Why is marriage important in America today?

[SKL]

I've never been married (and I'm fine with that), so I honestly don't get the fuss one way or the other. Do we "need" legal marriage?

 

Other than financial benefits bestowed by governments and insurance companies, I mean. (Which, as a single mom, do not necessarily seem fair to me whether extended to "domestic partners" or not.)

 

I know traditional people (my extended family included) may view living together out of wedlock as "living in sin," but would having a marriage certificate really change traditional/conservative people's view of a gay couple's living arrangements? I'm thinking not. So that can't be it.

 

What is it, folks? Why is this a hill worth dying on?

[SKL]

Are you asking why the opposition to gay marriage, or why marriage at all?

 

I'm asking because I can't understand why either side considers it such a big deal. The "protect marrage" side or the "expand marriage rights" side.

 

I'm being genuine here.

[SKL]

I think it's part religious and part tradition. That isn't a huge deal to me, but it's a huge deal to a lot of people.

 

That may explain it from the side of the conservative Christians. But what about the other side?

[Slartibartfast]

http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/7-Tax-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html

 

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Edited July 23, 2012 by Sis

[nmoira]

I am atheist and am personally interested in little more than the rights conferred with the status of being married (as opposed to cohabitation). I don't care if marriage is of the state or of the church (with a separate civil ceremony or paperwork). However, I accept that I'm in the minority.

 

The problem as I see it is this: the goal posts keep getting moved. Oregon has a vote a few years back essentially outlawing gay marriage. At the time, many proponents of the initiative said, essentially, no marriage, but civil unions will give the rights you want. OK, but when another vote came up regarding civil unions, these same people lobbied against it. So yes, I see it as a hill worth dying on... unless civil unions come first, before marriage is taken off the table (in the sense that it would be up to particular churches, etc.).

[justLisa]

I don't disagree with you on principle. I married my husband because I wanted to be with him and there was no other easier way (he is from another country). And then there are some financial/legal benefits.

 

Beyond that, I don't feel like I "NEED" it to prove he is the one person I want to be with.

 

I'm not religious so it's not a sacrament or anything for me (I grew up in a Catholic family and marriage is considered a holy/religious thing).

 

That is the same for us. And I like all having the same last name. Both our families had huge Catholic weddings, we had a very small civil ceremony in a cute chapel with an ex catholic priest so the only difficulty with marriage was the explaining we had to do :tongue_smilie:(we are not religious.)

[Element]

I don't think we need legal, government-sanctioned marriage at all, honestly. I think people who want to have a religious ceremony should do so (and call it whatever they like!) but the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Most of the people I know IRL under the age of 35 have had at least one divorce. I'm not saying that statistic is typical nationally, I'm just stating what is typical among my real-life friends and acquaintances. I have to agree with OP: "Marriage" is just not a big deal to me. Of course, the bonds I have with my dh are... I can't even put it into words. :001_wub: We have a lifelong commitment to each other. However, we had that before we received our "marriage certificate" from the county.

[SKL]

I find it a little frustrating to find that most of what I'm hearing so far has to do with the transfer of wealth (via tax breaks and work benefits) to couples just because they formalize their living arrangements. And most of these couples don't / won't even have kids.

 

Meanwhile my kids and I get to fund this wealth transfer.

 

I'm sure it isn't all about money. Someone convince me.

[catz]

I'm in favor of the government issuing civil unions for financial benefits. And honestly, I'd be ok with any 2 consenting adults getting the benefits of living and sharing a household. I can think of circumstances where an adult child/parent or adult siblings might benefit from such an arrangement for insurance purposes, next of kin, etc.

 

I think churches can marry (or not marry) who they want. Heck, I'd be fine with polygamy if it was all consenting adults involved. Our UU church performs single gender weddings all the time. Whether people like it or not, families are living like this. It isn't at all fair that the children and spouses in these families should be denied protections and right that my own family enjoys.

 

To me, it's all about the freedom to choose who you share your finances with and who is your next of kin, along with the rights and responsibilities that come with that. I'm fine with churches or individuals not acknowledging these couples as married or considering this sinful behavior. I'm totally fine with churches getting the word "marry".

[nmoira]

I find it a little frustrating to find that most of what I'm hearing so far has to do with the transfer of wealth (via tax breaks and work benefits) to couples just because they formalize their living arrangements. And most of these couples don't / won't even have kids.

 

Meanwhile my kids and I get to fund this wealth transfer.

 

I'm sure it isn't all about money. Someone convince me.

According to the 2010 Census, almost one quarter of gay couples are raising children. It's not "most," but it is substantial. Why do "Childless" people marry? Do you resent them too?

 

Here is a list of rights and benefits conferred by marriage in the US:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

[Slartibartfast]

I find it a little frustrating to find that most of what I'm hearing so far has to do with the transfer of wealth (via tax breaks and work benefits) to couples just because they formalize their living arrangements. And most of these couples don't / won't even have kids.

 

Meanwhile my kids and I get to fund this wealth transfer.

 

I'm sure it isn't all about money. Someone convince me.

 

I don't think it is about money in the slightest but it is not fair to offer one couple certain rights and privileges and not the other.

 

You have a child, who gets custody if something happens to you? Are you related to this person? Are they related to your child? If a couple divorces how is custody decided if the couple is not married? Do married couples get advantages when adopting?

 

If it was *only* about traditions and religion then anyone can marry and only a religious ceremony should suffice but that isn't the case. Homosexual couples are often not taken as seriously because many see it as lacking real commitment. People often see them as hedonistic. They are as deserving of the ability to enter a legal and binding contract as anyone.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Sis

[SKL]

According to the 2010 Census, almost one quarter of gay couples are raising children. It's not "most," but it is substantial. Why do "Childless" people marry? Do you resent them too?

 

Here is a list of rights conferred by marriage in the US:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

 

I don't resent the individuals for taking advantage of legal benefits.

 

But I don't like the fact that laws provide financial incentives that put single-parent families at a bigger disadvantage, just because the parent doesn't happen to be sharing a bed with anyone.

 

It would make more sense for all the benefits of this nature to go to the children. Regardless of whether their parents are married, in a DR, single, heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever.

[SKL]

I don't think it is about money in the slightest but it is not fair to offer one couple certain rights and privileges and not the other.

 

You have a child, who gets custody if something happens to you? Are you related to this person? Are they related to your child? If a couple divorces how is custody decided if the couple is not married? Do married couples get advantages when adopting?

 

If it was *only* about traditions and religion then anyone can marry and only a religious ceremony should suffice but that isn't the case.

 

All of the bolded impact single parents too.

 

I would venture a guess that there are a lot more kids growing up in single parent homes than with gay couples. So the "for the children" argument doesn't really move me.

[Mommyfaithe]

I really think the state should stay completely out of marriage. If people want civil unions, regardless of their orientation, a legal binding contract, then that is awesome. If people want a biblical marriage, no state paper is going to provide that, but it would be fine for people to do...their own business. I am not sure how other religions ( beyond Judeo -Christian ) view marriage :bigear:

 

I know my opinion isn't going to change a thing. I have a biblical marriage with dh because we chose to. We were married legally for our kids, but our commitment to each other is personal, and spiritual.

[nmoira]

I don't resent the individuals for taking advantage of legal benefits.

 

But I don't like the fact that laws provide financial incentives that put single-parent families at a bigger disadvantage, just because the parent doesn't happen to be sharing a bed with anyone.

 

It would make more sense for all the benefits of this nature to go to the children. Regardless of whether their parents are married, in a DR, single, heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever.

So, the only way we can advocate for greater fairness for single parent families is by denying married couples the rights and privileges they already possess (and by not letting gays and lesbians marry)?

 

And, FWIW, marriage is not solely about children.

[BinahYeteirah]

I wish we would get rid of legal marriage. My legal marriage is of no symbolic importance to me. The religious ceremony was/is important to me; it's immaterial if that is recognized by the government. I think people should have whatever kind of marriage or commitment ceremonies are meaningful to them, religious or otherwise. I think it would be fairly easy to establish parental rights and responsibilities without legal marriage. Other legal benefits might be a little more difficult to work out, but UHC would be helpful in settling at least one major issue.

[TKDmom]

I thought this was an interesting opinion article on the economic effects of single motherhood in general society. I hope I don't cause offense by posting it. I'm not trying to say that this is indicative of all single mothers--it just points out general trends.

 

I was particularly interested in their assertion that single men earn less than their married counterparts. Apparently, marriage and family motivate men to work harder and increase their earning power. It seems like men who won't commit themselves to marriage will be less likely to apply themselves in other areas of their lives, as well.

 

Personally, I think that marriage leads to greater stability in the home and in society (and I mean committed marriage where partners aren't ready to bail as soon as they encounter difficulties). It gives kids the kind of stable base to operate from that they will need to succeed later in life. Can single moms provide that kind of stability? Sure, but it's a lot harder. I can't imagine having to support myself and be emotionally available to my kids at the end of the day, especially without anyone else there to take over when I've had enough. I think marriage gives the adults more stability, too.

Edited July 23, 2012 by bonniebeth4

[J-rap]

Do you mean "legal" marriage or a religious marriage?

 

Our government views legal marriage as a type of contract, and I believe it's mostly for economical reasons, as you said. (Insurance, tax issues, etc.) It also gives a legal responsibility to parents for their children, and for each other as well. So, I guess the main reason why it is "needed" is to make everything easier, legally, financially, etc.

 

That is different from a religious marriage. Although a religious marriage in the U.S. usually fulfills the legal requirement, is goes beyond that, and often has a very different purpose. I imagine every religion has their own reasons for encouraging a marriage commitment.

 

I am a Christian, so although I don't believe marriage is required of a person or that the ultimate calling is marriage, I do believe that it is a commitment established by God, for the ultimate purpose of having a life mate and serving God together. I believe it is a gift that God has given us if we choose to receive it. But, it is the commitment that counts, not the paper or the ceremony.

[SKL]

Although...can't single parents claim head of household? One could argue as a childless person that's unfair.

 

Yes, but that is an extremely small benefit compared to all the benefits bestowed on married couples. And since it's targeted at kids, obviously it's going to leave out childless people, as does the child tax credit and lots of other subsidies.

 

I file as head of household and I pay more tax than I would if I had a spouse. My tax burden last year was about 1% less than it would have been if I filed as single.

[Mommyfaithe]

I don't think we need legal, government-sanctioned marriage at all, honestly. I think people who want to have a religious ceremony should do so (and call it whatever they like!) but the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Most of the people I know IRL under the age of 35 have had at least one divorce. I'm not saying that statistic is typical nationally, I'm just stating what is typical among my real-life friends and acquaintances. I have to agree with OP: "Marriage" is just not a big deal to me. Of course, the bonds I have with my dh are... I can't even put it into words. :001_wub: We have a lifelong commitment to each other. However, we had that before we received our "marriage certificate" from the county.

 

:iagree:

[Caroline]

Our gov't funding system would have to change if partnerships were considered marriages.

 

MIL,for ex,, gets 50% property tax reduction. Here in NY, that's worth over $10k per year on her home. Say she marries an older teen gal; as long as she lives that gal qualifies for the property tax reduction too. Say they have kids that go to public school (the sperm donor remains anon)...because of MILs bennies, which are meant for old age, the new wife can shove her costs off on the rest of the community. Now, when MIL retires, her pension with survivor bennies go es to her new partner...but as a teen, it has to last a lot longer than if MIL simply passed...and the accountant that set the system up was not figuring on setting a kid up for a lifetime on retirement bennies...so now taxes have to go up....

 

How is that any different from her marrying a young man and adopting children? Or an older man marrying a young girl, having kids, etc?

[SKL]

So, the only way we can advocate for greater fairness for single parent families is by denying married couples the rights and privileges they already possess (and by not letting gays and lesbians marry)?

 

I didn't say that. I am just saying that people shouldn't get a transfer of wealth in their favor based just on how they set up housekeeping.

 

If it really is largely about money, don't you think Americans would be more open to gay marriage if it didn't cost them anything? But then, am I hearing that the fight for gay marriage would fizzle without the money aspect?

[Slartibartfast]

All of the bolded impact single parents too.

 

I would venture a guess that there are a lot more kids growing up in single parent homes than with gay couples. So the "for the children" argument doesn't really move me.

 

It does impact you but not the same. If one chooses to live with someone rather than marry many of the same issues apply.

 

People living together are not treated the same, legally, as a married couple.

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't say that. I am just saying that people shouldn't get a transfer of wealth in their favor based just on how they set up housekeeping.

 

If it really is largely about money, don't you think Americans would be more open to gay marriage if it didn't cost them anything? But then, am I hearing that the fight for gay marriage would fizzle without the money aspect?

 

But what does it really cost people? Really..in the large scheme of things would it really cost?

[nmoira]

Does it cost them anything? What does it cost people?

Because it is not taxed.

[LizzyBee]

I'm asking because I can't understand why either side considers it such a big deal. The "protect marrage" side or the "expand marriage rights" side.

 

I'm being genuine here.

 

I'll admit up front that as a Christian, I have mixed feelings about the issue.

 

That said, I think one of the biggest arguments in favor of gay marriage is end of life decisions. A committed couple who has been together many years and have their wishes documented will be overruled in favor of blood relatives. Sometimes, the partner is shut out completely and is not even permitted to be with the partner who is dying. One would think that a medical power of attorney would prevent this situation, but it does not. The wishes of the blood relatives take precedence.

[Slartibartfast]

Because it is not taxed.

 

But is the amount in estate taxes really significant in relation to the amount being spent on this issue?

[cin]

I think it is a societal thing. But for me, it is important because it is symbol of a person's commitment to the relationship. If a person is not married, it's a heck of a lot easier to walk away than it is with the contract. I would not build a life with someone who would not take the step of marriage.

jmho.

[butterflymommy]

There was recently an article in the nytimes about how marriage is becoming the marker of an ever increasing socio economic divide between class strata. In short, wealthier, more educated people are marrying at as high a rate as ever while poorer, less educated people are getting married less and less. This, in turn, more deeply entrenches the divide between classes. The article tiptoed around WHY marriage offers benefits to couples and children but the data is fairly solid in this regard.

 

My own humble guess as to "why" is that marriage provides stability for everyone involved. Even in the worst cases, say when there is abuse involved, there is still stability at fundamental level--"we are married to each other and share a home." I'm certainly not saying people should stay in abusive marriages, I'm just pointing out that even the worst marriages contain an element of social stability within a legally recognized context. So imagine how much more beneficial the healthier relationships are.

 

Stable environments are, generally speaking, a highly efficient context in which to raise children and amass financial net worth. This is turn leads to more stability and more efficiency.

 

As far as why "the piece of paper" matters, studies have shown that living together without marriage tends to have a detrimental effect on relationships. It's surmised that women see living together as a step toward marriage while men see it as a step to delay marriage (within gay couples who have the option of marriage a similar dynamic might play out). The conflicting mentalities eventually come to loggerheads, poisoning the relationship to whatever degree. This is the case even when you take into consideration differing view of marriage, i.e., both pro-marriage and anti-marriage couples tend to follow this same path when "living together first."

 

Of course there are plenty of people who live together happily without marriage, and I hope this post doesn't offend any such people here.

Edited July 23, 2012 by butterflymommy

[nmoira]

But is the amount in estate taxes really significant in relation to the amount being spent on this issue?

I don't think it is, and I don't have a problem with it in any case. I also don't have a problem with people being able to take days off work to be with sick kids, even though it's not "fair" to those without kids.

[SKL]

I was particularly interested in their assertion that single men earn less than their married counterparts. Apparently, marriage and family motivate men to work harder and increase their earning power. It seems like men who won't commit themselves to marriage will be less likely to apply themselves in other areas of their lives, as well.

 

I tend to see the cause and effect differently. Whatever made the guy responsible enough to get a good job also made him responsible enough to decide to head up a household. The tax benefits of marriage also matter more if you're actually earning enough to pay income taxes.

[Corraleno]

In addition to the financial benefits of marriage (insurance, inheritance, etc.), there are many legal rights accorded to spouses that nonmarried partners do not have, such as: access to children's medical & school records; family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children (e.g. in hospital); next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions; custodial rights to children; legal status with stepchildren; permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse; etc. A gay couple who has been in a committed, monogamous relationship for years, who are raising children together, would be denied these rights because they have not been allowed to marry. Heterosexual couples can choose whether the legal and financial benefits of marriage are worth it to them. Gay couples have no choice.

 

Jackie

[nmoira]

I tend to see the cause and effect differently. Whatever made the guy responsible enough to get a good job also made him responsible enough to decide to head up a household. The tax benefits of marriage also matter more if you're actually earning enough to pay income taxes.

Even when both spouses are working?

[SKL]

I am not sure how the numbers work out with taxes, but what are all the other benefits bestowed on marriage?

 

A couple other posters have posted links that answer these questions.

[catz]

Our gov't funding system would have to change if partnerships were considered marriages.

 

MIL,for ex,, gets 50% property tax reduction. Here in NY, that's worth over $10k per year on her home. Say she marries an older teen gal; as long as she lives that gal qualifies for the property tax reduction too. Say they have kids that go to public school (the sperm donor remains anon)...because of MILs bennies, which are meant for old age, the new wife can shove her costs off on the rest of the community. Now, when MIL retires, her pension with survivor bennies go es to her new partner...but as a teen, it has to last a lot longer than if MIL simply passed...and the accountant that set the system up was not figuring on setting a kid up for a lifetime on retirement bennies...so now taxes have to go up....

 

But how would that be different if MIL married a young boy toy and adopted or hired a surrogate parent? I actually know a man getting social security right now (he's 69) and his youngest child is 11. His wife is like 30 years younger than him? I don't feel like this is a new scenario.

[justamouse]

To us, it's a sacrament, just like Holy Orders. It's a promise that we have children, and nurture that family. It's not 'just' a contract. We also look at it as a vehicle to holiness. Let's face it, marriage can be the hardest thing you do. It takes a lot of love to make it through. It's self donative, and self sacrificing.

 

That's a really interesting post, butterfly. I wish I read the article.

Edited July 23, 2012 by justamouse

[Wheres Toto]

In addition to the financial benefits of marriage (insurance, inheritance, etc.), there are many legal rights accorded to spouses that nonmarried partners do not have, such as: access to children's medical & school records; family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children (e.g. in hospital); next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions; custodial rights to children; legal status with stepchildren; permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse; etc. A gay couple who has been in a committed, monogamous relationship for years, who are raising children together, would be denied these rights because they have not been allowed to marry. Heterosexual couples can choose whether the legal and financial benefits of marriage are worth it to them. Gay couples have no choice.

 

Jackie

 

:iagree:

 

I have a MARRIAGE despite not having had a church ceremony so the fuss over terminology doesn't make sense to me. By that rationale, atheists and non Christians shouldn't have marriages.

 

Evidently there are "1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges."

Edited July 23, 2012 by dottieanna29

[Galatea]

I find it a little frustrating to find that most of what I'm hearing so far has to do with the transfer of wealth (via tax breaks and work benefits) to couples just because they formalize their living arrangements. And most of these couples don't / won't even have kids.

 

Meanwhile my kids and I get to fund this wealth transfer.

 

I'm sure it isn't all about money. Someone convince me.

 

Legal marriage, as opposed to religious marriage, has ALWAYS been about money and the transfer of wealth, sharing of assets.

 

Legal marriage means that spouses have certain rights, children have certain rights, and other family members can't take them away. People didn't always write tailored wills, or they weren't legally allowed to. It was laws that said certain portions of estates went to children, certain portions went to surviving spouses, and things still work that way. If you weren't legally married and your children weren't legitimate in the eyes of the law, they got nothing. A parent/sibling/whatever who hated them could cut them out completely, just like parents/siblings who hate gay people cut them out currently.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Galatea

[jewellsmommy]

No it's really not. It is a lot about tradition. Growing up as a young girl that's what all the princess and prince movies are about. The whole "magical" marriage thing. Only now as an adult with some years under my belt do I think differently. Marriage represents a commitment. In theory, it's not as easy to walk away. You publicly announce to your family and friends that you are together forever. And then as a married couple you are given a certain amount of respect for the status.

 

Tradition is hugely important. If I don't have turkey on Thanksgiving I'm upset. KWIM?

 

:iagree: That answers it on a practical, tangible level. I have known people at the boyfriend/girlfriend level that are on, off, on, off :glare:. They walk away from their relationship because the other person forgot to give them their phone messages, kwim?

 

 

 

But more importantly, for dh and I, marriage is a commitment before God. The marriage is a model of God and the church body. It is a holy union much deeper than a piece of paper.

 

I see no issue with the idea of civil unions. That seems like the perfect answer for those who want an official bond but have no interest in a religious connection to their decision. It should come with all the business/financial/social benefits, just minus the commitment before God part. I realize, though, that there would be religious homosexual couples that would still want a marriage and not the union.

[Wheres Toto]

Whenever I have talked to gay couples I know, it's not been about the money. It's been about being allowed to make medical decisions, being able to share end-of-life decisions, being able to visit in the hospital, being given more status than "friend" to officialdom.

[mommaduck]

Legal marriage, as opposed to religious marriage, has ALWAYS been about money and the transfer of wealth, sharing of assets, etc.

:iagree:

[Delirium]

We only married for the legal reasons. My husband being in the military at the time meant if we didn't have that piece of paper, it was a bigger struggle (housing allowance, insurance, PCSing, etc). That piece of paper meant and still means health coverage for me, additional tax breaks, life insurance, breaks on car insurance, personal assurance that should anything happen to the other our daughter is going to stay with her parent (this one I'm reaching on because of the real issue of same sex couples not being afforded the same benefit)

 

Regardless of which side of the issue you're on marriage isn't between the two people signing the papers. It is between you two and the Government. They tell you when you're married, they tell you when you're divorced. They decide who is allowed the mentioned benefits and it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with your religious beliefs.

[Delirium]

Whenever I have talked to gay couples I know, it's not been about the money. It's been about being allowed to make medical decisions, being able to share end-of-life decisions, being able to visit in the hospital, being given more status than "friend" to officialdom.

 

:iagree:

[StephanieZ]

That may explain it from the side of the conservative Christians. But what about the other side?

 

NO! ACK! Tradition and religion are not owned just by conservative Christians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think religion is a significant reason for many people, conservative, Christian, or neither! Most religions honor marriage. Most traditions also honor marriage. Even if a couple personally felt little compulsion to officially marry, they may often choose to do so in order to honor their families' traditions and/or religions. If the couple was not AGAINST marriage personally, then their community's/families'/church's/etc traditions/preferences would often lead them to go ahead and "make it official" in order to either honor those roots and/or simply make life less complicated by not pissing off or confusing their friends/family/etc.

 

I also think there is an element of feeling more secure in an official union. A psychological/emotional component which is not insignificant. To me, if my love had not been willing to be married to me, I would have felt very insecure in our partnership, and would have been unlikely to have been confident enough in our future to jettison my career, create children together, etc.

 

Ritual is part of all (so far as I know) civilization. Human beings ritualize and celebrate what is important to us. Marriages, births, deaths, coming of age, etc . . . These things are ritualized and honored in nearly any culture throughout history so far as I know. If your union with a partner is of utmost importance to you, I would think you would celebrate it -- presumably with a marriage.

 

To me, the legal aspects of marriage are simply politics and are only significant insofaras they reflect the morality (or lack thereof) of our nation. I think it is wrong for the government (actually anyone at all, but the gov't represents ME, so I hold it to a high standard) to discriminate against gays, so I think it wrong for the gov't to offer benefits for heterosexual marriages but not homosexual marriages. Thus, I think the gov't(s) should offer equal recognition to homosexual marriages as they do to heterosexual marriages.

[jar7709]

We only married for the legal reasons. My husband being in the military at the time meant if we didn't have that piece of paper, it was a bigger struggle (housing allowance, insurance, PCSing, etc). That piece of paper meant and still means health coverage for me, additional tax breaks, life insurance, breaks on car insurance, personal assurance that should anything happen to the other our daughter is going to stay with her parent (this one I'm reaching on because of the real issue of same sex couples not being afforded the same benefit)

 

Regardless of which side of the issue you're on marriage isn't between the two people signing the papers. It is between you two and the Government. They tell you when you're married, they tell you when you're divorced. They decide who is allowed the mentioned benefits and it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with your religious beliefs.

 

:iagree:DH have talked about it many times. We married as fast as we did (2 month engagement) only because of green card issues. The two of us are non-religious and while we definitely valued the ceremony that publicly demonstrated the commitment between the two of us, in a real way our legal marriage was between the two of us and our government(s).

 

I've read a couple of science-fiction stories in peoples' lifespans are much longer and in which marriage is handled as a legally-binding contract for a defined number of years, say 10 or 20 or whatever the couple chooses, during which the couple and the couple's offspring get protections and rights like our current system. If the couple would like a lifetime contract and also like a religious ceremony to do on their own time, they are welcome to do that. If a couple wants to start with 10 years and they want to re-up at the end of that, or not, great. It made divorces a lot less messy in the story. Anyway. DH and I thought the implications of such a system really interesting and had a lot of fun talking them over.

[imagine.more]

There was recently an article in the nytimes about how marriage is becoming the marker of an ever increasing socio economic divide between class strata. In short, wealthier, more educated people are marrying at as high a rate as ever while poorer, less educated people are getting married less and less. This, in turn, more deeply entrenches the divide between classes. The article tiptoed around WHY marriage offers benefits to couples and children but the data is fairly solid in this regard.

 

My own humble guess as to "why" is that marriage provides stability for everyone involved. Even in the worst cases, say when there is abuse involved, there is still stability at fundamental level--"we are married to each other and share a home." I'm certainly not saying people should stay in abusive marriages, I'm just pointing out that even the worst marriages contain an element of social stability within a legally recognized context. So imagine how much more beneficial the healthier relationships are.

 

Stable environments are, generally speaking, a highly efficient context in which to raise children and amass financial net worth. This is turn leads to more stability and more efficiency.

 

As far as why "the piece of paper" matters, studies have shown that living together without marriage tends to have a detrimental effect on relationships. It's surmised that women see living together as a step toward marriage while men see it as a step to delay marriage (within gay couples who have the option of marriage a similar dynamic might play out). The conflicting mentalities eventually come to loggerheads, poisoning the relationship to whatever degree. This is the case even when you take into consideration differing view of marriage, i.e., both pro-marriage and anti-marriage couples tend to follow this same path when "living together first."

 

Of course there are plenty of people who live together happily without marriage, and I hope this post doesn't offend any such people here.

 

Speaking of marriage from a legal standpoint I'd say this is really most likely the reasoning for it. Generally speaking (not a rule, just a general sociological observation), marriages are more stable than dating people living together. Even with our current high divorce rate, someone who has committed to marrying another is still far more likely to still be with them 18 years down the road than someone who is living with a girlfriend/boyfriend. When considering raising children, this is a positive as (again, generally speaking) kids thrive with both parents actively raising them. Logistically it's just easier to parent with help, so the kids benefit when both parents are parenting. Both parents are more likely to parent actively when they live together and get along. So society benefits from marriage because future generations benefit from it.

 

It's why we have tax benefits for homeowners. Generally speaking homeowners are more stable and more likely to take good care of their house than renters. Now, my DH and I are renters who are very responsible and conscientious in taking care of the properties we rent. However, we still can't and don't do major repairs/upgrades the way we would if we owned a house. Our area is a testament to this trend, most of our neighbors rent, landlords are just using the houses as investment properties and often live far away, and the houses, while kept by mostly working, responsible people, are looking decrepit on the outside. The bigger projects like new siding or replacing a porch just don't happen. And sometimes renters are less responsible than they would be while owning, I know I get discouraged and say "why bother" about little things like painting that I know would improve the house, just because it's not our house in the end. Society benefits from homeownership as it creates stability (less likely to move, therefore closer relationships in the town), it creates nicer homes (generally speaking, because homeowners are more likely to maintain and upgrade their homes) and it supports the economy (because maintenance and upgrades cost money, so homeowners will spend money).

 

Now of course, from a religious standpoint my husband and I see our marriage as a covenant ordained by God and I see our marriage as sacramental. It's holy, something apart from the everyday even in the midst of its most ordinary moments. Even if there were no civilly recognized marriage we would have sought out a religious, sacramental marriage.

[justLisa]

That's very true. After reading the whole "for the money" comments my thoughts were "but I really didn't think about money at all when I married". And I didn't. It really didn't cross my mind. It's a tradition. It has meaning to a lot of people. I can't find the perfect words to express the meaning, but yeah it's there. I don't see why that feeling wouldn't be there for people who are gay as well.

 

That is how I feel. I don't know how to explain it. It's like having Christmas lights and all that traditional stuff even though I know I don't celebrate the"real" meaning of Christmas. Well, maybe that's not the same. But it's tradition here, and being married just gives me some sort of security. Like the warm and fuzzies :D

[K&Rs Mom]

I think we need new words. Marriage as a sacrament (whatever the tradition, Christian or otherwise) is different than marriage as a legal recognition. I think differentiating them by names would make a lot of the debates over the "institution" of marriage go away - a lot of people would agree but don't know it because they're using the same word to mean different ideas.

[Impish]

*haven't read all the replies*

 

For me, it was about the level of commitment. Spiritual, emotional, legal. That's why I got married.

 

I was a single mom at the time, and refused to ever live w/anyone unless we were married. Wolf moved in 3 mths before our wedding, we were already engaged.

 

I wasn't going to put the kids and I through someone 'trying it out', playing house, and then deciding they didn't want it.

 

I wanted the commitment of marriage, or forget it.

[Impish]

Oh, and to add, as a single parent, I could claim an 'equal to married amt' for one of the kids, and therefore get a further deduction on my taxes.