What exactly is marriage good for anyway these days?

[TimberValley]

Amidst all the talk about gay marriage these days, I think we need to ask the broader question: What exactly is marriage, and why is it worth keeping around? What good does it do society?

Is it just so that there's a legal relationship so that in the event of divorce, there'll be alimony to pay? Men often are required to pay child support regardless.


What is marriage? A legal agreement that two people will somehow stay together.....until or unless they decide not to stay together? Why? For what?

[LiberalLoner]

1. Inheritance rights and other legal protections?

[frazzled]

11. Yes, I knew a couple

who had been together for many decades, unmarried. (This is a heterosexual couple, by the way.) Both were accomplished, independent people in their own rights, and they had seen no reason to officially tie the knot. Until, that is, one of them entered the end stages of a long battle with melanoma. They then decided to marry (we had a nice party!), because the legal ramifications were great, not just for property they owned, but for the ability to manage his artistic legacy after death. These are important questions, and gay and lesbian couples should have the same right to negotiate them as do heterosexual couples.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. getting rid of marriage is a separate argument.

If you think the case can be made, good luck.

However, as long as marriage is a legal, civic institution, it needs to be equitably extended to all citizens, including LGBT people.

I've noticed that some- but not all- of the hyperbole around "get rid of it" is driven by petulant fundamentalists who feel that if "TEH GAY" are going to have to come into marriage-land, then no one should be allowed to and we're going to hold our breath until we turn blue unless we get our way.

It's a different argument, and should not be conflated with the fight for marriage equality. As long as marriage exists- and it does- then LGBT people deserve equality in that regard.

[TimberValley]

4. I'm not arguing for marriage to be abolished, but rather

just wondering if marriage has become something that society keeps around as an institution just because it's always been there.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. why are you wondering this now?

[randome]

21. The subject is in the news?

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I don't know. It seems like a convenient attempt at getting "out" of recognizing LGBT marriage.

Honestly, marriage equality would be a fairly simple, straightforward deal. Eliminating the institution entirely would be a massive societal undertaking.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Saves a lot of money on attorney's fees.

[Sheldon Cooper]

5. You can't be serious.

Perhaps you should review the hundreds, if not thousands, of the benefits that are conferred on married couples, and that can help you figure it out. Of course, no one is forced to get married, so you won't ever have to avail yourself of them.

[TimberValley]

8. But why exactly do we confer those benefits on married people only?

Do single people not also struggle to pay the bills? Does an unmarried couple with children not also have an equally hard time supporting a family as a married couple with children (with the same income and cost of living?)

[msongs]

9. there you go again, asking reasonable questions regarding law and its fine points lol nt

[dsc]

27. and they can get married

I don't have a lot of sympathy for unmarried straights who complain about the benefits of marriage. If you want the benefits of marriage, get married.

[William769]

7. Here we go again. same old shit again.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Its like the fucking star bellied sneetches.

IF THEYRE GONNA GET IT NO ONE SHOULD HAVE IT!!!!!!

[seabeyond]

10. some want that binding. others do not. 'nough said. nt

[LittleBlue]

12. For most, it's a pact to create legitimate children

and the social "next step" in lifestyle. There are various reasons, but the most compelling is that it's the most socially acceptable way to procreate and living arrangement.

[frazzled]

13. There is a societal interest ...

in encouraging people, especially when children are involved, to form stable, long-term relationships. It's better for children (so we don't, as a society, have to deal with their problems), and it avoids many legal issues that can also become a burden to the state. The government extends benefits to encourage people to marry for many reasons ... and if so, they should extend both the status and the benefits to all.

Whether a couple wishes to marry or not (or divorce or not) for personal reasons is completely beside the point. This is about legal status in the eyes of the law, which impinges on many issues. As was noted in the Supreme Court arguments today, some 1,100 government laws deal with issues that relate to marriage, from taxes to various rights.

[oldhippie]

14. Mostly to take advantage of tax loopholes ....

... and other gov't benefits only available to married couples.

[etherealtruth]

15. Oh, for the love of Pete

.... never mind. You just can't fix s-----ome things

[LanternWaste]

16. Above and beyond any legal/financial questions

Above and beyond any legal/financial questions, I believe that regardless of whether or not marriage is effective or efficient to society collectively, it is, if nothing else, one more way to tell that special someone that you love her or him, and through that, advertise to all to see that love.

And that is, for me, enough.

"What exactly is marriage good for anyway these days?" The two individuals getting married.

[nomorenomore08]

34. Best response of the thread!

When right-wing assholes claim that marriage equality will "legitimize homosexuality" they're absolutely frickin' right. And that's exactly what should happen.

[talkingmime]

17. Well definitely taking care of each other when we're sick.

I spent the entire weekind caring for my wife (serious bronchitis with a high fever). Monday and Tuesday she spent caring for me when it was my turn to shiver under multiple layers of covers. Being alone when you are sick is terrible and helping someone who needs it is a major benefit of marriage.

What I have trouble with is divorce.

[Cleita]

19. Well, it protects the spouse from his/her family.

When a partner falls sick or is injured, and is unable to make a decision, the wife or husband has the first claim in making decisions affecting them. If there is no marriage, parents or siblings could step in and make a decision for them that is not to their benefit or liking. I have seen it happen to unmarried partners when disaster strikes and blood relatives have moved in and pushed the unmarried partner away and essentially out of the picture.

[liberaltrucker]

20. After two divorces, I've asked myself the same question

Said "I do" the preachers and "hell no" to the lawyers. NEVER AGAIN!
I hope and pray that my GLBT brethren are very careful about what
they wish for. I fear they're about to get the right to be miserable.
And bankrupt.

Yeah, I'm a bit bitter.

[Phillip McCleod]

31. this is kinda awesome. :)

[Brainstormy]

35. You could take the advice

of Georgia's late Lewis Grizzard. Next time just find a nice girl and give her a house.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. without marriage there is a lot more paperwork

when it comes to visitation in hospitals, end of life care if one person cannot really make the decision for themselves, property ownership, child custody etc

marriage makes these things simpler in many ways.

as with all contracts if you sign on to it foolishly, chances are you will repent it.

[bhikkhu]

24. Marriage is for two people who are in love and want to spend their lives together

...seems simple enough.

[Phillip McCleod]

32. seems simple enough 50% of the time anyway (divorce rate).

i'm 110% behind gay marriage because 'misery loves company'.

lately i think romantic love is as big a lie as the existence of god or santy claws.

[sibelian]

25. I suspect looong ago it was a way of re-signalling your relation to everyone you WEREN'T marrying.

"Guys, we're good an' all but I'm hanging around with this here person now. Forever. Because that's what we want."

"But we're BESTIES."

"Yeah, but this is the love of my life."

"One last big party, then? Also you have to properly tell everyone because clearly no-one will ever see you again. You'll be with the PARTY DESTROYING PERSON."

"OK. I'll have a big party and at that party I'll tell everyone, and my new love that this is the way it's to be now."

And I think all the other stuff got sort of built out of that.

[fadedrose]

26. Government regulations & benefits ..

Is all I can see. You can love someone withut marrying them. It's quite common.

Laws all have to be changed - not easily done.

[davidn3600]

28. My opinion...

...the only real winners in most marriages is...
1. the place the wedding is held and the jewelery store the ring was bought at
2. the place the couple go to honeymoon
3. the lawyers when they decide to divorce.

I know I sound pessimistic, but more than half of marriages today do fail. America has among the highest rate of divorce in the world.

I think many people today get married for the wrong reasons. And Im sorry, but I think the biggest reason is selfishness on behalf of one or both partners. That and we live in a very individualistic and materialistic culture.

It's a me-me attitude. People need to stop thinking "what's in it for me?"

[fadedrose]

29. And when love is gone, you can't afford to move out...

It's a trap in many cases.

[pnwmom]

30. Your numbers are out of date. The divorce rate has been dropping since the 1980's.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/all/1/


A false conclusion in the 1970s that half of all first marriages ended in divorce was based on the simple but completely wrong analysis of the marriage and divorce rates per 1,000 people in the United States. A similar abuse of statistical analysis led to the conclusion that 60 percent of all second marriages ended in divorce.

These errors have had a profound impact on attitudes about marriage in our society and it is a terrible injustice that there wasn’t more of an effort to get accurate data (essentially only obtainable by following a significant number of couples over time and measuring the outcomes) or that newer, more accurate and optimistic data isn’t being heavily reported in the media.

It is now clear that the divorce rate in first marriages probably peaked at about 40 percent for first marriages around 1980 and has been declining since to about 30 percent in the early 2000s. This is a dramatic difference. Rather than viewing marriage as a 50-50 shot in the dark it can be viewed as having a 70 percent likelihood of succeeding. But even to use that kind of generalization, i.e., one simple statistic for all marriages, grossly distorts what is actually going on.

The key is that the research shows that starting in the 1980s education, specifically a college degree for women, began to create a substantial divergence in marital outcomes, with the divorce rate for college-educated women dropping to about 20 percent, half the rate for non-college educated women. Even this is more complex, since the non-college educated women marry younger and are poorer than their college grad peers. These two factors, age at marriage and income level, have strong relationships to divorce rates; the older the partners and the higher the income, the more likely the couple stays married. Obviously, getting a college degree is reflected in both these factors.

SNIP

[HiPointDem]

33. "the higher the income, the more likely the couple stays married." indeed. thanks for that post.