Time to abolish marriage.

[Axxon]

In all the uproar about same sex marriages no one has touched on something that to me makes even more sense than that.

Why have marriages at all?

I don't mean in the religious/social sense, I mean in the very legal sense. It's an institution that deserves no special status legal protections or special standing that couldn't be legislated in other ways.

The use of prenuptial contracts would cover the divorce element and benefits that are granted to married "spouses" are best left either granted to anyone that the employee designates or not granted at all.

I'm not arguing that from the same sex side, I'm arguing it for the single person side. Why should I only be allowed benefits that other employees are granted if I get married? It doesn't make sense.

What makes even less sense to me, and the reason I even thought about this is the amount of money and time our government lays out on this nonsense. Money that we all gripe we'd rather keep in our pockets.

This case in particular, while bizarre, is a case in point.

hxxp://www.courttv.com/trials/news/1104/15_transsexual_ctv.html

Transsexual jailed for lying about gender, fights for right to marry as woman

Sandy Gast (right) says she is legally a woman and has the right to marry George Somers (left).
By Jessica Su
Court TV

She was born a man, became a woman, was betrothed to a man, and then was thrown in jail for it.

Now, instead of paying a $500 fine on charges she lied about her gender, Sandy Gast is waging a legal battle for transsexual rights in Kansas.

Gast, 48, applied for a marriage license in February to wed her partner, George "Georgi" Somers. On March 18, however, just two days before the wedding date, Gast was jailed for lying about her sex.

Beginning Monday, a judge in the Leavenworth County Circuit courthouse will try Gast for falsely swearing on a marriage license, which carries a $500 fine.

Story continues
advertisement

The state opened an investigation after Somers' daughter, Crystal Call, e-mailed the Leavenworth county attorney's office in March, saying that both parties were men living as women.

Prosecutor Frank Kohl says investigators found a birth certificate and a 1999 divorce record that identifies Gast's first name as Edward.

Even if Gast truly considers himself a woman, Kohl argues, the state would not recognize the marriage. Kansas law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In addition, a 2002 state Supreme Court decision voided a transsexual marriage.

Defense attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, however, claims that Gast is legally a woman, and therefore has the right to marry a man in Kansas.

In September 2003, Gast changed the name on her birth certificate, driver's license and social security card to reflect her new female identity. Gast presented the new driver's license when applying for the marriage license.

Although Gast faces a nominal fine, Irigonegaray demanded a trial because of the principle of the case.

"This is a serious look about what makes someone a man, what makes someone a woman," said Irigonegaray, who is working for free on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Transgendered people should be treated with dignity and respect because we come out of the same genetic soup. The bigotry and violence has to stop.

"A transgendered person is someone whose penis is not in accordance with their brain," he said. "[She has] a penis and testicles but the brain of a woman."

Prosecutor Kohl did not return calls for comment.

Gast claims she knew at age 7 that she was not male. She began psychotherapy in 1999 and got a sex-change operation in October, Irigonegaray said.

A leading researcher from the University of California Los Angeles will testify that transsexuality is an issue of science, not choice, Irigonegaray said.

In compliance with a judge's wishes, Gast and Somers surrendered their marriage license, but a pastor joined them in a holy union on March 20. Somers was not charged with a crime because he was born a man and was declared the groom on the license.

Irigonegaray admitted that if Somers were living as a woman, then he had falsely identified himself as a man. However, Somers was forced to file the license as a man because Kansas does not recognize same-sex marriages, Irigonegaray said.

"To charge [Somers] would be a Catch-22," Irogonegaray said. "That's the problem with transgendered people. We label them, rather than waiting for time to be enough for them to label themselves."

The trial is expected to last three days.

E-mail | Print

Three days worth of court time backing real cases up further. Countless hours worth of legal time accrued on both sides and for what?

A $500 fine and a principle. Man, I don't want the government that far up my ass. I don't want either of these two up there either but that's not the point. It's time for government to give it up.

So, lets make marriage a religious ceremony strictly with religious rules and regulations. Lets eliminate the concept completely from the legal standpoint.

No more tax breaks, alimony, special insurance rates etc, etc, just because you signed some papers before you fucked. It's not needed, it's inequitable and it's wrong. I've thought about it and giving rights to same sex couples only makes the discrimination against single people worse.

Lets really level the playing field and make all people equal and not spread bennies for those who decide to live together.

[Desnudo]

I understand the perspective, but the government, and we as a people actually have an economic incentive to promote traditional marriage and child bearing. GDP and population growth are directly linked to each other in the long run, so it makes sense to give benefits to those willing to marry and have children.

[DeToxRox]

marriage is for the weak.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I understand the perspective, but the government, and we as a people actually have an economic incentive to promote traditional marriage and child bearing. GDP and population growth are directly linked to each other in the long run, so it makes sense to give benefits to those willing to marry and have children.

I can understand that this was the traditional reasoning behind the laws but like I touched on above, do we really need to promote child birth any more? We are making a big deal about overcrowding and promoting contraception and lowering the birth rate. Promoting it with one hand and trying to lower it with the other seems to be counterintuitive if not counterproductive.

I don't know the cut off point but population growth spurring GDP has to reach a point of diminishing returns at some point right? If we had an infinite population we wouldn't have an infinite GDP. At some point the economy would be choked by the masses and be unable to support what we had in infrastructure and real estate alone.

[Warhammer]

Not only that, but part of the reason why people get marriage discounts for insurance, etc., is that statistics show the person is less of a liability to the insurer. Thus, they get lower rates. The same thing applies to car insurance for a 25 yr. old male vs. a 24 yr old male.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I don't know the cut off point but population growth spurring GDP has to reach a point of diminishing returns at some point right? If we had an infinite population we wouldn't have an infinite GDP. At some point the economy would be choked by the masses and be unable to support what we had in infrastructure and real estate alone.

Well some people thought that the world could not support over 1 billion people, last I checked we are at 7 billion and growing. Provided the new people are producers, then the GDP will grow. The problem is if the non-producers, children and retirees, outnumber the producers. Even this is only a problem in the case where there is a government enforced redistribution of wealth, a la welfare or Social Security.

Regarding Soc. Security, I figured out that if I took what I pay into Soc. Sec., and put it towards supporting my soon to be retired parents, I could have them move in with me, and still have some change left over, even including a home improvement load and the like. It would get even better if my brother helped me out with it.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Not only that, but part of the reason why people get marriage discounts for insurance, etc., is that statistics show the person is less of a liability to the insurer. Thus, they get lower rates. The same thing applies to car insurance for a 25 yr. old male vs. a 24 yr old male.

Sure they're less liability; they get all the perks and bennies while the single people do the same amount of work for less.

Seriously, insurance companies aren't governmental entities. If they want to set their rates based on the civil ceremony of marriage then more power to them.

Still no reason for the state to have to get involved in sanctioning the unions though.

[Warhammer]

I do not see any advantage the state give me to being married. Heck, until a couple of years ago, I paid more in taxes because I was married. From a government standpoint, that is the only thing I can think of that encourages/discourages marriage.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Well some people thought that the world could not support over 1 billion people, last I checked we are at 7 billion and growing. Provided the new people are producers, then the GDP will grow. The problem is if the non-producers, children and retirees, outnumber the producers. Even this is only a problem in the case where there is a government enforced redistribution of wealth, a la welfare or Social Security.

Regarding Soc. Security, I figured out that if I took what I pay into Soc. Sec., and put it towards supporting my soon to be retired parents, I could have them move in with me, and still have some change left over, even including a home improvement load and the like. It would get even better if my brother helped me out with it.

Sure we can support 7 billion on this planet but we're not really doing that good a job of it. Double the population and it's going to get worse not better IMHO. Bottom line is the world can only support a finite population as real estate is a limiting factor.

You're banking on advances in people storage keeping up with the population and I don't know how likely that is to occur or at what point it stops occuring. It hasn't been at 7b but 8b, 10b? Who knows?

I do know that the concensus world round is lowering, not raising the birth rate so the thought that we can support as many people as we can produce isn't a generally acted on belief these days, except where marriage is concerned.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I do not see any advantage the state give me to being married. Heck, until a couple of years ago, I paid more in taxes because I was married. From a government standpoint, that is the only thing I can think of that encourages/discourages marriage.

Death benefits for partner, insurance coverage for partner ( not cost but simple coverage which I can't offer my girlfriend unless we get married ), alimony on breakup of relationship, tax credits, these are some of the benefits of marriage that single people have no access to.

[Axxon]

Dola,

Not having to testify against one's spouse is another biggie.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I can understand that this was the traditional reasoning behind the laws but like I touched on above, do we really need to promote child birth any more? We are making a big deal about overcrowding and promoting contraception and lowering the birth rate. Promoting it with one hand and trying to lower it with the other seems to be counterintuitive if not counterproductive.

I don't know the cut off point but population growth spurring GDP has to reach a point of diminishing returns at some point right? If we had an infinite population we wouldn't have an infinite GDP. At some point the economy would be choked by the masses and be unable to support what we had in infrastructure and real estate alone.

The theory lies in growth, not in instant population (infinite). And it also relies on having a stable free market economy in place with stable birth and death rates. That's why we make a big deal about overcrowding and stabilizing population growth in a lot of African countries and why China and India are only now realizing the potential of their populations.

The law of diminishing returns doesn't apply in this scenario, yet at least. The easiest way to understand why is to imagine that consumption will continue to grow, but if the production capability, meaning labor supply, isn't available to meet that consumption, then the economy is in trouble and at the very least will stagnate. This problem can obviously be mitigated with technology and a better educated, more efficient workforce, but in the long run you still need people to produce goods. At least until Hal is invented.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The theory lies in growth, not in instant population (infinite). And it also relies on having a stable free market economy in place with stable birth and death rates. That's why we make a big deal about overcrowding and stabilizing population growth in a lot of African countries and why China and India are only now realizing the potential of their populations.

The law of diminishing returns doesn't apply in this scenario, yet at least. The easiest way to understand why is to imagine that consumption will continue to grow, but if the production capability, meaning labor supply, isn't available to meet that consumption, then the economy is in trouble and at the very least will stagnate. This problem can obviously be mitigated with technology and a better educated, more efficient workforce, but in the long run you still need people to produce goods. At least until Hal is invented.

I agree with the not yet but when? Your point above skirts the obvious limiting factor at least directly.

Food.

To support every person born you have to dedicate a certain amount of finite resources to support the person and their food supply. Technology alone isn't close to freeing us from this limit as we still must eat organic food no matter how efficiently it is produced.

Now, we are doing a lot better in this area but it seems to me we're making up for lost time rather than coping with the growth we have now going on. I think we're postponing this issue rather than solving it ( there are still a lot of starving folks out there )and it is absolutely a limiting factor on population.

[randal7]

Why should the gov't encourage marriage? Children. Not to have them, but to raise them. Children are far better off growing up as part of a stable family, so it is in society's interest to promote stable families. Trite though it may be to say so, children are our most important resource, and the future of the world will be shaped by how our children grow up. One of the biggest problems in this country is people have kids but are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to be a good parent. Anything that encourages people to try and keep their family together is good.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I agree with the not yet but when? Your point above skirts the obvious limiting factor at least directly.

Food.

To support every person born you have to dedicate a certain amount of finite resources to support the person and their food supply. Technology alone isn't close to freeing us from this limit as we still must eat organic food no matter how efficiently it is produced.

Now, we are doing a lot better in this area but it seems to me we're making up for lost time rather than coping with the growth we have now going on. I think we're postponing this issue rather than solving it ( there are still a lot of starving folks out there )and it is absolutely a limiting factor on population.

Need always drives innovation. That's how we are. As an extreme example, we won't spend money on technology to blow up asteroids until one hits NYC. And we have the ability to produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, the U.S. alone produces a huge surplus and farmers are paid not to produce to their capacity; the problem is that a lot of countries in the world are still run under governments that supress liberty and free markets and that results in inequity that produces starvation.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by randal7

Why should the gov't encourage marriage? Children. Not to have them, but to raise them. Children are far better off growing up as part of a stable family, so it is in society's interest to promote stable families. Trite though it may be to say so, children are our most important resource, and the future of the world will be shaped by how our children grow up. One of the biggest problems in this country is people have kids but are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to be a good parent. Anything that encourages people to try and keep their family together is good.

Encouraging marriage does ZERO to encourage what you are talking about which I agree with. Marriages are granted irregardless of ones intentions or even ability to have children and they get the same benefits child bearing married couples to and that non married, but stable and living together couples don't.

If you want to encourage properly raising children then give the benefits there and give those benefits to any people who are raising kids in a stable, secure, protected and nurturing environment. Don't give it to people who just might have kids but haven't gotten any yet. Simple.

Marriage just isn't needed as a legal entity. It serves a purpose but I haven't seen anyone here advance a reason it needs to be protected legally as it now is.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Need always drives innovation. That's how we are. As an extreme example, we won't spend money on technology to blow up asteroids until one hits NYC. And we have the ability to produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, the U.S. alone produces a huge surplus and farmers are paid not to produce to their capacity; the problem is that a lot of countries in the world are still run under governments that supress liberty and free markets and that results in inequity that produces starvation.

You're using the argument that since we have the ability to keep up with current demand that we will always have that ability. That's a dangerous and unsupported view. Could it happen? Maybe, but do we have any real reason to believe it will happen?

Lets take the asteroid scenario which is troubling. We will start solving the problem when the asteroid hits. All the technology we will develop won't help those folks in New York. Won't help those folks in Boston hit two weeks later either.

Sometime you have to work on the solutions before hand even if the problem seems well in hand. Once the food supply drops too low, it's too late to start researching the solutions. Massive food shortages anywhere in the world is a recipe for disaster and it would be a domino effect as people would not only do what they need to do to survive but others would hoard and be willing to die to not be the next victims.

Getting this back to marriage though, isn't their a point where population more or less hits an optimum? There must be a point where the economy is booming and there are enough resources to supply everyone and if the world hits that point, wouldn't it make sense to have a zero population growth?

I'm not saying we're there yet but I do believe we're beyond the point where we have to actively promote population growth. I'd think all the folks who complain about our jobs being shipped overseas might agree with this.

Who needs more population when the jobs for our current population are being taken away from us? Doesn't make sense.

[randal7]

One thing that makes (should make) a marriage more stable is that a marriage is a formal, legal, lifelong commitment. Problem is, people no longer take that commitment seriously. Folks get married because they think they are "in love", and when things get tough, or when they decide the sex looks better elsewhere, they bail. This is obviously a problem the government can't do a lot to change. And I question whether kids really feel as secure in a family where the parents are unwilling to legally/formally commit to the family. Whatever the reasoning, there has got to be some doubt in the kid's (and partner's) mind about mommy/daddy not wanting to take that final step.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by randal7

One thing that makes (should make) a marriage more stable is that a marriage is a formal, legal, lifelong commitment. Problem is, people no longer take that commitment seriously. Folks get married because they think they are "in love", and when things get tough, or when they decide the sex looks better elsewhere, they bail.

Agree with this but people not taking the institution seriously is another reason that the institution is obsolete; it isn't serving it's purpose.

This is obviously a problem the government can't do a lot to change.

If it can't change it then it needs to get out of the business of trying.

And I question whether kids really feel as secure in a family where the parents are unwilling to legally/formally commit to the family. Whatever the reasoning, there has got to be some doubt in the kid's (and partner's) mind about mommy/daddy not wanting to take that final step.

So, what you're saying is, if there was no legal commitment possible, then some kids wouldn't feel less secure than other kids based not on their actual family situation but on the false expectation put on by society; expectations that we know aren't really being met even by those who enter the legal commitment.

I agree. Another reason to do away with the practice.

[randal7]

Even if I concede that marriage is essentially obsolete, consider this: If we throw up our hands and say "marriage is obsolete; let's just do away with it" we are by default (in my opinion, anyway) endorsing the opposite behavior (short term relationships, no stable family environment, and so on). Bottom line, if you are going to procreate, you should be in it for better or worse, till death do us part, etc. I think this is important to take a stand for, even if it is largely fruitless.

I realize people can have lifelong commitments without a formal marriage. Really, though, how often does that happen? And I still think that shows an unwillingness to fully commit in many of those cases.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by randal7

Even if I concede that marriage is essentially obsolete, consider this: If we throw up our hands and say "marriage is obsolete; let's just do away with it" we are by default (in my opinion, anyway) endorsing the opposite behavior (short term relationships, no stable family environment, and so on). Bottom line, if you are going to procreate, you should be in it for better or worse, till death do us part, etc. I think this is important to take a stand for, even if it is largely fruitless.

I realize people can have lifelong commitments without a formal marriage. Really, though, how often does that happen? And I still think that shows an unwillingness to fully commit in many of those cases.

Ok, my point wasn't that we should eliminate the institution of marriage completely just as a legal entity. Marriage will still exist but it will take slightly different forms depending on cultural and religious differences.

The only difference is that in the eyes of the law it won't make a difference. Nothing wrong with that. I don't see the logic myself in protecting an institution that has clearly failed to work for its intended purpose as opposed to finding new solutions that do work.

I also don't see the wisdom of legislating everything that we'd prefer people do nor do I see that failing to do so by default supports behavior we don't want. Marriage is a good example of this.

Despite all the effort people are still living exactly how they want to and people who don't conform to our societies wishes really want to enjoy the benefits of marriage but not enough to conform to get them. We're not winning the war just by fighting. You can't win that way.

Set out clear parental responsibility and then reinforce it, either through reward or penalty. Make parents have to take an active interest in the raising of their child to be a productive adult. Reinforce that goal which is really the one we're talking about.

Do this successfully and if indeed marriage is a boon to creating a productive and prosperous family then people will be flocking to that option by the droves anyway. Clearly, in the current climate, where the reward is the getting married, not providing a stable family situation, the option isn't working as intended so why bother?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Encouraging marriage does ZERO to encourage what you are talking about which I agree with. Marriages are granted irregardless of ones intentions or even ability to have children and they get the same benefits child bearing married couples to and that non married, but stable and living together couples don't.

If you want to encourage properly raising children then give the benefits there and give those benefits to any people who are raising kids in a stable, secure, protected and nurturing environment. Don't give it to people who just might have kids but haven't gotten any yet. Simple.

Marriage just isn't needed as a legal entity. It serves a purpose but I haven't seen anyone here advance a reason it needs to be protected legally as it now is.

I'm a big believer in marriage personally so my arguement is obviously going to be biased to reflect that.

However for what its worth ...

Marriages have been statistically proven to be more stable than non-marriaged relationships*.

Children raised by their mother and father living together as a couple have been statistically proven to be happier and have more productive & successful lifes than children raised in other circumstances*.

Because of this I believe that its right for a goverment to encourage marriage in order to help ensure that their society is as well balanced as possible.

Have Fun,

Marc
*There are exceptions to all of these rules obviously, for instance I was raised in a single parent family and am holding together ok (at least imho ).

** Aricle snippets to support this:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin...d=lsHMKm1pY9Kb
http://paa2004.princeton.edu/downloa...issionId=41922
(interesting fact from second link - average length of marriage 8.11 years, average length of a cohabiting relationship 3.88 years, average length of a non co-habiting relationship 3.41 years)

Again these articles are largely statistically based and obviously any stat sample can be skewed - often by the manner in which data is sampled or the questions asked ..

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'm a big believer in marriage personally so my arguement is obviously going to be biased to reflect that.

However for what its worth ...

Marriages have been statistically proven to be more stable than non-marriaged relationships*.

Children raised by their mother and father living together as a couple have been statistically proven to be happier and have more productive & successful lifes than children raised in other circumstances*.

Because of this I believe that its right for a goverment to encourage marriage in order to help ensure that their society is as well balanced as possible.

Have Fun,

Marc
*There are exceptions to all of these rules obviously, for instance I was raised in a single parent family and am holding together ok (at least imho ).

** Aricle snippets to support this:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin...d=lsHMKm1pY9Kb
http://paa2004.princeton.edu/downloa...issionId=41922
(interesting fact from second link - average length of marriage 8.11 years, average length of a cohabiting relationship 3.88 years, average length of a non co-habiting relationship 3.41 years)

Again these articles are largely statistically based and obviously any stat sample can be skewed - often by the manner in which data is sampled or the questions asked ..

To start with, I too am a big believer in marriage. I'm just not a big believer in the government rewarding it specifically. I am a big believer in Mountain Dew as well but I don't want it to be the national drink.

I don't think marriage as a legal institution solves much or really encourages people to raise families. I just don't. If it did, then it would specifically make children an integral part of the process and it doesn't.

People who don't/can't have children get married every day and they enjoy all the benefits of the institution without any of the work. There's nothing intrinsic to the marriage that requires nor specifically addresses children. You'd think the vows would mention it if it was that important.

I'd say that a more thought out and reasoned approach to raising stable children were implemented and worked then marriage would be the logical choice for most people and by the studies like the one you mentioned all have confirmed that it is.

So, if we looked at the problem that we wanted solved and directly took steps to solve it ( rather than encouraging vague definitions of behavior possibly defined by tradition and custom ( I'm sure a lot of people look at marriage just like christmas. They put no real significance on the meaning but participate because everyone else does. ), we'd have a better chance of achieving a workable solution ( that wouldn't leave out folks like you and me who were raised by a single parent and would make their already difficult struggle a bit easier ) ) in the end it would reinforce marriage as the best alternative going and making it something to value not to just do.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Axxon

No more tax breaks,

I'd just like to point out that marriage does not give you a tax break, it gives you a marriage PENALTY!

If you live together as two single people, and file separately, you pay far less income taxes than being married and filing jointly.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I'd just like to point out that marriage does not give you a tax break, it gives you a marriage PENALTY!

If you live together as two single people, and file separately, you pay far less income taxes than being married and filing jointly.

Ok, the pendulum swung that way but it only swung that way in an attempt to make things fairer to singles when there was a tax benefit.

I'll admit, I overemphasized the Bush tax cuts but they effectively eliminated the marriage penalty not create a benefit. In any case, there shouldn't be a penalty or bonus ( every one should file their own income, period ) so things are moving in the right direction. Of course, it would have been a lot simpler to simply remove any legal status based on marriage in the first place.

Read this link and look at all the factors they had to try and juggle and tell me it's not getting ridiculous and set off an endless stream of tweaking with unforseen results.

hxxp://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tax_watch/20010209a.asp

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to simply have every person file their own returns and forget if they're married or not? I don't see how the consumption argument mentioned in the article makes sense as roommates would have a similar savings.

[Marc Vaughan]

I don't think marriage as a legal institution solves much or really encourages people to raise families. I just don't. If it did, then it would specifically make children an integral part of the process and it doesn't.

People who don't/can't have children get married every day and they enjoy all the benefits of the institution without any of the work. There's nothing intrinsic to the marriage that requires nor specifically addresses children. You'd think the vows would mention it if it was that important.

I'd say that a more thought out and reasoned approach to raising stable children were implemented and worked then marriage would be the logical choice for most people and by the studies like the one you mentioned all have confirmed that it is.

I think the main reason that marriages are more stable is because for the people who 'get married' they generally still attach more stigma to splitting up from a marriage than they might from co-habiting ... hence they are more reluctant to do so.

Its this stigma which is what makes people work harder on a marriage imho, as such trying to legally institute something which encourages the raising of children would be unlikely to work as it would be impossible to instill this stigma into a new regulation or clause.

As such marriages while not specific for raising children and not exclusive from people who aren't raising children does provide the most stable ground for doing so.

PS. In the UK at least you get penalised heavily for being married, if you're a single parent you get tax-breaks, help with childcare, double tax allowance if you're in a relationship etc. ... if you're married you get very little.

This is something which I personally think should be changed, giving people breaks for staying together will encourage marriage stability (not by a huge amount, but every little helps ) and if that helps society why shouldn't the goverment do it? ... at the very least level the playing field and give married people the same breaks that non-married people enjoy

[Marc Vaughan]

To start with, I too am a big believer in marriage. I'm just not a big believer in the government rewarding it specifically. I am a big believer in Mountain Dew as well but I don't want it to be the national drink.

Ahhh but mountain dew doesn't help society per-se beyond job creation (which the parent company already enjoys tax-breaks etc. for) ... marriage does.

[Marc Vaughan]

PPS> Besides everyone knows that Red Bull tops mountain dew every time

(three posts in a row .... hmmm is this the start of a bad habit?)

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Ahhh but mountain dew doesn't help society per-se beyond job creation (which the parent company already enjoys tax-breaks etc. for) ... marriage does.

Only certain marriages, namely those with children ( I'm not going to worry about the two parent families that are nightmarish but they exist ). Those who have no desire to procreate but marry get benefits but provide no benefit to society.

If we turned societys attention to the child and made raising the child well the attractive choice wouldn't we likely have better results?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I think the main reason that marriages are more stable is because for the people who 'get married' they generally still attach more stigma to splitting up from a marriage than they might from co-habiting ... hence they are more reluctant to do so.

Its this stigma which is what makes people work harder on a marriage imho, as such trying to legally institute something which encourages the raising of children would be unlikely to work as it would be impossible to instill this stigma into a new regulation or clause.

As such marriages while not specific for raising children and not exclusive from people who aren't raising children does provide the most stable ground for doing so.

PS. In the UK at least you get penalised heavily for being married, if you're a single parent you get tax-breaks, help with childcare, double tax allowance if you're in a relationship etc. ... if you're married you get very little.

This is something which I personally think should be changed, giving people breaks for staying together will encourage marriage stability (not by a huge amount, but every little helps ) and if that helps society why shouldn't the goverment do it? ... at the very least level the playing field and give married people the same breaks that non-married people enjoy

I hadn't read this one before I replied to your second post.

As for the stigma issue, there's an easy way to figure that out. Not paying child support can now land you in jail. Has the rate of child support payments risen? If so, then yes, because fear of jail is one heck of a inducement.

I'd not be against jail time for parents who fail miserably in even the basic acts of raising a minimal standard human being.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Only certain marriages, namely those with children ( I'm not going to worry about the two parent families that are nightmarish but they exist ). Those who have no desire to procreate but marry get benefits but provide no benefit to society.

If we turned societys attention to the child and made raising the child well the attractive choice wouldn't we likely have better results?

As I mentioned briefly in my first post - I think its the fact that people who get married attach a stigma to divorce rather than the 'marriage' itself or any of the 'advantages' which come with it that keep married couples together.

As such I don't think tax-breaks themselves (unless huge) or other goverment based incentives can create a seperate institution which would be as effective, because of this I think goverments should be clever and use the existing institution (ie. marriage) which exists and channel such incentives through that.

Obviously thats a personal view and is somewhat biased by the fact that my wife's staying at home to help raise our kids currently ... which leaves us taxed to the hilt ...

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I hadn't read this one before I replied to your second post.

As for the stigma issue, there's an easy way to figure that out. Not paying child support can now land you in jail. Has the rate of child support payments risen? If so, then yes, because fear of jail is one heck of a inducement.

I'd not be against jail time for parents who fail miserably in even the basic acts of raising a minimal standard human being.

Ahhh we're cross-posting on each other now

Anyway, I don't believe this is the case ... in the UK child maintainance etc. is payable regardless of whether you were married when you conceived the child.

This hasn't changed the ratio's for non-married couples staying together at all in the UK as far as I can see from on-line research.

As such I believe its the emotional stigma from society and the individual as to how they percieve a divorce differently from splitting from being a 'couple' which causes marriages to endure for longer periods ... rather than tax-breaks, threats from the goverment or whatever.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Ahhh we're cross-posting on each other now

Anyway, I don't believe this is the case ... in the UK child maintainance etc. is payable regardless of whether you were married when you conceived the child.

This hasn't changed the ratio's for non-married couples staying together at all in the UK as far as I can see from on-line research.

As such I believe its the emotional stigma from society and the individual as to how they percieve a divorce differently from splitting from being a 'couple' which causes marriages to endure for longer periods ... rather than tax-breaks, threats from the goverment or whatever.

I'm answering this one first on purpose.

You missed my point. In the past here in america, people were very lax about paying child support and generally enforcement was fairly lax. It was a huge mess.

Now, if you don't pay your child support you can be put in jail until you do. This is an incentive to pay child support. A huge one.

You're saying that threats or perks from the government have less of an impact than social stigma. I'm saying that if the threat or the perk is big enough and credible, it could have the desired impact.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I'd just like to point out that marriage does not give you a tax break, it gives you a marriage PENALTY!

If you live together as two single people, and file separately, you pay far less income taxes than being married and filing jointly.

This is a myth created for political gain. While it is true that some people (usually married couples with two wage earners where the sum of their total income just barely crossed into a new bracket) paid more, the vast majority of married couples received a large tax benefit.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'm answering this one first on purpose.

You missed my point. In the past here in america, people were very lax about paying child support and generally enforcement was fairly lax. It was a huge mess.

Now, if you don't pay your child support you can be put in jail until you do. This is an incentive to pay child support. A huge one.

You're saying that threats or perks from the government have less of an impact than social stigma. I'm saying that if the threat or the perk is big enough and credible, it could have the desired impact.

Ahhh but I'm saying that in the UK we've already tried this and its been in place for quite a few years now ... however its had no effect, imho its like having the death penalty for a murder - at the time they make the decision the penalty isn't something thats on their mind ....

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

As I mentioned briefly in my first post - I think its the fact that people who get married attach a stigma to divorce rather than the 'marriage' itself or any of the 'advantages' which come with it that keep married couples together.

As such I don't think tax-breaks themselves (unless huge) or other goverment based incentives can create a seperate institution which would be as effective, because of this I think goverments should be clever and use the existing institution (ie. marriage) which exists and channel such incentives through that.

Obviously thats a personal view and is somewhat biased by the fact that my wife's staying at home to help raise our kids currently ... which leaves us taxed to the hilt ...

Well, I really should have answered them in order as you mention that the incentives or breaks would have to be huge.

Still, I don't think they'd need to be. They'd need to be substantial but not out of the realm of reality. In the end, marriage would be strengthened indirectly as it is the best way to reach your goal.

If you choose to eschew the traditional, you'd have to be more diligant in raising your child. This incentive doesn't exist AT ALL now. I think it would make things better for the kids in this group and I doubt married people would flock to this option or consider it the norm if it were treated equally.

1. It does still and always will be a stigma in a culture which is heavily religion based. That won't change based on actions of government.

2. It would be harder and most tend to go with the easier option.

[Marc Vaughan]

Now, if you don't pay your child support you can be put in jail until you do. This is an incentive to pay child support. A huge one.

By the way how does this work? - surely if you're in jail you can't earn much money - hence you'll accrue more child support areas? ...

[John Galt]

As for whether there should be marriage, I have said in other threads that I would be fine if the government got out of the marriage business. There is no evidence that marriage needs to be legally recognized to accrue the benefits described above. There are also many "good" social behaviors that the government does not subsidize - there is really no reason to treat marriage differently.

I would also argue, as I have in the past, that a one-size-fits-all model of marriage is ALWAYS better for children is just wrong. On the whole, I'm willing to entertain studies that say it is more often good than bad, but that is a farcry from saying it should be encouraged in all cases. There are a multitude of reasons some families should be split apart and government policies (especially welfare ones) that are designed to keep them together are extremely destructive. I just don't support the generalization as the basis for universal policies.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Ahhh but I'm saying that in the UK we've already tried this and its been in place for quite a few years now ... however its had no effect, imho its like having the death penalty for a murder - at the time they make the decision the penalty isn't something thats on their mind ....

Gotcha. That does answer my question. So the UK jails deadbeat parents until the bill is paid?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

By the way how does this work? - surely if you're in jail you can't earn much money - hence you'll accrue more child support areas? ...

It doesn't always get the money but it does often if the spouse doesn't wait too long. I know of a man who recently landed in jail for a couple of grand and he had his family sell stuff to get him out.

If you can't pay then you do the time set down by the judge and it's fairly harsh usually. When you get out and get a job, the meter's running again. Most don't want this to happen more than once so they try and pay the bill.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Well, I really should have answered them in order as you mention that the incentives or breaks would have to be huge.

Still, I don't think they'd need to be. They'd need to be substantial but not out of the realm of reality. In the end, marriage would be strengthened indirectly as it is the best way to reach your goal.

If you choose to eschew the traditional, you'd have to be more diligant in raising your child. This incentive doesn't exist AT ALL now. I think it would make things better for the kids in this group and I doubt married people would flock to this option or consider it the norm if it were treated equally.

1. It does still and always will be a stigma in a culture which is heavily religion based. That won't change based on actions of government.

2. It would be harder and most tend to go with the easier option.

Strangely enough if you read the reports the stigma isn't religion based at all - sad to say but christians have the same divorce rates (in the UK at least) as non-christians ....

Hence its the stigma which is cultural and as such using incentives to make marriage more attractive would encourage more people into marriages which in turn steeps them in that culture and would help create up the dissolutions of relationships (at least imho).

PS. In the UK at least there are actually incentives NOT to get married, not least because you then get two tax allowances (in the UK the majority of parents both work, although fairly often one is part-time) ... indeed if a couple splits up then huge benefits come into play a lot of the time (ie. if you're a caregiver you'll get rent covered in some cases as well as unemployment benefit, child support, financial help with childcare etc. - I know of couples who live seperately and have avoided marriage for exactly this reason).

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Ok, the pendulum swung that way but it only swung that way in an attempt to make things fairer to singles when there was a tax benefit.

I'll admit, I overemphasized the Bush tax cuts but they effectively eliminated the marriage penalty not create a benefit. In any case, there shouldn't be a penalty or bonus ( every one should file their own income, period ) so things are moving in the right direction. Of course, it would have been a lot simpler to simply remove any legal status based on marriage in the first place.

Read this link and look at all the factors they had to try and juggle and tell me it's not getting ridiculous and set off an endless stream of tweaking with unforseen results.

hxxp://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tax_watch/20010209a.asp

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to simply have every person file their own returns and forget if they're married or not? I don't see how the consumption argument mentioned in the article makes sense as roommates would have a similar savings.

I did not realize that the Bush tax cuts eliminated the marriage penalty. But, doing a little research, I see that all they did was try to make the total tax paid by two people the same, whether they were married or not. I did a quick calculation, and see that for 2004, two people making $50,000 each and taking standard but no other deductions, the couple will pay $14506 by filing married and $14512 filing separately. The same couple in 1997 (chosen as I got married that year) would have paid $17798 filing separately, and $19235 filing married/jointly. There was indeed a penalty.

That fact did not keep single people at the time from incorrectly bitching that married people got a tax break. The idea that married people ever got a break on taxes has long been a misconception by single people, when in fact the opposite has long been true. It has recently been changed to (attempt anyway) provide no tax benefit either way, but not swing the pendulum so that single people get screwed. I am aware of no time that was actually the case.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Strangely enough if you read the reports the stigma isn't religion based at all - sad to say but christians have the same divorce rates (in the UK at least) as non-christians ....

Hence its the stigma which is cultural and as such using incentives to make marriage more attractive would encourage more people into marriages which in turn steeps them in that culture and would help create up the dissolutions of relationships (at least imho).

That's actually what I meant with my christmas reference. People celebrate christmas with no real thought behind the religious meaning but it's become an ingrained social custom therefore they observe it.

In the end though it IS the product of a religious based culture even if the person affected isn't necessarily religious.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Samdari

That fact did not keep single people at the time from incorrectly bitching that married people got a tax break. The idea that married people ever got a break on taxes has long been a misconception by single people, when in fact the opposite has long been true. It has recently been changed to (attempt anyway) provide no tax benefit either way, but not swing the pendulum so that single people get screwed. I am aware of no time that was actually the case.

The link I provided states that this was indeed the case before 1969.

Thanks to the peculiarities of the tax code, when married couples earn roughly the same salaries, they tend to pay more in taxes than they would if both were single filers. This so-called marriage penalty showed up in 1969, when Congress tried to equalize what was then an unfair advantage couples held over single taxpayers.

I have no idea if this is false or not but it's what I based that on in any case.

[Axxon]

Dola, another linkie to the 1969 law change and the history behind it.

hxxp://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba147.html

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(interesting fact from second link - average length of marriage 8.11 years

We're 11 days short of celebrating Average Marriage Day here.

Seems like a good institution to me. We invest huge amounts of resources in education. We invest a lot in our criminal justice system, which is strained much more by the teen to early adult group than by any other.

Raising children to become good citizens is an industry the state has a huge interest in helping.

So it would be cost effective to try and effect social change in areas that would improve the likelihood that society would benefit from this spending.

Marriage works. That said, it would also seem to be cost effective to allow gays to marry. The religious right shouldn't preach about the "sanctity" of marriage until we're doing a hell of a lot better than 8 years and 40 days per marriage.

Is all of this unfair to single taxpayers? Yes. And their reward is that they'll get to benefit from the financially impossible Social Security and Medicare systems when they haven't produced children whose wages will help pay for it.

Nice little social Pyramid Scheme we have going here. I wonder when it'll collapse.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Axxon

The link I provided states that this was indeed the case before 1969.



I have no idea if this is false or not but it's what I based that on in any case.

The article states that the marriage penalty showed up starting in 1969. Unfortunately, it does not explicitly state what this supposed bonus was for being married then. The details are unclear. I would find a comparison interesting.

But, really, what does it matter? You and I (I assume) were not paying income taxes prior to 1969 - thus for all of our lives, there has never been a time where singles got screwed by the income tax code to the benefit of married couples. This is an especially salient point considering that one thing you are proposing is to NOW eliminate the tax breaks given by being married, whereas that was done 35 years ago. Go ahead and propose the elimination of governmental recognition of marriage, but the idea that you are getting rid of some tax breaks those people get is totally off base.

As to the main point, I think that most of the subtle discrimination in our society against single people is sociological, rather than governmentally mandated. Whether the government recognizes marriages or not, for the remainder of our lives married men are going to be automatically percieved by the bulk of society as more responsible than single men, and fathers as more responsible than childless husbands. That heirarchy translates into subtle benefits in the workplace, as the non-work hours of the three groups are seen as more valuable in the same order.

Despite my decrying the marriage penalty, I did find being married to be a financial boon. It is far easier to get by when pooling two incomes without correspondingly doubling expenses. Made it easier to buy a home, which does provide number of financial (taxes included) benefits. But, again, it is the social convention of marriage which provides that benefit, not any official governmental regulation. Government recognition of marriage does not prevent any two (romantically involved or not) people from similarly pooling their resources and reaping the benefits.It is largely the social implications which prevent this from happening more frequently.

I don't see the elimination of marriage as an officially recognized institution as eliminating much of what irks you in terms of benefits provided to married people by others in society.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Is all of this unfair to single taxpayers? Yes. And their reward is that they'll get to benefit from the financially impossible Social Security and Medicare systems when they haven't produced children whose wages will help pay for it.

You almost had me there but then I realized that statistically single people die younger than married people so we're not really getting that benefit either.

[Solecismic]

Ah, but what costs the most is the process of dying, not when you die. That last hospital stay can cost the taxpayers a fortune.

[cartman]

Hitting on the population argument, the population in Italy is actually declining. Even with all of the hotties over there, more people are dying each year than are being born. There are a lot of factors involved, one of them being people aren't moving out of the house until their early 30's on average!!! So by the time people are getting married, the childbearing window is fairly narrow for the women. And being a very Catholic country, there are few out of wedlock pregnancies.

In fact, the Italian government is taking the problem so seriously, that they are offering cash bounties to couples having two or more children in certain areas.