Abolish Legal Marriage!

Talliesin

There's been talk on a couple of threads about the subject of same-sex marriages being legally recognised. On a related note there are often discussions within many religions in the country about the fact that only some religions can have the civil and religious ceremony performed in quick succession.

I take a different view. When I got married it happened that my partner was female, there were only two of us in the relationship, and all the other arbitrary criteria for a civil marriage were met. We thought about it for a while, and in the end decided that we would have a legal marriage as well as the religious marriage that actually meant something. Now though we don't think we would have bothered.

The advantages of legal marriage are (thankfully) dropping away year by year, and really it is little more than an anachronistic throwback to the times when Church and State were even more closely linked than they are in this supposed Republic.

It's none of the State's business that I am married. It's none of the State's business what sex my partner is. It's none of the States business whether I'm monogamous, polygamous, or anything else.

We don't need to gain legal recognition for gay marriages, we need to stop legal recognition for straight marriages.

logic1

Fight the power.

.logic.

Lemming

Originally posted by Talliesin

It's none of the State's business that I am married. It's none of the State's business what sex my partner is. It's none of the States business whether I'm monogamous, polygamous, or anything else.

afaik,

I think you'll find that it is VERY much the state's business if you're mono/poly-gamous.

if you're polygamous, you could be claiming child-support twice. You could claim for housing twice, then live in one whilst renting out the other and defrauding the state. Polygamy also comes with a number of other "issues", hence it's illegal in many countries

Various welfare support schemes depend on the state knowing your maritial status also.

After that, its your own business.

Talliesin

Those things relate to how many children one has and where one lives. Exchange of vows wouldn't affect them in the slightest.

Lemming

Originally posted by Talliesin
Those things relate to how many children one has and where one lives. Exchange of vows wouldn't affect them in the slightest.

Moot.

How do you propose to control how many children someone has inside a relationship that is sanctioned in the eyes of the state?

I think china does that........


[edit]: hmmm, that didn't read right. let me rephrase that.

How do you propose to distinguish between claims by seperate family units from those who are attempting to defraud the state, since you have allowed for the existence of such circumstances legally

yellum

What about tax breaks for couples ? Would that go ?

Its an interesting argument, nice bit of lateral thinking.

swiss

Marraige has, for many people, a religious significance. While I agree that one should not link religious and secular institutions, the institution of marriage is one where, no matter if one does so in a religious or secular context, one still pledges his/her life to another. Therefore, I would think that there should be a legal basis of recording marragies, so that family law can then be applied.

Do you think that the same legal circumstances should apply between two people living together as two married people living together? In the area of taxation, then I would agree that there should not be a distinction, however, when it comes to children and family circumstances I would show deference to a married couple, as it lends extra stability to a situation due to the vows exchanged, either at a civil or religious marraige arrangement.

The vows that people exchange in matrimony should be acknowledged in law. It gives extra purpose and meaning to those vows, as well as providing an extra incentive for people who have decided to wed to stay together.

Talliesin

How do you propose to distinguish between claims by seperate family units from those who are attempting to defraud the state, since you have allowed for the existence of such circumstances legally

The same way we do now, child benefit doesn't relate to marriage at present, it relates to children. Children related benefits don't relate do marriage anyway, so they don't have a bearing on this argument.

Marraige has, for many people, a religious significance.

Including me. I'm a very religious person, and the religious wedding my wife and I had was one of the most significant days in my life. That said being religious is a matter of one's own attitude about various metaphysical and moral issues. It isn't anyone else's concern.

Therefore, I would think that there should be a legal basis of recording marragies, so that family law can then be applied.

Officially religious marriages and civil marriages are already completely separate in this country anyway. Some people who have a religious marriage can have a civil marriage at the same time. However the point of civil marriage is pretty much nil at this stage, with the increased recognition of the rights of unmarried couples (whether gay or straight).

While we could allow other religions to act as registrars the way that some Christian priests currently can and drop the restriction that the two parties to a marriage must be of different sex it seems to me rather pointless. We have those restrictions because the very notion of a civil wedding is a hang-over from a co-joined Church and State. We don't need to recognise in law something that is only a matter of those involved.

when it comes to children and family circumstances I would show deference to a married couple, as it lends extra stability to a situation due to the vows exchanged,

I can get a religious divorce in a matter of days, I can even perform it myself! The degree of "stability" offered varies from religion to religion, as different religions have different notions about the nature of marriage. That in itself is an argument about legal codification of such religious practices.
Even within the religions which prohibit or strongly discourage divorce the fact is that it happens (to which my divorced Roman Catholic parents can attest). The stability notion just doesn't play in the real world.

It gives extra purpose and meaning to those vows, as well as providing an extra incentive for people who have decided to wed to stay together.

• If the State's blessing means that much to you you are a lot more patriotic than I
• If you are only staying together for that reason face facts and get divorced now!

Lemming

Originally posted by Talliesin
The same way we do now, child benefit doesn't relate to marriage at present, it relates to children. Children related benefits don't relate do marriage anyway, so they don't have a bearing on this argument.

Ummm, afaik you get a certain amount for your first child, and then every subsequent child after that is added onto that first "lump sum" (if you will)

Therefore, the ability to claim twice is VERY much an issue, since person X would be claiming TWO lump-sums and whatever extra children onto that sum there was for a certain partner.

Since all partners would be technically part of the same family unit, you can see where this is heading.

Typedef

The thing is. Marraige protects the spouse from the following.

Giving up their job to stay at home and do house work, raise the family or whatever. The marraige ends. The person who has been out of work for 'perhaps' twenty years, then finds themselves unemployable, has no access to assets accumlated during the tenure of the marraige, has no access to bank accounts and is in effect fired (for want of a better allegory) from their job, without so much as a serverance payment.

Economically the institution of marraige protects the spouse from financial ruin after the breakup of a long term marriage.

Talliesin

No I don't. You get child-benefit dependant on the number of children in the household. It doesn't matter whether they are from one coupling, two couplings, a complicated family history such as would feature in a day-time soap, or if they are all adopted.

Victor

Talliesin, what specific parts of the state knowing about your marital status do you object to? (And I think it is perfectly fair for the state to know about your status when it comes to tax, benefit and emergency / legal matters). And why shouldn't atheists / agnostics have a means of getting married?

Originally posted by Talliesin
Officially religious marriages and civil marriages are already completely separate in this country anyway. ... While we could allow other religions to act as registrars the way that some Christian priests currently can and drop the restriction that the two parties to a marriage must be of different sex it seems to me rather pointless.

Most people in this country complete the civil registration of their marriage immediately after the religious ceremony and this applies to more than just Catholic / Christian marriages.

Originally posted by Talliesin
No I don't. You get child-benefit dependant on the number of children in the household. It doesn't matter whether they are from one coupling, two couplings, a complicated family history such as would feature in a day-time soap, or if they are all adopted.

Child benefit is based on a fixed rate for the first two children, with a higher fixed rate for the third an subsequent child. Special arrangements exist for special circumstances, e.g. twins and triplets. http://families.welfare.ie/rates/index.xml#19 However, as it is payable to only one person, who has responsibility for a child, it is irrelevant for this debate.

Lemming

Originally posted by Talliesin
No I don't. You get child-benefit dependant on the number of children in the household. It doesn't matter whether they are from one coupling, two couplings, a complicated family history such as would feature in a day-time soap, or if they are all adopted.

Blah .. Victor got to it first

Talliesin

Talliesin, what specific parts of the state knowing about your marital status do you object to?

I just don't see the point. The state not knowing things it doesn't need to know is a good general privacy principle.
In attempting to legally encode a religious/spiritual practice the result is a bit messy and inevitably involves bringing attitudes from one or a few of those religions into the legal concept, hence the current discrimination.

Most people in this country complete the civil registration of their marriage immediately after the religious ceremony and this applies to more than just Catholic / Christian marriages.

Only a few religions can have the civil registration performed immediately after the religious ceremony, though they do cover the majority of people who proclaim a faith. If I perfom a wedding the people I marry would have to have a completely separate civil ceremony if they wanted to (and were allowed to) be legally married.
The primary reason why the ministers of the largest sects in the country can perform civil registrations is primarily to reduce the logistical strain on the registrar's office.

[Stuff about Child Benefit is] irrelevant for this debate.

Agreed.

Victor

Originally posted by Talliesin
I just don't see the point. The state not knowing things it doesn't need to know is a good general privacy principle.
In attempting to legally encode a religious/spiritual practice the result is a bit messy and inevitably involves bringing attitudes from one or a few of those religions into the legal concept, hence the current discrimination.

Is this a gay discussion or a Pagan discussion?

neuro-praxis

Abolishing legal marriage is a totally crap idea, for about 8,000 reasons, some of which have been listed here. Try reading the Protection of the Family Act to see why it's important, legally.

And what are you on about, you can get a religious divorce in a matter of days? I don't know what religion you belong to, but it sounds frighteningly fickle to me.

ozpass

I think there's a fair chance Talliesin is pagan

Talliesin

Is this a gay discussion or a Pagan discussion?

It's a discussion about an issue that comes up a lot in Gay circles, Pagan circles, Feminist circles and elsewhere.

Like most gays and bisexuals I used to think that it was important that the law allow same-sex marriage.
Like most Irish people of a minority faith I used to think that it was important that the law gave the same privleges to other faiths that it does to a few currently regarding the ability to register a civil marriage immediately after the religious ceremony. Like most Feminists I had a few dozen differences with the legal situation of couples. (The latter concerns are those that have been best met so far in the last couple of decades).

Certainly I would still agree that as long as there is such a thing as a "legal marriage" then the above concerns need to be met.

Actually getting married has made me reconsider what was and wasn't significant about it, and led me to the conclusion that the State being involved was of little value.

Yes the thread could also have started on the Pagan board, with a slightly different focus, but that board wasn't in existence at the time.

And what are you on about, you can get a religious divorce in a matter of days? I don't know what religion you belong to, but it sounds frighteningly fickle to me.

Just lacking in bureaucracy and authority. The reality of almost any divorce is that the proceedings only begin once it has reached a point of being inevitable. A couple getting to that point will be a completely different matter to whether it takes 4 years or 4 minutes to get the legalities sorted.

Try reading the Protection of the Family Act to see why it's important, legally.

The reality of modern-day Irish family life is causing the laws concerned to increasingly accommodate the reality that many families do not include a legally-married couple. If it's really all that important as regards to the protection of the family then the family is screwed anyway.

Victor

Originally posted by Talliesin
Certainly I would still agree that as long as there is such a thing as a "legal marriage" then the above concerns need to be met.

Fair enough, I think there should be more legal forms of "partnership" (e.g. platonic friends that live together for many years, siblings ditto). However, if certain groups don't have rights, it doesn't mean they should be taken form others.

Originally posted by Talliesin
Yes the thread could also have started on the Pagan board, with a slightly different focus, but that board wasn't in existence at the time.

I'm only saying it shouldn't have been presented as a GLB issue ("only") if there are other factors you want considered

Talliesin

However, if certain groups don't have rights, it doesn't mean they should be taken form others.

Agreed. The question is whether the best way to make this more egalitarian would be to tweak what we have now, or radically overhaul it. I believe the latter, though certainly changing the rather ridiculous situation we have now w.r.t. same-sex marriage would be better than nothing.

I'm only saying it shouldn't have been presented as a GLB issue ("only") if there are other factors you want considered.

LGB issues don't exist in a vacuum. I am primarily interested in this as an LGB issue, because that seems to me to be by far the greatest problem we currently have with the system of legally recognised marriages we have. However it makes little sense to present my view and not touch on other groups that it affects (especially if I am also a member of one of those other groups).

Victor

**BUMP**
The may be some moves on this.

General Register Office - http://www.groireland.ie/
http://www.groireland.ie/reform_of_marriage_law.htmSubmissions by 31 march 2003

click here

I've yet to read through all of the replies to this topic, but it seems to me that our fellow posters are debating the merits of civil unions.

I think that before we can get to that argument, it must be considered whether not people ought to have the choice whether or not to be entitled to civil unions. I think that choice should be available for all.

Evidently there are various and differing opinions on the topic here, and thus it seems some, for whatever reason, would be in favour of civil unions being available to all. Therefore, rather than denying such entitlements to those who wish to avail of them, it should be for all to press for civil unions for all.

This way, those who object to civil unions, retain their current postition; and those who seek civil union can benefit from the advantages they perceive emanate from legally recognised unions.

Talliesin

Originally posted by click here
I think that before we can get to that argument, it must be considered whether not people ought to have the choice whether or not to be entitled to civil unions. I think that choice should be available for all.

Well my whole point is that I think the very existence of civil unions is more harmful than beneficial.

Of course if there are civil unions then they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of the whether or not the couple are of differing sexes.