the significance of marriage

[mellowtigger]

One of the principal functions of government is the peaceful resolution of civil dispute. Any just tool that simplifies this duty should be avidly welcomed by any government. Marriage is such a tool. Some people (with more or less merit) question expanding "traditional" marriage to include same-gender couples, polyamorous groups, or human-animal couples. One very simple application of marriage can readily address all of these scenarios.

Myself, I expect never to encounter the opportunity for marriage, so hopefully my praise of its legal merits will hold some persuasive power as something close to an objective opinion.

The invention of a legal code is probably the most significant milestone that civilization produced for easing disputes between neighbors. It standardized justice. Judges are expected to adhere to the logic of law rather than mete out decisions and consequences by personal inclination. Marriage, I think, is the second most important invention for promoting justice and easing tensions. Marriage is the ultimate "I WIN" card in civil disputes. In questions of authority or inheritance, a spouse is customarily granted automatic superiority over other claimants. Dispute by other parties is entertained by courts only in cases of extreme circumstance.

Many people think of marriage as a religious involvement. Yes, for many people it is. As it involves government and its duty to resolve disputes between people, however, marriage is a powerful benefit granted by the civil state. People can associate with whomever they please, but the government's need (desire, imperative) to recognize only one such involvement at any time means that it simplifies any and all disputes that people will contrive to bring before a court. If one of the parties carries the magical "I WIN" card, then the matter can be settled by law with minimal expenditure from government.

This very simple view of the legal contract provides some plain answers to supposedly complex questions.

Should marriage be extended to same-sex partners? Yes. The absence of an "I WIN" card is responsible for many lawsuits. One simple example is visitation rights at hospitals, where either phobic administrators or phobic kin will sometimes deny admittance to a chosen life partner. Lawsuits require money and time from the government to consider in full. Just within the state of Minnesota, marriage could instantly settle 515 different matters. It is wise to issue certificates of marriage to same-sex couples, because it minimizes government expenditure while mediating disputes.

Should marriage be extended to polyamorous groups? No. Granting more than one "I WIN" card means that the court finds itself once again having to hear a dispute in its entirety before deciding which of the factions should earn their claim. Imagine the complexity of solving an inheritance battle among 4 angry spouses after the principal wage earner dies. The benefit of the "I WIN" card is immediately lost if more than one of them can be granted by (or to) any person. They must remain an exclusive contract, otherwise their benefit to government is eliminated.

Should marriage be extended to human and non-human couples? No. The question seems frivolous at first glance, because the people who pose it usually equate homosexual relationships with beastiality. There are more serious reasons to consider the question. Some rare persons can develop actual romantic feelings for non-human entities. People even commemorate their devotion to inanimate objects or to animals by holding public ceremony. As long as objects and animals are incapable of filing suit in court, however, there is absolutely no governmental need to grant the "I WIN" card that can sidestep an inquiry for dispute resolution. Someday, if there comes a time when a non-human (animal or computer) gains the sentience to declare a formal dispute, then this question must be revisited.

Some heterosexual people avoid marriage because of its old-fashioned tradition and its encumbrance with gender role expectations. While there is merit to this view, I still recommend marriage as a very important "I WIN" authority. It has the magical power to settle instantly many legal disputes with other parties. It should not be dismissed lightly.

Comments

[dodecadragon.livejournal.com]

Solely on the basis of expediting disputes, this does make sense for couples only.

At the same time I still think such systems such as social security should all single or polygamous folk to designate a beneficiary for their account, especially since everyone is basically forced to contribute into the system.

And I totally agree that it is sentience, not genesis or form that defines who has rights. If any being is capable of respecting and exercising rights, then they should be treated as equals under the law, regardless of their genesis or form.

[mellowtigger]

Ack! Somebody's awake at this hour. Okay, I'll stop editing now. :)

[dodecadragon.livejournal.com]

Yes, staying up to take the meds. ;o)

BTW, being up so late does tend to lend to more typo errors. I meant to write:
At the same time I still think such systems such as social security should allow single or polygamous folk to designate a beneficiary for their account, especially since everyone is basically forced to contribute into the system.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

There are good mechanisms in societies that follow poly-whatever traditions, such as, you start out with a couple and then marry people in, and primacy is maintained in that order. Or contracts. We have thousands of years of traditions to take as examples.

[mellowtigger]

My experiences of group marriage have always been dominated by hippie or pagan "we're all equal" communalism. From their example, I have a hard time imagining less bickering (leading to court appearances) in plural arrangements than paired arrangements. I inclined to think that any time more people are involved, there will inevitably be more disputes to resolve.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

Perhaps hippies might not be the best people to look to for an example of responsible behaviour.

[mellowtigger]

What, you mean marijuana and orgies can't solve all of life's problems? :)

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

More problematic is the self-centered, entitlement-fuelled whining. The hippie idea of equality boils down to "How come my piece of pie isn't the biggest?"

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

Just within the state of Minnesota, marriage could instantly settle 515 different matters.

Thank you for posting these numbers. I'm curious what they're like nationwide, and what the ballpark is on the amount of money being wasted on these sorts of disputes. I suspect that will actually be a convincing argument in places like my parents' neighbourhood. (Mom and Dad feel like voices in the wilderness sometimes.)

[pi3832.livejournal.com]

Comment from out of the blue on gay rights:

I can't find a reference, but within the last year or two, there was some "gay rights" issue on a New England state's ballot. It failed, but what was interesting was the demographics on who vote for or against it.

In general, how someone voted was highly correlated to their age. I've mostly come to the conclusion that gay rights are a matter of time. The good news is that I can stop feeling so disheartened whenever things like Prop. 8 get passed. The bad news is, it may be another twenty years before enough old people die off to let gay rights pass.

(What we need is a Social Security or Medicare related federal bill that has gay rights as a rider.)

[mellowtigger]

I remember hearing that demographic news from California's Prop 8 fiasco too. Hopefully, it really is just a matter of time for some of these lingering social issues to just fade into obscurity.