Why do states have the right to regulate marriage

[Darwin333]

The above

So technically a state could regulate dating as well?

 

[OutHouse]

Lets think outside the box guys.

Yes, that is what the constitution says, but why isn't marriage regulated on a local level? No idea

Why does marriage have to "regulated" at all? Why do people have to file for a marriage license and request permission from the state to be married? Colorado does not require this, hell anybody can do a marriage ceremony or even better you can become common law married just by proclaiming it, blood test are not required in colorado either.

Why cant people just register their civil union at the court house? In colorado they can

"Why" does the state require people to ask permission before they can get married? What state does this? and who does the couple ask? the governor?

A license is a permit to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Does that mean that marriages are illegal without the states permission? If so, why?

because of the legal components that comes with being married. impact the distribution and ownership of property. Who were the legitimate heirs of a married couple, for example? Could Bastard Jimmy inherit the property of his father instead of First Born Tom who was the child of both dad and his wife? The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, source: http://lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken135.html


Shouldn't it be left to the people to decide who we want to marry? Absolutely

Why do we have to ask permission from the state to get married?
you asked this twice.

questions answered

 

[OutHouse]

Then move to a muslim country.

why? I thought America was the land of the free? since you like being governed so much by a government why don't you move to a Muslim land.

 

[techs]

Actually you might have used a bad example. Statues actually have laws against the practice of Polygamy. So your religious marriage of 122 women would need to not fall under what states consider the practice of polygamy.

I think you missed the point. I can say I am married to 122 women. I can have an official church ceremony marrying 122 women. I can live my life just like I am married to 122 women. The difference is that I have no legal connection to my wives under the laws of my state. Marriage means nothing in the eyes of the state until I try and register those marriages.

 

[actuarial]

I think you missed the point. I can say I am married to 122 women. I can have an official church ceremony marrying 122 women. I can live my life just like I am married to 122 women. The difference is that I have no legal connection to my wives under the laws of my state. Marriage means nothing in the eyes of the state until I try and register those marriages.

I think you missed the point - there are places where you will go to jail for doing this, whether you register the marriages or not.

So you 'can' marry 122 women as much as you 'can' rob a liquor store (depending on where you live).

 

[techs]

I think you missed the point - there are places where you will go to jail for doing this, whether you register the marriages or not.

So you 'can' marry 122 women as much as you 'can' rob a liquor store (depending on where you live).

No, you will not go to jail. There is no law against me getting married in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 122 women.
I challenge you to show me any law that prohibits that.

Its only against it the law if I choose to enter into marriage with more than one person under the laws of a particular state.

Its like saying "I divorce you" three times if you are a Muslim. You are still married legally, but not married under your religion.

 

[Texashiker]

questions answered

So it boils down to regulation and taxation.

Regulation is part of the root issue.

Taxation on the other hand could be partially dealt with through estate planning.

"Why" does the state require people to ask permission before they can get married? What state does this? and who does the couple ask? the governor?

People have to file for a marriage license. A license is a permit to do something that is otherwise prohibited.

This might sound a little strange, and pushing the limits of what we consider a "marriage", but lets say that there is a husband and wife that are married, and they both want to marry a third person, so that it is a 3-way marriage.

The husband and second woman would be polygamist, and the wife and second woman would be polygamist and lesbian.

As far as I know, no state would allow such a union.

 

[actuarial]

No, you will not go to jail. There is no law against me getting married in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 122 women.
I challenge you to show me any law that prohibits that.

Its only against it the law if I choose to enter into marriage with more than one person under the laws of a particular state.

Its like saying "I divorce you" three times if you are a Muslim. You are still married legally, but not married under your religion.

So polygamists have nothing to worry about then? That 'Sister Wives' family was just being irrational when they left the state to avoid prosecution?

 

[techs]

So polygamists have nothing to worry about then? That 'Sister Wives' family was just being irrational when they left the state to avoid prosecution?

Huh? You are quoting a television show and thats where you are getting your legal information from?
Wow, that explains this whole thread.

Read this:

few polygamists try to legally marry more than one wife. They may marry other wives in church ceremonies, but no marriage license exists. Some polygamists marry and then divorce all but one wife, but continue living and sleeping with all of them.

Very few polygamists have been prosecuted. When they are, the prosecution usually focuses on an ancillary offense, such as child abuse or welfare fraud, rather than polygamy itself. A series of raids in the 1950s in which police arrested polygynist husbands resulted in a public relations disaster as people reacted to images of wives and children left without their fathers.

Most polygamists are careful not to "officially" marry more than one wife at a time, so a bigamy conviction is virtually impossible. Laws against cohabitation are vague, hard to enforce, and probably unconstitutional in any case. Any direct prosecution on grounds of polygamy would require one of the wives to act as a witness against the husband. Even if the evidence were easy to come by, there are so many practicing polygamists in Utah and nearby states that the state doesn't have enough money to investigate, try and jail them all.

 

[Texashiker]

Most polygamists are careful not to "officially" marry more than one wife at a time, so a bigamy conviction is virtually impossible. Laws against cohabitation are vague, hard to enforce, and probably unconstitutional in any case. Any direct prosecution on grounds of polygamy would require one of the wives to act as a witness against the husband. Even if the evidence were easy to come by, there are so many practicing polygamists in Utah and nearby states that the state doesn't have enough money to investigate, try and jail them all.

This all goes back to my original question, why does the state feel the need to regulate marriages?

Why is polygamy illegal?
Why are gay marriages illegal.
Nobody ever talks about it, but why is polyandry illegal?

Why does society, or the sate, feel the need to control how people live their lives?

 

[techs]

This all goes back to my original question, why does the state feel the need to regulate marriages?

Why is polygamy illegal?
Why are gay marriages illegal.
Nobody ever talks about it, but why is polyandry illegal?

Why does society, or the sate, feel the need to control how people live their lives?

Ok, I'll make it as simple as possible.
Entering into a legal marriage provides for different treatment under the law. For example it determines inheritance and tax rates. Therefore the state has the right to regulate it.

Polygamy is illegal because the population of a state elected legislatures who made it illegal. Most people do not want to confer the legal benefits of marriage to people who marry more than one person.

Nobody ever talks about because the overwhelming majority of people do not believe in granting legal marriage status to people with mulitiple wives/husbands.

Lastly, there may be laws still on the books that make it illegal to be married to more than one person under your religion, but there are also still laws on the books preventing black and white people from marrying, or having sex outside of marriage. These laws no longer apply due to court decisions BUT they never get officially overturned because politicians don't want to have to go on record when they don't have to.

While I don't know the specific tv show you are talking about, it is quite possible that the multiple wives are doing something together or singly that is not legal in their state.

 

[Texashiker]

Ok, I'll make it as simple as possible.
<snip>
Lastly, there may be laws still on the books that make it illegal to be married to more than one person under your religion, but there are also still laws on the books preventing black and white people from marrying, or having sex outside of marriage. These laws no longer apply due to court decisions BUT they never get officially overturned because politicians don't want to have to go on record when they don't have to.

You are still not thinking outside the box.

The question is "why" are the laws the way they are?

Society objecting to polygamy or gay marriage is not the issue, that has very little to do with the question.

Lets take another step backward and ask ourselves why the laws are setup a certain way.

 

[werepossum]

So it boils down to regulation and taxation.

Regulation is part of the root issue.

Taxation on the other hand could be partially dealt with through estate planning.



People have to file for a marriage license. A license is a permit to do something that is otherwise prohibited.

This might sound a little strange, and pushing the limits of what we consider a "marriage", but lets say that there is a husband and wife that are married, and they both want to marry a third person, so that it is a 3-way marriage.

The husband and second woman would be polygamist, and the wife and second woman would be polygamist and lesbian.

As far as I know, no state would allow such a union.

. . . even though it seems strangely compelling . . .

I personally have no problem with polygamy as long as there are systemic mechanisms to protect teenagers from being forced into such marriages by religious sects, but there are undeniably complex issues with polygamous marriages that are not present in traditional or gay marriage. Just off the top of my head, there is a history of child molestation/statutory rape in many traditionally polygamous cultures, potential abuse of welfare systems when one male earner may use government largesse to afford a harem he could not afford by dint of his own resources, and worst of all, a virtual minefield in divorce custody cases. So I can see why a state might (and should) be very hesitant in legalizing polygamous/polyandrous marriages, even though I in theory prefer that consenting adults not be constrained from marrying as they wish.

 

[Lemon law]

Part of the reason for marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is our approximately male female birth rates. With the probability of a males birth is 55%. By the time marriage age is reached, its more equal as male death rates are higher than females. Wars, accident, disease, and what have you tend to leave a 1 to 1 ratio.

I wonder what will happen in Countries where females are commonly aborted pre-birth and males are not. Its a no brainer that there will be a shortage of marriage age females.

After that marriage is an institution of social stability that confers powerful rights and obligations. Some entity with legal powers, has to define age of consent, and more importantly protect the children that are supposed to result from legal marriage. Without strong laws, an unhappy male could simply leave his wife and children, and then the State basically has to support the children with taxpayer money. Aid to dependent children is on the books for all 50 states. Maybe during the dark ages in Europe, the Catholic church could assume that power, but in the USA we can no longer depend on the church to do so, Because an unhappy males could simply leave his church and find another religion or none at all. Its a right guaranteed by our Constitution.

 

[werepossum]

Part of the reason for marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is our approximately male female birth rates. With the probability of a males birth is 55%. By the time marriage age is reached, its more equal as male death rates are higher than females. Wars, accident, disease, and what have you tend to leave a 1 to 1 ratio.

I wonder what will happen in Countries where females are commonly aborted pre-birth and males are not. Its a no brainer that there will be a shortage of marriage age females.

After that marriage is an institution of social stability that confers powerful rights and obligations. Some entity with legal powers, has to define age of consent, and more importantly protect the children that are supposed to result from legal marriage. Without strong laws, an unhappy male could simply leave his wife and children, and then the State basically has to support the children with taxpayer money. Aid to dependent children is on the books for all 50 states. Maybe during the dark ages in Europe, the Catholic church could assume that power, but in the USA we can no longer depend on the church to do so, Because an unhappy males could simply leave his church and find another religion or none at all. Its a right guaranteed by our Constitution.

Good points - as soon as there is a government safety net, government must take over regulation of marriage. In ancient times only a small minority of men could afford multiple wives, so we coalesced toward one man and one woman even before a religious veneer was applied. Historically Tibet dealt with an imbalance of females and males able to support a family by having very high numbers of monks. It will be interesting to see how China deals with the artificial problem of having too few marriageable women at all.

 

[techs]

You are still not thinking outside the box.

The question is "why" are the laws the way they are?

Society objecting to polygamy or gay marriage is not the issue, that has very little to do with the question.

Lets take another step backward and ask ourselves why the laws are setup a certain way.

No. It's just you. That's not thinking.

 

[MovingTarget]

Good points - as soon as there is a government safety net, government must take over regulation of marriage. In ancient times only a small minority of men could afford multiple wives, so we coalesced toward one man and one woman even before a religious veneer was applied. Historically Tibet dealt with an imbalance of females and males able to support a family by having very high numbers of monks. It will be interesting to see how China deals with the artificial problem of having too few marriageable women at all.

I think you make the wrong leap here. The regulation of marriage by the government predates government-funded safety nets and does not depend upon the creation/existence of one. It is about societal stability. The regulation of marriage does create a minimum (although not necessarily sufficient) 'safety net' not funded directly by the government as you describe.

 

[Oyeve]

Answer is real fucking simple. Because, the people let them.

 

[werepossum]

I think you make the wrong leap here. The regulation of marriage by the government predates government-funded safety nets and does not depend upon the creation/existence of one. It is about societal stability. The regulation of marriage does create a minimum (although not necessarily sufficient) 'safety net' not funded directly by the government as you describe.

Perhaps, but we've had state- and county-funded poor houses for a long, long time. At least dating back to 1830, and Tennessee only became a state in 1796. At that time, the only requirement was to post a substantial bond, mostly to protect the bride against bigamy. Oddly, while I doubt if a man could have married another man, he was free to marry outside his race if he so desired. Only later was that freedom lost. But you make a good point about societal stability - even before the poorhouse, it wasn't in society's interests for a woman to marry a man already married who would probably abandon her too in time.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The question I have is "why" do states have to right to regulate marriages?

You need to question your presupposition that rights have independent existence. And that states do as well.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The way it should be IMHO is that a state or local government issues out civil unions for legal purposes, benefits and taxes, etc. The whole definition of two people's civil union being a "marriage" should be left up to the individuals involved. If you want your civil union to be declared a marriage then you pay a extra small fee so that some .gov office clerk somewhere else can put an asterisk in your civil union papers giving it an additional meaningless title. This way those who want their union to be called a "marriage" can do so but this term should in no way have any real legal meaning. Any further action or involvement by government beyond that is stupid and only compounds the issue by backing the opinions of rival sides based on personal and religious beliefs that should not even be part of the discussion.

 

[bfdd]

i personally don't think polygamy should be illegal. people should be able to take on as many spouses as they so desire as long as they can provide for them and not go on the government doll. i do not want to pay the way for others.

 

[Anarchist420]

In VA, they regulate marriage because there are a bunch of warvangelical faggots here who get so scared that they have a damn myocardial infarction and piss their pants when they see a homosexual.

 

[Lemon law]

i personally don't think polygamy should be illegal. people should be able to take on as many spouses as they so desire as long as they can provide for them and not go on the government doll. i do not want to pay the way for others.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK dfdd, lets say I buy into your contention, that the wealthier the man, the more wives he can have. Will that lead to social stability?

As I submit your contention will lead to quite the opposite effect, when we factor in all the less prosperous males being unable to marry a woman because the wealthy grubbed them all. What about those unhappy campers, and in fact the majority of the male population who will be happy to overthrow the minority of wealthy males.

Or lets flip the coin and talk about all those countries who use modern sex predictive technologies to abort a female fetus and not a more desired males fetus. What happens then to such a society when there are two or three boys for every girl? Shall we assume only the wealthy family can get a girl or two or three, when such a policy leads to far more unhappy camper males even more eager to overthrow the wealthy males. Or will the surviving females decide to take advantage of their pussy shortage and marry multiple men to bring society back into a pro-female balance?

Through human history various human societies have been inventive in marriage customs, but only in the past 40 years have we been able to use sex predictive technology using selective abortion to alter our basically 1 to 1 male to female ratio.

Or we can ask another question, why should a given males not be allowed to marry his sister? In ancient time, even primitive societies learned such practices were bad news, as the resultant child became inbred and less viable, especially when continued for more than one generation. But now with modern birth control methods, a male can safely fuck his sister without the risk of children and learn all about sex inside their family.

In short, is it now time to redefine marriage?

 

[Wreckem]

So polygamists have nothing to worry about then? That 'Sister Wives' family was just being irrational when they left the state to avoid prosecution?

Well, in Utah, if you call someone your wife, they are your wife for the Utah's polygamy laws. Utah is the only is really the only state that works that way. Its possible it works similarly in other states with very loose common law marriage standards, but its not really ever an issue out side Utah. Most states require you to be legally married to more than one person.