My wacky ideas about marriage
The more I think about it, the more I think the government just shouldn’t involve itself in marriage at all.
Sure, that sounds unfair with the lack of tax breaks for married couples (which exist, by the way, to encourage people to have kids and rear them, etc).
It seems like it’d create a legal clusterfuck when the assets are to be divvied.
I suppose this is true. But as to the former, I don’t think the tax breaks would be as necessary if there was universal health care and people didn’t have to worry about medical bills. Marriage becomes a detriment, tax wise, once you make more than $200,000 a year anyway, and I’m sure the tax break money that comes with marriage isn’t exactly much of a supplement when it comes to the massive expense it takes to raise kids.
Separation is a legal clusterfuck anyway. As is, unmarried couples and gay couples are fucked when it comes to dividing the assets should they separate. This is a big reason they want the ability to marry–so they can get divorced! That’s the funny thing about everyone who says “marriage ends in divorce 50% of the time anyway!” Well, YEAH. That’s one of the benefits of marriage–the court divides your assets supposedly equitably. I guess it’d put an extra burden on the courts to do this with anyone who comes in claiming to have been in a relationship and living together, but I can’t see too much opportunity for fraud here. There would be witnesses and rental receipts. Perhaps some contracts could be drafted just between parties to make arrangements in the case of separation. It wouldn’t be a marriage, it’d just be a contract. This could even exist between relatives or friends living together should they decide to lump assets for whatever reason. I just think the benefits of living together shouldn’t be reserved for only sexual/amorous relationships. If two sisters or two asexual friends want to live together for platonic companionship they should be able to enter into contracts like this too. Maybe living arrangements between more than two people. Whatever. That’s the beauty of contracts–you can say whatever the fuck you want in them, within reason. I suppose there would be some unfair contracts, but there are already unfair prenups. I suppose some people would prefer not to enter into a contract because they want their assets separate. There are already people who refuse to marry. It wouldn’t change much except for marriage being a mostly private affair, aside from contract law restrictions and regulations.
If marriage is such a religious affair, it should just be something people do at a church then, and the government should have no part of it. None. Zip. Essentially, then, with the abolition of marriage as something the government has its sticky fingers in, there would be gay marriage since there are plenty of places of worship out there that will marry gay people. I personally would go on calling my husband “significant other” or “partner” rather than husband because I like those words better anyway, and we could go on shacking up like good little heathen atheists.
I used to think the government should only deal with civil unions and then let people go to church and call it marriage if they please, but that still leaves too much room for people to bully and mess with the rights of others through the law. I’m probably missing some glaring reason why this wouldn’t work, but as of right now, it makes a lot of sense to me.
