Why is government in the marriage business, anyway?

Before the War of Northern Aggression (as it is known here ), marriages were generally unregulated. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were married without having to seek either permission or a license from the state. After the mid 19th century, government got into the business largely, I am told, to regulate mixed race marriages.

For those of religious bearing, does it strike you as strange when a religious leader stands before the ceremony guests, often in a consecrated building, and states, "By the power vested in me by the state of...?"

Perhaps I'm a bit libertarian, or am not keeping the best interests of family law attorneys in mind, but I am not so certain government should be in the marriage business at all.

Your thoughts are welcomed and appreciated.

(Note: I was provoked to begin this thread after reading a column on the subject by Tara Servatius in Charlotte's "Creative Loafing")
******************************************************
03-10-04, 06:32 PM
teeceeum
I have a friend who is, in his own words, a "bootleg Baptist minister". He is far from orthodox in either his life or his practice of religion. Whithout getting into it, his credentials are impeccable. (I will say, though, that he is the inspiration for the comic strip character Will B. Dunn, if you have ever seen that in your local newspaper.)

He begins the marriage ceremonies that he performs by taking the marriage license from the groom and asking him (the groom) to turn around. He then signs the license, holds it up for all to see and proclaims, "In the eyes of Caesar you are now legally married," whereupon he throws the license on the ground. He continues with. "Caesar's work being done, let's get on with the Lord's work." The next ten minutes are the most beautiful ceremony I have ever seen.

03-11-04, 12:23 AM
honilov
Coldfuse, marriage is just 'one' thing among many that the government is making their business. The government is money-hungry, so maybe they got involved so there would be a price tag for licenses and divorces. LOL
I hadn't heard the part about regulating mixed race marriages, but it could be a possibility.

03-11-04, 04:15 AM
FredPuli
The obvvious and simple answer is that the government and people need to know who is married within the law and who is unmarried. Proper records must be kept and the marriage recognisable as such. We English woke up to this several hundreds of years ago. The French did only when Napoleon had their law rewritten (backward lot Big Grin. There you have to have a complete civil ceremony whatever other wedding there is, which is going a bit far)

(The only obvious bit of the state involvement here is that , in a church wedding, the couple withdraw to a room at the back of the church with their witnesses to sign the official register. There is usually a hymn sung in their absence. They reappear after a couple of minutes and there may be further hymns or they process down the nave and leave followed by the congregation. We don't have 'by the power of the state invested in me stuff Smile)

How are the courts to sort out estates of people who die without leaving a will if there is no concrete proof who, in law, is the widow/ widower and who the legal heirs are ? Even those who leave wills may leave claimants whose status is contested; having two children claiming to be legal heirs or dependents or two women claiming to be the 'wife' referred to in it makes the task a lot harder. The same applies to everything else were marriage has to be proved, such as with widow's pensions or social security benefits ( part of UK welfare). As it is we have the problem that innocent women often think that there is a 'common law' marriage recognised by our courts; where a couple have cohabited for many years but never gone through the formalities; and assume that they stand to inherit automatically.

Apart from the record keeping or lack of it or of proper security and archiving some communities and religious or quasi-religious groups have unusual definitions of marriage which are outside the definition of it in our law e.g. permitting children or under age girls to marry. Even within our courts we get cases where the validity of marriages celebrated abroad between foreign residents are disputed on technical, religious, or ceremonial grounds; experts on custom and religion are called in by the parties ( even Mick Jagger tried something like this over his marriage abroad to Jerry Hall).

[This message was edited by FredPuli on 03-11-04 at 04:27 AM.]

03-16-04, 03:40 PM
doñadiana
I think that Fred Puli brought out some good points about inheritance. I am sure that is also one of the reasons for government regulations in the U.S. Another reason for federal legislation rather than state legislation, is that people move from state to state and it would be a nuisance to have to re-register the marriage each time you moved to a different state.

Very likely George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had their marriages registered in the church archives (if genealogical sites can be believed). That wouldn't go over so well now days with so many people that don't have church connections and don't want a religious ceremony.

01-05-05, 08:02 AM
Joseph P. Vormwald
I have been doing my family history and the church keeps better records than the state. If the state is go to sell marriage licence, why do alot of states make it illegal for people who are developmently disabled or mental ill to get married?

01-05-05, 02:04 PM
DorianGreyed
It is my opinion that most of the laws Joseph V. refers to are holdovers from a time when all mental illnesses were regarded as hereditary, and the laws were in place to prevent 'those types' from having children. Today, this issue is not so clear. Further, many of the developmentally disabled are unequipped to make serious decisions affecting their life.

Regarding the money/profit issue, I really don't think that the state shows any profit from merely requiring a license to be bought. When I got married, I think it cost $10 for the license, which had to be recorded in two locations, and then filed. There is not a lot of room for profit once you take in account the labor involved in recording, filing, etc.

01-07-05, 09:11 AM
aminator2002
I agree with the idea that it is mainly to have a legal record.

Also, married couples file taxes differently than singles.

01-28-05, 08:44 AM
MommyTimesTwo
The idea is to keep a legal record, and it is based partly in older concepts of when marriage was more a business than a romance.

Previously, marriage was more to join two families than to join two people. The husband's family would enter into negotiations with the wife's family over dowry and things like that. In order for lands and monies to change hands, a marriage had to take place. Therefore, there had to be a way to legally back up a marriage.

Back in the time of the Tudors, a marriage was considered to have taken place as long as the two parties entered into an "understanding", which meant that the man proposed, the woman accepted, and there were witnesses to that effect. This was a de facto engagement, and was as unshakable as an actual marriage in a church (as opposed to a de futuro arrangement, where a promise was made by both parties to marry at some point in the future if all things remained the same. This kind of understanding could be broken.)

Marriage was nearly unbreakable, until Henry VIII divorced Katherine of Aragon and took head of the Church of England (propagated by Elizabeth I, who was Reformed and who believed much as her father did, except not solely as a way to reach her own desires.) Once Henry had Katherine "set aside", it lead (albeit slowly) to the ability to dissolve marriages.

Then keeping legal records of marriages became even MORE important, because now we're not only talking about the exchange of goods at the time of marriage, but also about who is going to own those goods when the marriage breaks up!

Furthermore, until paternity testing and child support, a woman who had a baby had best also have a husband or she was basically a pariah.

Which brings us to the OP: Why is Government in the Marriage Business? Partly for our own protection. How would you feel as a husband if your wife decided to leave one day, taking all of our household goods with her, and you had no recourse because there was no way to prove that the two of you were one entity (which is what a married couple is) and not just one rich woman and a moocher who used all of HER stuff? Or if your spouse passed away and you were not entitled to any death benefits because you were not related to them (which you wouldn't be, without marriage)?

Just for example, the military takes a firm view of marriage. Even if you live with an Active Duty member for 20 years, and have multiple children together, if you are not legally married, upon the Active Duty member's death all death benefits and all of their household goods go to the Active Duty member's parents. How's that for needing that "piece of paper"?

I believe the real question is not why the government is involved at all, because we can see there is a real need for regulation and record keeping. I think the real question is who gave the government the right to define who may get married in the first place.

Our current definition of "marriage" is based on Biblical texts. Those of us who are not Christian and do not believe in the Bible see no reason why only a man and a woman should be allowed to be married. Many Christians wonder the same thing. The real question is, who gave the government the right to define "marriage" according to a religion that is supposed to be wholly separate from the government?

01-29-05, 10:20 AM
doñadiana
I think that male/female marriages have been a part of all cultures and taken as the standard since the beginning of time. It is only lately that the question of male/male or female/female marriages has come up. I think that the government is trying to stabilize a situation that is threatening to become chaotic. It is those that want something other than male/female unions that are trying to re-define marriage as something than what it has always been. They are the destabilizing force.

DD

01-29-05, 02:18 PM
DvdGStwrt
In short, money.

We can assume that by requiring marriage license, filing fees and even a "judge" to preside there is a bit of revenue generated. In some states and countries even priests have to pay a fee to be licensed or recognized as a duly appointed person who can marry a couple - more money to line the state's pockets.

Women were not (usually) income generators when marriage laws started coming into the picture. Thus there wasn't much of a tax benefit at first. Thus controlling and maintaining the ruse that governing marriage was money making proposition.

Happily our government and small business have taken each turn in the civil law with stride incorporating even more funds and fees and all of that for the break ups, divorce and hiccups of our happily married couples.

The rest, such as regulating marriages to prevent races from mingling, or to prevent sick people from being born was attachments made to the money aspect of State marriage.

Today keeping tabs on the people is another out come of legal marriage.

It all started because some bright politician considered how much money could be made in regulating the process.

And to be frank about it its not civil liberties that will usher in gay marriages, it will be a matter of how much money can be generated off of them. Trust me the Domestic Partnership deal is getting its fair share of fees and paperwork. Sooner or later some bright starving politician will see the need to regulate domestic partnerships enough to require a fee to file for a break up – Oh wait – That already happened. Starting Jan 1 of this year it requires a dully appointed Court to dissolve a domestic partnership, along with attorney fees, filing fees, etc.

Money – makes the work go round.

02-03-05, 09:50 PM
gerry
If Bush gets his way, the government will be out of the marriage business...homosexual marriage, that is. I guess he'll have to find another way to finance his war.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,