should be an n-party agreement with minor legal overhead, like an LLC.

> The only one of those for which that makes any sense is a legal presumption of paternity, which we don't need now that we have accurate genetic tests (save for identical twins).

The social purpose of the legal presumption of paternity (especially that that is clearly sought where that presumption is conclusive rather than rebuttable) is not affected by genetic testing.

> Secular marriage is just the husk of religious marriage, sapped of what actually makes a marriage marriage.

The original and overwhelmingly consistent part of marriage (which has always been a civic institution, whatever religious connotations it might also share in particular times and places) is unifying property rights; it is at its core an economic relationship. (Various religious models provide a variety of explanations for why one might seek such an economic relationship.)

The original and overwhelmingly consistent part of marriage is unifying property rights

Bingo. Ownership of women, ownership of children, and subsequent inheritance of possessions (the illegitimate historically don't inherit) when the owner dies. Doesn't sound very nice to us, but it's what there was. Still, progress is what it's all about; maybe we can be better people than our ancestors.

Disclaimer: I am a gay man, and my support of gay marriage has always been a gray area.

The elephant in the room that must be established here is a biological one. As much as we can hold hands and sing about the beauty of love, it remains that biologically, only a man and a woman can have children.

Historically, it is this dependency, this social contract to promise to stay together to raise one's children, that has given rise to many of the legal protections that a marriage license provides.

Now, there have been lots of heterosexual couples who marry on paper, never have kids, and for them it's largely a financial commitment (legally) and less of a social contract. I don't think same sex marriage is different in a financial regard than these examples, so I support it. But the situation gets somewhat more hairy when you consider that same sex couples may still want to raise children, and then the issue of surrogate mothers, adoption, same sex households, and all sorts of other potential legal complications come into play. How would a custody case play out with two fathers, for example?

I'm not arguing for or against same sex marriage, and I'm personally in a polyamorous relationship that's unlikely to be recognized legally in any way shape or form, so there's that as well. I just want to draw attention to some of the hidden complexities that it introduces.

> How would a custody case play out with two fathers, for example?

These already exist. Gay couples have kids, even married ones.

> Historically, it is this dependency, this social contract to promise to stay together to raise one's children, that has given rise to many of the legal protections that a marriage license provides.

Not really. Most of the legal effects of marriage amount to legal privileges of the parties to the marriage with respect to each other, both with property and in some power-of-attorney like ways.

The big exception is the presumption (rebuttable or absolute, depending on the jurisdiction) of paternity, which may be irrelevant to same sex [0] marriages (though, in principle, even ignoring the issues under the previous footnote the absolute form and it's stability-over-biology related motivations is equally applicable to same-sex female unions as it is to opposite-sex unions.)

[0] Though given that legal sex is really a form of socially-ascribed gender and may not align with biological sex, it's also arguable that presumption of paternity is just as applicable to same (legal) sex unions as opposite sex unions as a class, though statistically less likely to be relevant to any particular same sex union, given the loose correlation between biological and legal sex.

> Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony.

Common misconception, but not really true. For most of history, marriage for normal people was rarely a ceremony _at all_. The state and church usually recognised marriage to greater or lesser degrees, but most people were deemed married because they were recognised by their community as being married. Formal religious or civic marriage ceremonies were mostly for the upper classes. Gradually they spread out among classes (especially in Catholic countries), but in many places common-law marriage remained acceptable until surprisingly recently.

In England, for instance, common-law marriage wasn't abolished until 1753. It wasn't abolished in Scotland until 2006. In America, a number of states _still_ recognise common-law marriage.

And even where marriage registration has long been required for recognition, this has often been purely civil. People in some European countries, if they want a church marriage, have to get 'married' twice; the civil authorities don't recognise the church one, and this has been the case for a long time (I think since the French Revolution for France).

> Why can't we just decide who we are going to get married to, and simply fill out some paperwork to declare (not ask permission) ourselves married and notify the government of our status change.

If you live in a common-law marriage state, you can. You don't even have to file any paperwork (though it'll cause you trouble traveling if you don't get it formally recognised).

> Asking permission is obscene and defeats the entire purpose of declaring it a "fundamental right".

When you get legally married, you're not really asking permission. You're informing the state of the fact. For practical reasons, most modern countries won't recognise your marriage unless you do this (though, as above, some US states will). But you're not really asking permission as such.

> Historically marriage has always been a religious ceremony.

For most of history it's been both a religious and a civic institution (marriage is an institution, a wedding is a ceremony commemorating, or effecting depending on the model, the entrance into that institution), both in nature and effect, with the civilian/legal effect regarding property rights and inheritance arguably most often the predominant aspect; the idea that the religious and the civic domains are fundamentally separate rather than deeply linked is a relatively modern innovation, along with which came completely separate religious and civic institutions of marriage in the places where that separation between the religious and the civic domains has been given effect.

I also thought it was strange that the fight was over "winning" permission from the government to have a relationship rather than ditching the idea that permission should be needed.

Married people enjoy benefits in the eyes of the law.

Of course the commitment of those involved is the most important part of a marriage, but given the way our society works, the legal rights are also quite important.

But is it right that benefits were set up in the first place so as to promote the morality of one type of relationship but not another?

Who cares what the original intent was.

I care, and you should, too. Because if we don't agree with the original intent anymore or no longer think it's valid or fits in with our current societal values and beliefs, then it should be re-examined and either modified or scrapped altogether.

Yes, as we are discussing, it was in fact recently modified to fit with current societal values.

Nope, definitely wasn't right in most cases. I can understand why some of it exists, though - like not being able to be forced to testify against your spouse. The two people who are married are supposed to be "one" so the extension of the fifth amendment makes sense.

But a lot of the other stuff having to do with tax benefits...I'm not too crazy about. The government is notorious for doling out tax benefits to activities they want to promote. Like the mortgage interest deduction. The government wants to promote home ownership so they created that to incentivize people buy homes. That's arguably the most popular tax break out there, but all it does is give preference to how you spend your money. Spend it on something the government approves of, and you get a tax break. Similar story with child tax credits, dependent care credits, etc. They are basically rubber stamping certain life choices. And the effect is that people who neglect or outright refuse to engage in these choices/expenditures end up paying more in taxes, all else being equal.

Civil unions would have been a better answer to that.

It's a much more culturally secular entity, and can defined better. For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married, which is more fair, I think.

Honestly, I don't really know much of anything about civil unions so maybe your right. If that's the case, I have no idea what the actual distinction is between a civil union and marriage would be then if they both confer the same benefits/rights/protections. Sounds like civil unions were just created to fill that same-sex marriage gap without pissing off the people who didn't want same-sex marriages. That way the people who are against it can still feel like marriage is just one man and one woman while gay couples can still get the legal perks. Seems like a typical political cop-out. But I could be wrong on this assumption as I don't know enough about it. That's my gut impression, though.

A civil union is the civic definition of partnership. It confers the 'legal rights'.

'Marriage' is something cultural and religious. People can call themselves married, or not, it's not legally relevant.

You go to City Hall to register your partnership.

You go to Church (or whatever) to get married.

What jurisdiction are you describing?

In the United States, they are legally different concepts, with marriage conferring more rights to the couple. Since Obergefell v. Hodges, civil unions are not really used.

Sorry, I'm not describing a jurisdiction, rather explaining how I think it should be done. I guess I didn't make that clear as it was an appendage to my earlier comment. :)

> Sounds like civil unions were just created to fill that same-sex marriage gap without pissing off the people who didn't want same-sex marriages.

In most countries which implemented them, that's broadly correct, yeah. In some countries there were also constitutional issues; in Ireland we had to change our constitution to permit same-sex marriage, for instance, so we had civil unions in the mean time.

In practice, though, there were lots of small unintended legal differences. Marriage has been around since before any modern society, and it weaves itself into laws and regulations. The campaign for equal marriage in Ireland found something like a thousand legal differences between civil unions and marriages, mostly essentially accidental. They're a mess and should be avoided if possible.

What you're describing is a common-law marriage, more or less. Most jurisdictions have abolished them, because they create administrative problems (for instance, if someone dies with money and without a will, you're basically guaranteed a messy legal procedure), but a number of US states still recognise them.

Civil unions were largely implemented as an alternative to marriage, usually only for same-sex couples, either because granting same-sex marriage was too contentious, unconstitutional, or similar reasons. And they worked like marriage; they were generally contracted just like a civil marriage. Generally, when countries permit same-sex marriage, they also remove any existing civil union laws. We had them in Ireland for a few years until the constitution was changed to allow same-sex marriage, for instance; after that the law was changed to forbid any new civil unions.

> Civil unions would have been a better answer to that.

Civil marriage already is a civil union; distinct-in-name "civil unions" are a separate (if sometimes nominally equal) civic institution to keep same-sex unions segregated-in-name from opposite-sex unions.

> For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married

"The process of getting married" basically exists to (1) document the state of union to aid in dispute resolution, (2) provide notice of an opportunity for basic review for legal barriers to the union (which now are basically consanguinity and already being in a similar union with someone else), and (3) provide clear documentation of consent from both parties to.the formation of the union.

The less formal form you describe (common-law marriage) coexisted alongside formal "registered" marriage (and, arguably, is even more linked to religion than the formal kind, since it's a direct product of the Christian doctrine that sacramental marriage is created between the partners alone, with the Church and/or State functioning as additional witnesses, not the creators of the state), but has increasingly fallen out of favor because it creates a lack of clarity about legal rights and obligations.

Those legal benefits would not be lost. You would obtain/retain those benefits once you sign the paperwork declaring yourself married. That document would be held in force with all legal consequences (benefits and ramifications) until it has been rescinded by those married or through some divorce proceeding.

Yes, that would be fine.

It also would represent a much larger change than extending existing marriage benefits.

Benefits, but I think also some obligations?

'Marriage is a right' - but between whom?

In many parts of the world, polygamy is legal. The president of South Africa has many wives. We dare not question their 'cultural integrity'.

A libertarian argument for polygamy could be made easily, just as strongly as the one for gay marriage.

Personally, I believe marriage is a cultural institution, not a civic one. I think that the government should not be in the business of defining what marriage is - and stick to 'civil unions'. Two people can declare themselves to be married - it's their choice of identity. Others can chose to reject that if they want. The government gets involved only for legal issues, much like you're declared to be in a 'civil union' if you live together with someone for long enough, irrespective of your marriage status.

I largely agree with you, and I don't even think that many people would have a problem with what you propose.

But who gets to decide whether a civil union couple can file tax jointly or not?

I think the model should simply switch to household-based reporting only, regardless of status, especially if the joint set of taxpayers are claiming dependents.

Each reporting adult filer in the household would link to a household TIN (like a EIN) and it would be done in aggregate. The decision to file separately would be based on the dilution of deductions as number of filers increased, relative financial independence desired, or risk of incurring the tax liabilities of others in the household.

(That would discourage roommates from filing jointly if they desired financial independence to avoid abusing the model)

The discussion should not be about marriage, but about the right to adopt children and to grant citizenship to spouses.

Next I wonder, what are the arguments against marriage for polygamists? And if I can marry several people (how many - 100 perhaps?), do I have to prove I love them before they get the right to live in my country?

> So what we should be asking the government is if it's a fundamental right, why do we require a license to get married?

You have to ask this question in the context of legal history. In English common law, from which United States law on marriage is derived, marriage was basically a legal contract stripping women of most of their rights and transferring them to the husband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

And none of that matters. Fact of the matter is, we do require marriage licenses. And unless you're going to go out and campaign that the government should get out of straight marriage, trying to point this out is quite ignorant and worthless at best, and quite bigoted at worse.