Will the Tea Parties become a Third Party?

[Ariel]

Well... everything you say is true, of course. But I would suggest that it is the state recognition of marriage (as something it should be involved in) that is the cause of these problems, rather than the solution. I would guess that gay couples actually handle these complications better than straight married folks because they don't make the assumption that the courts will sort it all out for them if it doesn't work out forever. They probably make wills, and and sort out ownership of property and all the sorts of things that adults should do. But.. who knows? And what about unmarried co-habitating couples? How do they work these things out? Before the ridiculous consept of "palimony" they were pretty much on their own. So the question is (as always) is the state the problem or the solution?

Like most things the state does -- I just think it creates a dependence where none need exist. Will some folks put others through med school, and walk away with nothing? Of course. But ya know -- you gotta grow up sometime.

Then, as a couple moves through life, making financial arrangements, bargaining with each other, children, the purchase of a home, etc. how can all of this be handled without an overarching body of law incorporated into the state regarding how marriage is handled? Are all of these matters going to require legally binding contracts? Talk about tying up the legal system. Otherwise, again, the situation is the same as it currently is with divorce, because people aren't usually going to engage in any kind of formal contract.

Most significant financial transactions (home, car, bank accounts, retirement accounts) have legal owners (names on titles). That's part of the problem to me. Divorce courts override these documents in their attempt at (what they perceive as) equitable distrubution. As to who gets custody of the garden shovel -- again, how do unmarried co-habitating folks work this out?

Perhaps there is a libertarian solution, though. Private entities could offer marriage contracts to suit and secular ceremonies or religious ceremonies to suit.

It wouldn;t hurt -- but as I said, most significant financial instruments are already in place. They could certainly offer wills though.

Regarding children, does the state have a role in recognizing parenthood? Should a record of birth be registered with the state?

Well.. someone should record births. In many places it's the churches. If only to establish citizenship.

One stop shopping for marriage--You pay x thousand and get ceremony, reception, food, photographer, decorations, dresses, tuxes, etc. Are there places that do already do this, or is this either an ingenius or colossally bad idea on my part? Ariel, you just had a wedding in your family, so please tell me.)

Vegas.

I'm not seeing how a system of private contracts would be superior to an overarching body of law regarding marriage, or how the state can be absent from defining what marriage is. If you're saying that a contract between two people should take priority over an over-arching law, I agree on that. Otherwise, I might be misunderstanding something.

If there was indeed an overarching body of law -- that determined exactly what this "contract" is -- than I would have no problem with that. It would amount to what I'm saying anyway. A standard contract that all understood (the state included). Although then, I would argue that any two people should be able to enter into that contract. But it's not that. It's one more arbitrary state intrusion into private life. Probably the only instance where the state has the power to garnish your wages for the rest of your life to support another person. That's a lot of power.

BTW -- i think marriage is a beautiful thing. A commitment between people, blessed (or not) by a religious body. I'm all for it.

[WinstonSmith]

Ya know that saying "All is fair in love and war"? That's because no one gets to choose their battles in those circumstances. It's service. Not servitude, but service.

People read that as "service to another person". That's not what you're serving. You're serving that third, external, transcendent thing that comes as a result of the relationship, because that's what people really want. And that's the corniest romantic sentiment you'll ever get out of me. I might delete it later.

[Ariel]

Ya might call it a synergy, or an emergent property, or something like that, I guess. And yes, I agree.

But are you at least getting a hint of what I mean? I don't think that marriage - with all it's multiple meanings and vague-eries is something that the state should have its nose in. perhaps there was a time, but I think that society has moved past that time. I think the state should not (should not even have the power to) penalize or privilege married folks -- and I think gay folks, while accepting the emotional commitment part, religious and cultural part, should run like hell from the state intrusion aspects. As it is now, it's a contract that you think you are making, but that ultimately the state decides. (In fact, only the state can let you out of that "contract" -- and on whatever terms they wish!). And the current system, by "protecting" people, as usual, encourages irresponsibility.

I came to this view by thinking originally, after watching so many friends struggle, and end up with most of their assets going to lawyers, thinking that divorce law needs some serious clarification and reform. But as with many things, I eventually came to think -- why do we even need this? my friends jointly owned their homes (so that should have been simple) -- child custody usually went surprisingly smoothly -- but they got hung up on achieving some sort of lifetime equity. As in, "I made most of the money - so I should walk away with more", "oh yeah? well, I cleaned the tub more!" "but you cheated on me so I should get the house" blah.. blah.. blah.. And courts and lawyers were dealing with this stuff. But if you went into it like any other transaction in life -- knowing you were responsible for "protecting" yourself (making sure your name is on the house, for example) - it would be a lot better. Marriage, as it is, (a contract that isn't really defined) gives too much power to the state- and I naturally oppose state power.

[WinstonSmith]

I'm not sure at this point precisely what points we're disagreeing over, if any.

[Ariel]

Ahh... whatever.

btw- check your email.