It was once legal to own slaves, until times changed and people fought for the laws to change with them.

It was once illegal for women to own land, until times changed and people fought for the laws to change with them.

Is it time to rewrite the laws concerning 'marriage'?

Just a thought, but it seems like the sexual and family elements that perhaps once fueled public interest are null and void. People are 'family' regardless of their biology or anything else. Love alone makes 'family' by current standards. Also sex is a free for all, people can have it or not, with whomever is consenting, they can use protection or not, they can have abortions or put the kids up for adoption.

So if those elements are no longer really any part of the motivation for government to enforce or encourage marriage,, what is?


It seems all that is left is the ability for people to get certain legal protections regarding their health and assets. IF that is the only reason left for the secular/government institution,, than why not allow civil unions and why restrict them based upon anything but age of consent(like any other contract).

Would it not be amazing if struggling seniors or struggling family members could enter 'civil unions' that combined their assets and lives into one pot where they could lean on and be recognized as a legal 'unit'?


I wonder what the opposition is to letting go of the sexually significant 'marriage' and adopting a more formal 'contract' with the government concerned specifically with protections and assets, and inheritance,,,etc. ?


Do you think we may one day 'progress' to civil unions , that have nothing to do with sex lifestyles or preferences, and just allow people to join their lives legally regardless of the relationship?

We are actually at that tipping point right now.
We no longer need sex to replicate. It can be done in a lab.
That science is here now but not popular.

Our population is way out of control.
When population increases to a certain point there will be mandatory reproduction limits.
Marriages may take a big hit during that restructuring of our species.

I'm not sure if it will be the increase of civil unions or an increase on individualism. Right now, in the real world, there are many that raise their offspring by themselves.

A partnership can be made between two people without a civil union. I think it will sway one of two ways.
Either the government will retract from personal unions or it will begin to demand personal unions.
It depends upon how the future unfolds.

I'm not sure.

Marriage is one of those things with a more complex history than might first appear, and it has already changed many times.

It has both religious and secular government elements, but even the religious elements are historically about another kind of government. After all, most religions started out as ways to get people on the same page, the same way that government tries to do, except they want everyone to police themselves.

Anyway. The tumult over this that I've been watching for the last three decades especially in the US, has primarily been over COMPETING RESENTMENTS. We have people who resent it when married people get tax breaks and get extra rights and privileges; and we have people who resent the idea that people who don't believe in the same religious ideas they do, would ever get to say they are married; we have people who SAY they are fighting about marriage, but are really just using marriage as a cover story to attack another group of people they hate for reasons entirely unrelated to miscarriage or love.

The most overlooked groups, are the ones in the wings who are egging on the others, for pure monetary reasons. That includes insurance companies who don't want to have to pay out for more people, so they oppose any expansion of liability, and we have the people who are concerned about the additional complexity of administering laws, should the simple version of man-woman-forever (until divorce) be discarded, and something individualized replaces it.

As long as there are THAT many people pitching fusses, we aren't likely to see any solutions.

Marriage is a commitment and dedication to each other. Most marriages occur before there are children involved. Raising a family is after the fact (in most cases but not all).

Degree of commitment and persistence of dedication changes over time by the individual. Those changes are influenced by the person's honesty and maturity.

Marriages and civil unions attempt to preserve that commitment and dedication. They are tools designed to assure honesty and maturity to preserve that commitment and dedication. A control method.

A society can be advanced but not mature.
As the people in a society mature, control methods change.
At some point, the maturity of a society may require a control to be removed because it is no longer needed.

There was a period in history where marriage was a lifetime commitment.
Then, as society matured, divorce rates started climbing.
Now we have many individuals that are self-sufficient without the marriage control.
Society has enabled self-sufficiency in the individuals. A simple example is changing stations in public rest rooms.
Right now, artificial reproduction is not a mainstream method of species continuance. Thus, while control has diminished, it is still needed. Eventually, when babies are grown in a lab, marriage and civil unions will only be individual commitments and not a control measure.

Remember that a contract is a declaration of mistrust and implies immaturity and deception. Its like a lock. Locks keep honest people honest.
When society reaches maturity there will be no need for contracts.

Hmmm...

You mean like that? That's a good example of rewriting history.



Maybe.

Which laws specifically would you like to rewrite?
What exactly do the ones, you think should be rewritten, say that are causing problems?

Is it the laws as written that are the problem?
Or is the problem with the judges interpreting them?
Or the officers in their enforcement/non enforcement of them?

Those are 3 completely separate issues.


Not really amazing.
Community pooling = community liability too.
Once you pool your resources together and consider yourself a single "unit" then pretty much everyone that pooled their resources is liable and responsible for everyone else.
Medical bills, medicare, medicaid, car loans, student loans, mortgage debt, credit card debt, whatever. You are opening yourself up.

Speaking of struggling seniors, medicare and medicaid are horrible programs. As the law stands now once you use any amount of any program they can "legally" come after any assets you have or share jointly with a spouse (any "assets in one pot") at any time.
They just don't generally enforce that part of the law.
Or they wait until someone is dead, and go after significant assets.
If you use a lot of medicare/medicaid, and you jointly own or have pooled significant resources, they may come after what you've left behind.

So, your husband died and left you a living trust to take care of you, to be passed on to your kids when you die, but you go off and get married to a new guy (or civil union a same sex partner for the tax and ss benefits), that new spouse develops alzheimer's or cancer and requires another 10 years of care? Oh, so sorry, we're from the government and we're taking that trust, and your house, and anything you have saved, either now or when you die, to offset what your new "spouse" accrued in medicare costs...because they're your spouse, and you have pooled assets so assume pooled liability.


Other than that, people already can do what you're describing.
There are other legal methods of achieving this. It's just not called "civil union."
They might be better served utilizing alternative means than something akin to "marriage contracts."
If they want to "combine their assets and lives into one pot" they might be better off starting a LLC or co-op or commune or something.
There's even the option of starting a sole proprietorship where a rich person pays their sugarbaby spouse an income as an employee in order to have something taxed so they can qualify for social security in 40 years, although that might not be legal.

"Marriage contracts" come with special rights and privileges, but they also come with special responsibilities.
How many news stories or articles or forum posts have you read where one persons personal credit was influenced by their (sometimes ex) spouse's debt.

If you want to be acknowledged as a "unit" while still minimizing individual liability, it's not going to help to expand definitions of marriage.



Maybe.
No one has to get married. They're free to join their lives however they want and contact a lawyer and set up contracts that define any rights and asset use or transfer, living wills, etc., and completely circumvent the government defining their legal status.

MONEY is the issue lawyers and judges have the divorce battle down to a
science that is why the first thing they want is a financial statement
from those involved

they find out how much they can make if they play the "game" right the
lawyers and the judges all comingle together at the golf clubs and the
ritzy restaurants and the other clubs that you and i are not permitted
in let alone invited to

so they make all their backroom deals and pit the husband and wife against each other and keep racking up those clockable hours right upto
the point that their is almost nothing left so they finally settle and

then they go back to their clubs and buy each other whatever depending on
the backroom deal that they made before hand

but hey what do i know

I totally understand the financial side of it, but that exists in any financial contract,, or business partnership

that is why I wonder if 'marriage' will ever be rewritten without the sexual element being considered AT ALL, as strictly a 'partnership' combining assets and responsibilities,,,,,like any business partnership

You can get a contract drawn for a partnership.
The terms of the contract can be anything the parties involved dictate.
The government won't call it a marriage but the parties in the partnership agreement can.

If I recall my tax laws correctly there are only a few filing statuses available. Are you referring to tax status of Married, Filing Joint status?
As far as I can see, that is the only reason why marriage would be important to a government reference. It establishes dependency. Gives higher exemptions.


Right now, a civil union would need to file under Head of Household which has a lower exemption. You want a 6th filing status for civil union agreement with the same exemption levels as Married Filing Jointly.

I can actually imagine that happening in the next 20 years. It depends on how much of the population enter into Civil Unions.
The government doesn't care about marriages it cares about collecting its taxes.

??? It's been done that way for hundreds of years. Not for us peasants, we can't afford the lawyers. But the royalty of the world have been doing that since forever.