Moan - Wail - Where is the romance? The white dress, tuxedo, now all it is is a boring couple of hours hashing out a contract in a lawyers office! That requires too much thinking! I want to just go with the flow and do what I want to do at the moment. Not think things thru. SOB.

Actually I think it would be an interesting thing to try.

This sounds like an interesting idea, something that might solve a few problems, as Wendy McElroy suggests. Further, I don't think arrangement of a contract eliminates the tuxedo, the dress, the cake, and even the church and the preacher if you like.

On the other hand, the private contract concept may have pitfalls of its own. If the one or both of the couple want to change how their union operates, do they have to renegotiate the contract? Would nasty divorce squabbles be less common with contract terms to fight over?

I'm all for mandatory prenuptials.

No surprises if it doesn't work out and no surprises as to what the government will decide if the relationship ends.

This would be proactive and up front and not reactive if it doesn't work out like the divorce and "family courts" we now have.

Who would bitch? Lawyers and women as they are the ones that make out in the current situations of divorce and "family court."

No guy would ever sign something saying I'm going to give away my kids, my house, and so many dollars per month.

I don't understand why everyone is so gung ho about privatized health insurance, but socialized marriage is all the rage. Explanations, anyone?

Oh, this is such horseshit

> A legal marriage is whatever
> contract for a committed
> relationship is agreed to by the
> adults involved.

As if the state and the rest of the world could be left out of it.

Y'know, people get married because they want things from other people. I can't understand the childish thrill you get out of pretending to be this lonesome solider in loves distant battlefields... Even as you demand, with such petulance, to be stocked with provisions by the uncaring state.

Horsehockey. The Government gets involved because people keep on dragging each other to government court when they get divorced.

Does anyone know what percentage of divorces don't end up in court?

Does anyone know what percentage of divorces don't end up in court?

No answer, but mine didn't. My ex-husband's mother worked for a divorce attorney, and I found a great lawyer who did all the paperwork for me for a nominal fee. Not having much to fight over helped.

Says ErikZ, "The Government gets involved because people keep on dragging each other to government court when they get divorced."

I suspect people would still drag each other to government court for breach of contract under the private contract scheme.

By the way, Crid, "...lonesome solider in loves distant battlefields..."

What the hayull you talkin' about?

Y'know, people get married because they want things from other people.

What things are you thinking of here? Cookware? Crockery? Flatware? A big party? I'm genuinely curious. Because wanting things from other people was way down on the considerations, really, when we got married. Precision, please!

I suspect people would still drag each other to government court for breach of contract under the private contract scheme.

Yes, of course. Might happen more, might happen less. Hard to tell. But the thing people get so exercised about with the marriage deal these days is less that a couple might get into court - that happens plenty these days - and more that the government might recognize a union that offends their sensibilities. Allowing people to forge their own contracts helps a great deal with that problem, eliminates church and state issues, and probably also does away with people's (largely unfounded) worries about potential tax breaks going to the wrong sorts of couples. I think it makes a great deal of sense.

I think it's a great idea! It would force people to realize that there is a legal aspect to their union. Right now people can only see the romance and wedding gowns and the other BS. If you make it a contract, first and foremost, you can add all the pomp and finery any way you like.

I would like to have a pagan ceremony, but no actual legal marriage, because then I could make the ceremony as beautiful as I like, but not ruin my relationship.

The most powerful men would have all the leverage.

Want to be a homemaker to Mr. Big? Then you get $0 when he decides to dump you and agree that child custody will be TBD by him. If you don't like it then Mr. Big has lots of other options.

c4y: I would let Mr. Big exercise those other options, in that case.

Machiavelli observed that the best judge of a man is his enemies not his friends. A man might fake friendship but only rarely fake emnity. The same is true of policy advocates. We're most clearly defined by what we oppose.

Who would oppose privitization of marriage? Will most women oppose it? Will most men? What's the difference?

It would work, except for children.

The state is involved, because the state (meaning the rest of us non-parties to these contracts) has an interest in making sure the children don't suffer when Ken and Barbie call it quits.

My money comes with my opinion, like it or not.

To throw another aspect into it -- What about the government benefits that accrue from marriage. The old tradition of wife stayed home, hubby worked. She got a portion of his SS payment. What happens to that?

"Moan - Wail - Where is the romance?"

Pfffft. That's what mistresses are for.

"The state is involved, because the state (meaning the rest of us non-parties to these contracts) has an interest in making sure the children don't suffer when Ken and Barbie call it quits."

We have laws that already protect children to some degree in other matters; it should not be too hard to draft laws that protect the rights of children regardless of the provisions of the marriage contract. You can't make a binding contract that contravenes existing law.

>> Does anyone know what
>> percentage of divorces don't
>> end up in court?

> No answer, but mine didn't.

Same here.

> What the hayull you talkin'
> about?

I'm talking about the infantile fantasy that undergirds posts like this. Society –actually, the whole of civilization– is interdependent as hell. But Amy-types hate to admit that. It's much more gratifying to pretend to be a tragically lonely Tarzan, sustained only by one's own courage and cunning. Of course, this is a Tarzan who's been:

• sheltered by the broader society from birth, with safe delivery and continuing health assured by a vast and ancient legal & medical establishments

• protected in comity from villainy both international and domestic

• nourished by fresh, inexpensive, well-inspected foods in regulated markets

• educated to literacy and socialized for success by compulsory education

• Etc., etc., etc.

But suddenly, upon being deposited in rich, sturdy adulthood, the Tarzans suddenly want to pretend all the excellence in their lives comes from their own hearts. This is deeply pathetic. As you yourself put it, ORD:

> people would still drag each
> other to government court for
> breach of contract under the
> private contract scheme.

If this matter is so private, why do you need the state to help you enforce the contract? Why should the state –i.e., the rest of us in your society– care whether you're competent at cutting a good deal for yourself? When you demand that we protect the sanctity of your contract, what's in it for us? You want things from the State. You just don't want to pay for them. Good luck with that.

More to the point is this, repeated from a comment some months ago:

| "It is interesting to note," Houellebecq
| writes in one of many passages of armchair
| sociology, "that the 'sexual revolution'
| was sometimes portrayed as a communal
| utopia, whereas in fact it was simply
| another stage in the historical rise of
| individualism. As the lovely world
| 'household' suggests, the couple and
| the family would be the last bastion of
| primitive communism in liberal society.
| The sexual revolution was to destroy
| these intermediary communities, the last
| to separate the individual from the
| market. The destruction continues to
| this day." No wonder that "in the last
| years of Western civilization," the
| "general mood [was] depression
| bordering on masochism."

Read that again, especially the "separate the individual from the market" part. Get the picture? Fantasies about bloodlessly technocratic marriage as described in this blog post are the wholly inappropriate application of a Consumer Reports mentality to the most human and challenging of enterprises.

> wanting things from other people
> was way down on the
> considerations, really, when we

Then why did you bother? Horse sense, please!

> My money comes with my opinion,
> like it or not.

MarkD gets it: Good man.

The most powerful men would have all the leverage.

Want to be a homemaker to Mr. Big? Then you get $0 when he decides to dump you and agree that child custody will be TBD by him. If you don't like it then Mr. Big has lots of other options.

Posted by: c4y at June 4, 2009 8:32 AM
------
Binding prenup not being able to be overruled by the courts. A Binding written contract like every other written contract.

Does anyone know what percentage of divorces don't end up in court?

According to this, 90%, although I don't know if I trust the source.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Most-Divorces-Are-Settled-Out-of-Court&id=918192

Binding prenup not being able to be overruled by the courts. A Binding written contract like every other written contract.

All well and good, until someone finds a loophole, somewhere. And you know they will.

o.O

Make marriage an enforceable contract between two people who agree on the terms of union and of divorce, including the terms of child custody and support.

So, if the terms of this contract include not having children, is the contract null and void upon the conception of the unwanted child?

How does the contract accommodate growth? What if he changes careers? What if she goes back to school? What about illness or financial setbacks?

Marriage has implications beyond simple contractual obligations and cannot (and should not) be reduced to the structure of a business deal between disinterested parties.

I don't know what the solution is, but whatever it is, I cannot imagine a good solution means greater involvement by lawyers.

I could see this broadly, but not narrowly. Contracts work quite well, when the period of performance is limited. When it is open ended, not so much. You have to think of the cooling effect of having this too narrow. If you have to put everything in the contract, and negotiate everything, then the constant worry is of leaving something out. And the flip side of that worry is militantly insisting that ONLY what is contained in the contract is enforceable. So all decision making is made more difficult. Do you have to put in who does the dishes? For some people yes, and others no. But. To be safe everyone will have to, because otherwise it will be too late after you sign.

when you were 28 did you actually know everything that went into a marriage? Enough to protect yourself?

Also? Things change over time. Needs change and so on. With a rigid narrow contract, it causes a problem. Maybe you would have to have a periodic contract renewal... and then this becomes so businesslike that nobody can do anything on a handshake and a kiss anymore.

Theres a lot of downside...

...when you were 28 did you actually know everything that went into a marriage?

I'm older than that...and I'm still learning.

> until someone finds a loophole,
> somewhere. And you know they will.

And Flynne gets it!

> I cannot imagine a good solution
> means greater involvement by lawyers.

Conan gets it, too!

> this becomes so businesslike that
> nobody can do anything on a
> handshake and a kiss anymore.

And so does Swissy!

Nice thought but I don't think you've thought it through. Marriage isn't just a contract between two people, it's a status that affects your interaction with many public and private organizations. It affects:

• The tax you owe


• Social security benefits and pensions


• Hospital visitation rites


• Inheritance

Maybe the solution is for public and private organizations to be prohibited from referring to a person's marriage status in any way - including no tax changes. That's really the implications when you go down this route.

Cheers, Neil.

Then why did you bother? Horse sense, please!

I bothered because of the chemistry in our relationship and the belief that life was better when we faced it as a team.

Same here.

Crid, you're such a self-righteous douche about this topic, so certain that you possess all of the wisdom of the centuries when it comes to male-female unions (the only kind you think are acceptable), and yet your marriage failed. How could anyone with your penetrating insights into the soul of man fail in a relationship?

" this becomes so businesslike that
> nobody can do anything on a
> handshake and a kiss anymore.
And so does Swissy! "

And this goes to your contention, Crid, that society is all interwoven, because the only way this has ever worked is when the elders in both family negotiate the contracts, not the lovebirds in question.

What the hell - arranged marriages don't have anything like the divorce rate that love marriages do.

I think President Obama should simply have the government "emergency fund" all marriages and immediately become a majority shareholder thus able to "step in" whenever necessary and force all other interested parties to do whatever the government says. Then, we get the best marriages we all deserve!*

* Based upon political donations previously given to whatever party won the last election. The United Auto Workers approves this approach.

> a status that affects your
> interaction with many public
> and private organizations.

Neil gets it too! Consensus gels!

> the belief that life was better
> when we faced it as a team.

Your chemical team coulda faced it privately, but you presumably wanted bennies... From other people.

> self-righteous douche

Well, Meeee-Yoooow!

> How could anyone with your
> penetrating insights...

They came later. I've since learned that the failure of a marriage isn't a private thing any more than the success of one is. Your assent on this point is silent but indisputable. Thanks for showing up today!

LSJ gets it! We need a special symbol to put next to the blog comments of people who understand this.

--The tax you owe
--Social security benefits and pensions
--Hospital visitation rites
--Inheritance

As a single unmarried female, I pay less taxes than your average couple. The tax defense is a red herring.

Social Security benefits. This one makes my butt itch. Primarily because I wont see any of it – even when I am eligible.

Just a thought here, why not spend the all of the time and energy used in this argument that "gays" deserve special beneficiary treatment for SS and challenge the system so that earned social security benefits can have a listed beneficiary, kinda like 401ks. So this can benefit ALL people - ITS ALL OF OUR MONEY DAMMIT.

Its ridiculous, this is other peoples money they earned through their lifetime and if they drop dead the day after they are eligible to collect the Feds keep it all unless there is a living spouse - whereas had this money not been forcibly taken from them, it would be going to a person chosen by the deceased...not the government. But Nooooo, it has to be "all about the gays". I guess they are more worthy than the rest of us, single heteros with parents who would rather see that money handed down to their children and grandchildren instead of having it roll back up into the fat belly of the US Govt. How is a “gay” person more deserving of my Father’s or Mother’s money than I? Selfish, self serving and putrid.

Hospital Visitation Rights. Good Gawd. Get a power of attorney and hospital visitation form. Think! What would a single person with no living relatives do?

Inheritance. Last time I checked this could be handled by a will. Anyone who is stupid enough to not have one and allows their assets and estate to go through probate.... well, anyways.

This "it’s all about me, i'm special because...., why is their piece of cake bigger than mine" BS is getting old.

I'm talking about the infantile fantasy that undergirds posts like this. Society –actually, the whole of civilization– is interdependent as hell. But Amy-types hate to admit that. It's much more gratifying to pretend to be a tragically lonely Tarzan, sustained only by one's own courage and cunning. (crid)

Bullshit, crid. Individuals create interdependent relationships all the time without the boot of the government stomping on them. In fact, the government coerced relationship is one of dependence, not interdependence.

Freedom to contract doesn't imply a lack of interdependent relationships. It implies the freedom to establish them.

Contracts are one way, the best way, to manage civil relationships of all kinds both commercial and non-commercial.

until someone finds a loophole, somewhere. And you know they will. (flynne)

All contracts have risks. Even contracts coerced by the government.

Marriage has implications beyond simple contractual obligations and cannot (and should not) be reduced to the structure of a business deal between disinterested parties. (Conan)

All human relationships have implications beyond contractual obligations. So what?

Contracts are not necessarily business deals. Contract law governs freely entered agreements of all sorts, even non-commercial agreements. By definition, parties to a contract cannot be disinterested. They both have interests enumerated in the contract.

Like I said. It's good to ask: who opposes free association, with negotiated and enforceable consequences, in marriage? Why?

Hospital Visitation Rights. Good Gawd. Get a power of attorney and hospital visitation form. Think! What would a single person with no living relatives do?

This should work, except when hospitals tell you to shove your legal papers up your ass, like what happened in Florida and Washington and who knows where else. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

Contracts are not necessarily business deals. Contract law governs freely entered agreements of all sorts, even non-commercial agreements. - Jeff

Contracts are an exchange of value for value (i.e., service/goods/cash for services/goods/cash). Whether lease agreements, sales contracts, that deal you make with the hooker on the corner, whatever. Contracts are business deals.

By definition, parties to a contract cannot be disinterested. They both have interests enumerated in the contract. - Jeff

"Disinterested" refers to not having feelings engaged (i.e., trying to negotiate the best deal possible and being willing to walk away if an agreement cannot be reached). That hardly describes the state of mind of most of us when contemplating marriage.

One approaches a contract from a detatched point of view, trying to secure the best outcome or terms possible. One enters a marriage with a somewhat different viewpoint.

Contracts are not often entered into in perpetuity. Marriage always is - even the vows say "til death do us part."

> BS is getting old.

Feebie gets i...

...Alright already. Any more latecomers will simply be added to the list.

> Individuals create interdependent
> relationships all the time

Then why are we being bothered? (Because they want something from other people.)

> It implies the freedom to
> establish them.

You can establish any private relationship you want. If you demand a license for it –or help adjudicating it– of me, Mr. Fellow Citizen, then I get to help write the spec. Capiche?

> who opposes free association,
> with negotiated and enforceable
> consequences, in marriage?

Me.

> Why?

Because some unions are better than others, and the others don't deserve to be encouraged. Apparently you think my HOA could be described as a five-way marriage... That's where your head's at.

> I just wrote a book about that.

I detect an absence of editorial resolve.

> except when hospitals tell
> you to shove

So you're saying perfect courtesy and righteousness has not been delivered by every institution throughout history in all contexts?

Seriously, seekers... Have you ever read anything so...

> A legal marriage is whatever
> contract for a committed
> relationship is agreed to by
> the adults involved

...childish in your life? Like a 7 year old buzzed on cotton candy after the county fair.

I can just see it now. A guy goes into a bar and orders a double. The bartender brings it to him and asks, "why so glum?" The guy downs his drink and replies, "my wife only works to contract."

...who opposes free association, with negotiated and enforceable consequences, in marriage?

If there are negotiated and enforceable consequences, is it really "free" association?

All human relationships have implications beyond contractual obligations. So what?

The implications are not equal.

I have a relationship with my car guy. There are no implications beyond the basics: he does a job and I pay him. Same with my dry cleaner.

With my wife, however, there are a few implications beyond just keeping the bills current and the house in good repair. My emotions and hers play into the relationship. My goals and life plans (and hers) play into the relationship.

My dry cleaner doesn't care if I drop out of the rat race and go to culinary school. He has only a minor interest in my life (whether I will continue to be a paying customer).

My wife, on the other hand, has a pretty strong interest if I decide to quit my job and spend the next year following the Dead.

This article is the nuclear option. It's completely stupid and it ignore societies structure and organization.

Many couples are already not marrying. Non-marriage is the solution to the non-problem.

If you don't like government interfering with married couples, then don't get married. Then you get government interfering with families and children without the annoyance of marriages, which is kind of the way it is.

A domestic contract creates it's own problems. It will not be resolved easily.

Conan so deeply, deeply gets this... The community has a say in all kinda contracts, y'know? You can't sign a guy up for a 20 year mortgage at 7,500% percent. You can't sign a contract to be a slave. And on and on... If you'll want help from the community enforcing a contract, the community gets to set parameters.

Also -

> the only way this has ever worked
> is when the elders in both family
> negotiate

You're too hip for the room. What are you trying to say?

Plus, by Wiki -

| Wendy McElroy (born 1951) is a
| Canadian individualist anarchist
| and individualist feminist.

Much is explained. (What is an "individualist feminist"? ...Don't tell me, I don't care to know.)

And -

| McElroy wrote Queen Silver:
| The Godless Girl about her

Much more is explained.

Society –actually, the whole of civilization– is interdependent as hell. But Amy-types hate to admit that.
I consider myself more or less an Amy-type and I'm happy to admit that, although I'd avoid using the words society and civilization. So often they're so loosely defined that they're useless or they're just props for anthropomorphism. People are extremely interdependent - enough said.

It's a helluva leap from "people are interdependent" to "state definition of marriage is best" and I didn't see you connecting any dots.

The state is involved, because the state (meaning the rest of us non-parties to these contracts) has an interest in making sure the children don't suffer when Ken and Barbie call it quits.
My money comes with my opinion, like it or not.
I wholeheartedly agree with the "as long as you live in my house you live by my rules" idea. But how did we get from talking about marriage contracts to paying for kids? You do understand that single people can legally have children, don't you? And that, for example, law makers have no problem enacting laws that force fathers to pay child support regardless of marital status?

I cannot imagine a good solution means greater involvement by lawyers.
Um, who do you suppose wrote the current contracts governing marriage? And who do you suppose litigates disputes about those contracts?

There are a lot of posts above that seem to come from some fantasy world where there are no marriage contracts and see this as a proposal to introduce them. I've got a little newsflash for you: if you're married, you entered into a contract. The jurisdiction where you married may not call it that, but that's just nomenclature.

The real question this post is asking is "What is the public interest in defining marriage?" Everything else is just nit-picking over implementation details or arguing using false dichotomies.

Your chemical team coulda faced it privately, but you presumably wanted bennies... From other people.

No, not so much. Mutual responsibility - for things like each other's physical, emotional and financial well-being. I'm pretty sure that's what it's about. Y'all really don't figure in it. Sorry.

I've since learned that the failure of a marriage isn't a private thing any more than the success of one is. Your assent on this point is silent but indisputable.

I have no idea what you're talking about. But this is like a tic for you - putting words in other people's mouths, claiming they say things they didn't or agree with things they don't.

Um, who do you suppose wrote the current contracts governing marriage? And who do you suppose litigates disputes about those contracts?

That's a pretty good reason to keep them out of the solution isn't it?

This isn't from fantasy land in which there are no marriage contracts. Marriage is already a contract...but it's much more as well. Folks who want to reduce marriage to only a contract are like the Jacobins who proposed a "logical and scientific" calendar with 10-day weeks during the French Revolution. They forgot to accommodate human emotions and irrationality (people still kept the now-illegal Sabbath and grumbled that 10-day week gave them fewer days off than the old 7-day week).

That's a pretty good reason to keep them out of the solution isn't it?
If you have a realistic idea for that, I'm listening (although skeptically). My point was that lawyers are likely just as involved in the current contracts as they would be with new contracts, so the solution is net neutral in that aspect.

Marriage is already a contract...but it's much more as well. Folks who want to reduce marriage...
I don't see this proposal as trying to reduce marriage per se as much as changing the legal aspect of it from one size fits all to more tailored. The parties involved can make as much or as little of it as they want. The question is why should the public be one of the parties?

> Mutual responsibility - for
> things like...

You couldn'ta had that without leaving the rest of us out of it?

> I have no idea what you're
> talking about

YOU WANT THINGS FROM OTHER PEOPLE. That's why you two got married. If it was just between you two, it would have just been between you two. You want enforcement juice, you want tax breaks, whatever. You've said as much. Couldn't be clearer.

> The parties involved can make as
> much or as little of it as they
> want.

No. Marriage is a contract with two people and their community, too. And in Ms. McElroy's demented fantasies, we in the community are not permitted to negotiate our terms.

You want enforcement juice, you want tax breaks, whatever. You've said as much. Couldn't be clearer.
Finally, after the generalities and ad hominem you're getting down to brass tacks.

Regarding enforcement, I don't look for any special recognition of the marriage contract beyond other contracts. I'd love to see court costs for all civil litigation completely covered by the litigants anyway.

Regarding tax breaks, what's the justification for different rates for married people anyway? Either get rid of the breaks or extend them to any self-defined group of people that wants them.

I'm all for the public interest being taken into consideration, but I just don't see what it is in this case.

Shawn, are you speaking for Cheez?

> you're getting down to brass
> tacks.

Did from the word go. You knew it was going to hurt, so you tried not to read too closely....

> I don't look for any special
> recognition of the marriage
> contract beyond other contracts.

Then I think you're being profoundly foolish. I think marriage is special. See above: Some unions are better than others. They do more good stuff for the rest of us.

> I'd love to see court costs
> for all civil litigation
> completely covered by the
> litigants anyway.

In matters of marriage and divorce, the community is a party to the contract with interests to be represented, if not flatly litigated. I'll say that yet again if anyone needs to hear it. Here:

Marriage is not just a contract between two people; it's also a contract with the surrounding community. That's why people come to the seat of community power, the courthouse, to pick up a license.

If you want your (private, two-party) marriage contract to come in a Happy Meal from McDonald's, then it's no skin off my nose, is it? And if your marriage breaks down, it will be no more a tragedy than if the plastic toy car that came with your cheeseburger had a wonky wheel... Nothing for the rest of the community to take notice of: Do not pester us for child support, do not pester us for wage garnishment or alimony, do not pester us for anything.

> I just don't see what it is
> in this case.

You need to think about it some more. See "Tarzan", above.

You couldn'ta had that without leaving the rest of us out of it?

You're not in it. Enjoy your life.

You want enforcement juice, you want tax breaks, whatever.

There are no tax breaks for people who work and have no kids. Add incomes, take away deductions. Taxes computed. Done. The tax breaks come with kids and they come, married or no. Another argument = fail.

> You're not in it. Enjoy your life.

Aw c'mon. Why should we trust you? Why should we believe you? You and the little lady made a great point of positioning yourselves to receive these blessings. No, I wasn't going to sneak the candy bar out of the drug store, Officer O'Malley... I just wanted to carry it up and down the aisles in my pocket for awhile.

> The tax breaks come with kids
> and they come, married or no.

In your state, maybe. But still, you made the rest of the community do the paperwork... Why? If it means nothing to the rest of us in that community, why did you bother us for a license, Cheezy?

More interdependent than ever before, yet more disposed to solipsism.

You and the little lady made a great point of positioning yourselves to receive these blessings.

What are these blessings? You've been stating that married people want shit from you all thread. What do we want?

If it means nothing to the rest of us in that community, why did you bother us for a license, Cheezy

Cause it was a one-stop shop for creating the framework for where our lives were going. One cheap license vs. an expensive thousands on contract law. And it made the parents happy. And gave us an excuse to throw a great party. C'mon dude. I'm a pragmatist - I play things as they are.

I think I'm with a woman who can be a real partner in life. It's a tall order. But your feelings and the legal stuff are entirely incidental to our success or failure. Whether we succeed or fail is pretty much on us. As it should be.

In your state, maybe.

Unless San Fran and LA are different states, I think we're in the same boat. The math is the same. Add incomes, subtract deductions. There's no extra special marriage benefit in income tax. If one person doesn't earn much, it helps because you can shift brackets down when things are aggregated, but that isn't the case in most modern 2-income families.

> creating the framework for where
> our lives were going

"Creating the Framework" is a magazine yet to appear at my local newsstand (under the blue awning). "Modern Bride" they got, though... To the left, just north of the scuba magazines.

How come you crazy kids couldn't create a framework on your own? I mean...

> But your feelings and the legal
> stuff are entirely incidental
> to our success or failure.

....Something compelled you get our Seal of Approval. If it was Mom & Dad, maybe you're not the the tree-swinging Tarzan described above, and you never were. And as an investor, maybe I should get to say a few things about how your marriage should work.

> Unless San Fran and LA are
> different states

We've often thought about it....

....Something compelled you get our Seal of Approval

Nah, not yours. Though it was even more crazy - we picked a state that flies the Stars and Bars! As you apparently neglected to notice - I said I'm a pragmatist. Why spend a bunch of money when a deal that met how we wanted to live was right there?

If it was Mom & Dad

Now, a conservative is going to freak out cause we don't disregard our parents? Hah!

See the pragmatist comment above. If I can get what I want and make the parents happy, I think win-win, not sell out. Maybe your generation thinks otherwise.

We've often thought about it....

I'm sure we'd take you up on it. Though I'd be bummed, I love LA and had some of the best times of my life there. Never understood why the Birkenstock-wearers hate it so. But they're annoying, so whatever.

> Nah, not yours.

And yet I paid the taxes to make it happen, and might yet pay for the courts to split you up (no small probability, as statisticians are sad to note.)

> I said I'm a pragmatist. Why
> spend a bunch of money

Counting on others to carry the load for you, or just spend money on you needlessly, is not pragmatism.

> a conservative is going to
> freak out

Lifelong registered Democrat, Babe.

> so whatever.

Tarzan –and Thoreau for that matter– never said "whatever." You can look it up! I want you kids to get divorced and take it from the top... To demonstrate sincerity. Pops will understand... You're a grown man now... Right?

And yet I paid the taxes to make it happen

You pay taxes in the Carolinas? (Stars and Bars, my historically ignorant Crid, Stars and Bars). And our fee - I'm certain - has so far exceeded whatever paper-filing expenses we cost.

Counting on others to carry the load for you, or just spend money on you needlessly, is not pragmatism.

Yeah, that's what those of us who earn good money and pay our taxes every year do, count on others to carry the load for us. Allow me to refer back to my previous statement regarding your tendency to be a douche.

Lifelong registered Democrat, Babe.

How many times did you vote for GWB? 0? 1? 2? Registration means squat. You probably like to say, "I'm a lifelong Democrat who voted for XXXX Republican" just to get the LA liberals worked up. That's been done, though. Kaus has that patented - you just can't beat him showing up to cocktail parties with Coulter.

Thoreau for that matter– never said "whatever."

His job was being eloquent. I should hope not!

I wasn't trying to do that, though. I was expressing my dismissive disregard for some people, in this case, Birkenstock-wearing Bay Area hippies. I think I succeeded at that.

I want you kids to get divorced

Nice work. I want you kids to get divorced. Quality writing, like wishing someone in a debate with you to die of heart disease. Or perhaps, like your fellow traveler, Mark Levin, you wish my wife to blow her brains out. Just aces, all the way around, dude.

I met a man, a very rich Saudi, whose father had had... I think it was 42 wives. Of course, they are allowed 4 at a time, but still, that wasn't enough. Tribal people would send him their young daughters, he'd divorce one of his young wives to marry her, and then when he was done with her and then next young bride came among he'd ditch her.

I guess when I read comments sections like this, I worry a bit about it. C4y has a point with the Mr. Big stuff. I don't want to end up in a system like Saudi Arabia, where rich people can get away with just about anything. I know there is a tendency on this board to say "let rich people do whatever they want with their money", but this is troubling.

I'm sorry, I don't think we should have a system like the Saudis where you can just have someone and ditch them for your amusement. I don't think people are thinking through the possible consequences.

> like wishing someone in a debate
> with you to die of heart disease

Golly, I thought it meant nothing to you... You'd just said it was merely a gesture for the in-laws or something. Turns out it's serious as a heart attack.

My approval of your union means the world to you. Idinnat sumpin'? Whooda thunkit?

PS- Who's Marc Levin?

To the guys talking about loopholes in pre-nups.
You can probably find a loophole in your standard business contracts. Does that mean you want to enter into a partnership or contract without one?

I don't think so. It should cover what is written in it.

Ask your average American ex-husband Dad if they would want a pre-nup now that they are divorced.
Many lose their house, kids and a great percentage of their income, and it doesn't matter if they were faithful good husbands and fathers or not.

Give me a BINDING pre-nup and let some lawyer see if he can find a loophole. I would rather be protected by something in writing rather than a judges discretion.

My approval of your union means the world to you.

Not so. I just think wishing people ill because they disagree with you is pretty classless.

You need to think about it some more. See "Tarzan", above.
No, you need to provide actual examples of the public interest in marriage. You're the one arguing that they're there, so it really shouldn't be that hard. If you can't cite them, maybe it's because they don't exist.

I guess when I read comments sections like this, I worry a bit about it. C4y has a point with the Mr. Big stuff.
I actually chuckled when I read c4y's comment because I thought it was so naive. The rich and powerful are going to do what they want regardless. I think the best we can do is strive for a system that rewards merit and therefore limits how rich and powerful people become. The Saudis are even farther from that than we are; hence the huge disparities. You are looking to limit the power of the rich and powerful by ceding power to the government. There's no better way to increase that very wealth and power.

If there are negotiated and enforceable consequences, is it really "free" association? (Conan the Idiotarian)

This is the dumbest thing I've read here in a while. Think about the difference between freely negotiated contracts and government mandated contracts. Scheduled payments for services vs. taxation. Just think about it.

With my wife, however, there are a few implications beyond just keeping the bills current and the house in good repair. My emotions and hers play into the relationship. My goals and life plans (and hers) play into the relationship [...] My wife, on the other hand, has a pretty strong interest if I decide to quit my job and spend the next year following the Dead. (Conan the Grammarian)

OK. So, how does the government mandated contract protect those interest better than private agreements?

Private contract would protect those interests. Here's an example. (Note: I would never marry under the contract I write of here.) The Catholic Church makes marriage out to be lots of things beyond economic calculation. The Church would be free to writes its own contract, with all the terms agreeable at Canon Law. They would be free to marry only under that contract. Moreover, contracts can specify primary jurisdiction. The Church courts would have authority to resolve disputes under the marriage contract applying all the "strong interests" which concern you.

On the other hand, the atheist gay lady down the street can marry under her own terms.

Everyone would get what they want, but they'd have to be responsible for abiding by the terms of their agreement.

Again, I think it's informative to examine why someone would oppose freely negotiated and enforceable contract provisions in marriage. The "strong interests" that Conan wants to protect can be protected by contract law. But Conan and others don't want to do that.

So, why?

I actually chuckled when I read c4y's comment because I thought it was so naive. The rich and powerful are going to do what they want regardless. (Shawn)

I chuckled, too. The rich and powerful tend to be able to get government to do what they want. When we have a government mandated marriage contract, its terms are subject to political influence. That political influence will always favor the rich and powerful.

It's a s though crid, Conan and others live in an alternate universe in which divorce courts don't have wasteful legal battles with expensive lawyers. Freedom to contract evolved in common law precisely to allow the weak to get more equal terms at law with the powerful.

The best protection against the political and social power of elites is --- individual freedom --- ta da!

What if the rich and powerful could not set the terms of the marriage contract? If I cannot be coerced into a contract, but can determine for myself the terms under which I will marry, then I have the ultimate power against undue influence.

It's as though Jeff lives in an alternate universe in which human emotions don't play a part in marriage and it can all be reduced to a quick trip down to the lawyer's office to sign or dissolve a contract...with any and all disputes quickly settled by a judge or mediator.

The reason divorce courts "have wasteful legal battles with expensive lawyers" is because human beings invest so much more emotionally and psychologically in a marriage than they do in a contract.

You may want to hurt the car dealer who fails to live up to his end of the purchase contract, but you generally don't spend thousands of dollars over and above the financial investment, get restraining orders, make domestic violence claims, sue for custody of his children, etc. In other words, your emotional involvement in a contract is limited. Not so in a marriage.

You've also probably never seen him naked, poured your heart out to him, showed him your innermost vulnerabilities, envisioned growing old with him, had knock-down screaming matches with him over the color of the couch, had children with him, etc.

It would be wonderful world if we could just decide we're married to the ones we love, sign a contract...and, if necessary, quietly dissolve the contract when we are no longer in love.

Unfortunately for that vision, human beings are irrational - and probably never more so than when getting married or divorced.

I think that the privatization of marriage contracts is a great idea. Take a walk with me down the path of imagination.

Couple A wants to get married and sees the advantages of the emotional and legal commitment, however they are both clear on the fact that they are able to support themselves and neither desires children. This couple could codify their desire to keep finances separate, (each taking their own possessions at the end of a marriage) and the fact that neither wants children as well as the results if either has a change of heart. No one could say that they weren't clear on the terms of the marriage in advance, and a man who got 'oopsed' would be able to point to the contract for enforceable actions.

Couple B belongs to a religion that believes in polygamy. Their contract could specify how many additional wives can be brought in, who gets to pick them, and under what conditions children would be born into the marriage.

Both members of Couple C have children from a previous relationship. Their contract can address how those children will be treated financially, who can punish or discipline the kids, and if more children are in the future. It can also deal with inheritance of heirlooms and making sure that step-parents can't keep the kids from an ill parent.

Couple D is just a regular, madly in love, young couple with no money. They are two men. Their contract could deal with how (or if) they will bring children into the relationship and how their individual careers will be addressed in child care.

Have I made my point? A one size fits all contract doesn't serve the best interest of the populace, and is much more paternalistic than necessary. Why is there so much resistance to this idea? I think it is kinda cool and wish it had been around when my husband and I got married. We probably would have made things 'legal' years earlier.

-Julie

On the other hand, the atheist gay lady down the street can marry under her own terms.

I don't have a problem with the atheist gay lady down the street getting married. But to think she'll do it on her own terms is naive. What about her partner's terms? What about when the partner no longer wants to fulfill one of those terms? What about when she no longer wants to fufill one of those terms? Marriage cannot be reduced to only a contract.

Everyone would get what they want, but they'd have to be responsible for abiding by the terms of their agreement.

And what would be the terms of those agreements?

I've negotiated a fair share of contracts (beyond personal leases and purchases). Contracts are detailed to avoid misunderstandings and eliminate ambiguities.

Marriages are full of ambiguities...and compromises made on the fly.

If she has a headache on Saturday and the contract calls for canoodling at least twice a week (the week defined as Sun-Sat) and they've only canoodled once this week, is she in violation of the marriage contract if she doesn't put out?

If she goes back to school and can no longer cook dinner on Wednesdays (as called for in the contract) and he agrees to cook dinner on Wednesdays, do they go back to the lawyer's office and amend the contract? Or does he use her failure to make dinner on Wednesdays to argue breach of contract later when they've decided to split up?

If he gains weight or loses his hair...?

If she decides to join a church...?

Julie, I agree it sounds wonderful. But...

Couple A: He is diagnosed with a horrible disease and uses all of his savings to pay medical bills. Fortunately, her money is protected against his bankruptcy. They retire. She, tired of having to pay all the bills and frustrated that he doesn't have enough money to travel like they planned, divorces him. Without money or resources, he is left homeless. She jets off to Paris.

Couple B: He divorces his contractually-allowed five wives. He does not make enough to pay alimony and child support to all five ex-wives, so they are forced to go on welfare.

Couple D: The contract calls for both of them to continue to work after they adopt a child. First man is on a career track. Second man suffers a career setback, spends time at home with child while looking for a job, and discovers he likes being home with the child and is a pretty good housekeeper. The child responds positively to having a parent around. Second man wants to stay home. First man points to the contract and threatens a lawsuit.

The ambiguities built into the existing "social contract" that is marriage allow for changes and adaptations on the fly. A legal contract rarely does.

While the current system is not perfect (gays are shut out, the divorce rate is >50%), it is more flexible than a contract would be.

> wishing people ill because they
> disagree with you is pretty
> classless.

Nobody wishes you ill; I didn't deprecate your fondness for each other. Your precious "framework" is your own beeswax: Out topic is marriages, not unions. I'm confident you two will be all kissy-cuddly every day of your lives no matter what, married or not... 'Cause it's all in the heart, right? This ain't about you, it's about the rest of us.

You say marriage is something you didn't do to involve the larger community in your lives. I think you ought to have the balls and the sincerity to prove it. Turns out you don't. But if this certification from the community is something you're going to mock, then we'd like it back... Turns out there are others who want it pretty badly.

You're right about one thing, though: On a planet where decency is paramount, life's too short to worry about "class".

> provide actual examples of the
> public interest in marriage. ...

I shouldn't need to. But your Tarzan fantasy is too advanced: You think you grew your own vines for swinging, too. Tell you what, start here and read everything that follows up to today. Kthxbye.

> why someone would oppose freely
> negotiated and enforceable
> contract provisions in
> marriage.

The question's too mundane to answer in detail. But if you reread this comment stack, all your questions were answered anyway.

The ambiguities built into the existing "social contract" that is marriage allow for changes and adaptations on the fly. A legal contract rarely does.

I suspect that all of the problems that you mentioned above exist with and cause problems to currently married people, but they don't have any legal backing or proof.

However, as means of debate, what if we simplified the idea of 'marriage'. What if any two adults could designate themselves as married as long as they registered it with the county clerk, much like a business license? If your name showed up as someone already married, then you need to get permission from your existing spouse or get a divorce (we can address divorce reform later :-) ) That would allow for anyone who is an adult to marry without legal restrictions or governmental paternalism, but would allow for the continuation of existing social constructs.

-Julie

> What if any two adults could
> designate themselves as married

Including me and my little sister?

Jus' checkin'.

Including me and my little sister?

If you are both adults, why should I care? My first thought is 'Ewww Icky!', but I'm not you!

-Julie

I suspect that all of the problems that you mentioned above exist with and cause problems to currently married people....

I'd bet on it. But a "marriage" isn't automatically breached with a disagreement or a change in performance. A contract is.

What if any two adults could designate themselves as married as long as they registered it with the county clerk, much like a business license?

That's pretty much what it is today. My wife and I went down the courthouse and filled out a form. There was a ceremony and exchange of vows in front of a state-designated adjudicator before it became "official."

That means you haven't significantly changed the current process - unless you want to eliminate the automatic bestowal of certain benefits and privileges that accompany marriage and reside at the heart of a legally-accepted marriage (medical power of attorney, joint tax filing, community property, etc.).

And you'll probably need to address the dissolution process sooner rather than later - as the difficulty of extricating oneself from a marriage gets to the core of the problems that many people have with the current marriage definition.

I shouldn't need to. But your Tarzan fantasy is too advanced: You think you grew your own vines for swinging, too. Tell you what, start here and read everything that follows up to today. Kthxbye.
I'm not sure if this is projection or just "baffle 'em with bullshit" flailing, but I don't have a Tarzan fantasy. It's an interesting idea that you don't need evidence for your position. Did the Jesuits teach you that? They are the experts at appearing to argue well without ever saying anything substantive. You seem to have learned their lessons well. I wish more people would learn Dawkins' lesson well, though.

Which one's Jason?

That means you haven't significantly changed the current process

Actually, I'm talking about removing all governmental restrictions, other than the one that requires a person be an adult. No blood tests, not questions about your relationship to the person, no waiting periods, no interventionism other than to ensure that if you are practicing bigamy, that all parties are aware (otherwise it is fraud). The general purpose of governmental registration of marriage is to be able to prove that you have decided to create a single legal entity.

By pairing down the legal construct, that would allow either pre-nuptual agreements to fill the void, or completely allow social restrictions to march forward, depending upon your choice. That is very different from the current environment.

-Julie

Actually, I'm talking about removing all governmental restrictions, other than the one that requires a person be an adult. No blood tests, not questions about your relationship to the person, no waiting periods....

I believe most of those have been done away with already.

...not questions about your relationship to the person....

I'd like to keep that one. I'm just not ready for societally-sanctioned incest.

The general purpose of governmental registration of marriage is to be able to prove that you have decided to create a single legal entity.

If you're interested in not doing that, why bother with marriage?

Sorry, still getting used to using the block quote tag.

No blood tests, not questions about your relationship to the person, no waiting periods....

I believe most of those have been done away with already.

Actually, no. I can only truly speak for Texas, but in Texas you have to prove that you aren't currently married, show that you are of opposite sex, sign affidavits that you aren't cousins, get a marriage license, wait a minimum of 3 or 4 days (I can't remember which). Go through the ceremony, have a third party complete the paperwork, send it back....then you are married.

The general purpose of governmental registration of marriage is to be able to prove that you have decided to create a single legal entity.

If you're interested in not doing that, why bother with marriage?

Actually, that is the only reason why I believe marriage should be governmentally registered. It is the creation of one tax entity from two that allows for inheritance rights as well as power of attorney (medical and money)privileges.

This is the thing...either you believe that marriage is a contract, at which point people should have the ability to define the contract he/she is agreeing to that is registered and enforced with the government, or you believe that it is a social construct, at which point the government shouldn't be allowed to define who can and cannot get married (as long as they are of the age of consent and no fraud takes place).

> My first thought is 'Ewww Icky!'

If that's all the interest you think we have in each other's conduct, then I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the topic.

> an interesting idea that you
> don't need evidence

You didn't do the reading assignment, did you? In any case, as you're the one petitioning for change, you're the one with the demonstrative burden. Are you married? Are your parents and grandparents married? Have you told them they needn't have bothered? The case is yours to make.

> This is actually an idea I came up
> with some time ago. I think you
> should be able to...

Yes yes, sure, just like McElroy thinks any imaginable union should be sanctified.

You guys are all just spitting out these teenage daydreams... These aren't thoughtful appraisals of human nature. You have absolutely no humility about how your own interests –or anyone's enthusiasms– might need to be attenuated so that civilization can keep keep moving. You're not for real.

You're not for real. It's like how bitter women try to get government to fulfill all the personal masculine services in their lives, things that a real man would do for them if they could interest one in staying around— Protection of household, payments for children, etc.... They'll say, It's all just *stuff*, right? It's nothing personal. As long as the kid gets braces, what difference does it make if they were paid for lovingly by a man in the house or from a distant taxpayer whose money was taken at gunpoint?

You're all children of divorce, or your best friends in childhood were children of divorce. And so you move through life mumbling these wackazoid reveries about how you have no connection to anyone and no one has any connection to you. But that's OK!, you sniff, like a new kid at school who's just been whipped by a popular bully, I don't need to be connected with these people anyway! Things are just fine!!

It's a few years later, you're taller and pretending not to be bitter anymore, and your cunning fantasy is well advanced: I know now that I don't need anyone! Nobody has anything I need that I can't get by paying for it!* If I need a contract with the most intimate partner in my life to last for seven decades, then any street lawyer ought to be able to knock it out longhand on one of those tall yellow tablets! And because I'm so pissed off about being hurt earlier, I'm going to pretend there's no other wisdom required. Because I'm logical, like Mr. Ears on Star Trek! I took a science class once! Gotta B+....!

You guys are so full of shit....

* see Houellebecq comment above, June 4, 9:54am

...it is a social construct, at which point the government shouldn't be allowed to define who can and cannot get married....

The problem there is that a "social" construct requires a social. That's what the government's there to represent (not necessarily every viewpoint, but at least the majority one).

> The problem there is that a "social"
> construct requires a social.

Conan so very, very, very gets this. Just scanning that comment, there was something evasive and silly about the phrase "social construct", and Conan went and took it apart.

The problem there is that a "social" construct requires a social. That's what the government's there to represent

Ah, I knew that eventually if we massaged the topic long enough we would come to the crux of our disagreement. The government should (IMNSHO)only serve the functions that individuals cannot. The definition of marriage is different for each of us, depending upon history, tradition, beliefs, or personal needs. Why should the government get to decide what adults marry, for how long, and under what conditions?

The government shouldn't 'look out for our best interests', but should serve us as any other hired hand. Creating a third party record of voluntary marriage is something that is needed for further benefit. However, deciding if two adults are allowed to marry and under what conditions is not.

> Why should the government get to
> decide what adults marry, for how
> long, and under what conditions?

Because today's civilization is the distillation and hard-won genius of millenia of experimentation and conflict and study.

Don't make it sound so whimsical, like a clerk in an obscure office wrote a memo.

My first thought is 'Ewww Icky!'

If that's all the interest you think we have in each other's conduct, then I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the topic.

Frankly if you aren't doing harm to me or to anyone else, and you are both there voluntarily, that is more interest than I have a right to show in your personal life.

Define for me the magnitude of the topic without the name calling and other bullshit. What justifies you defining who I can and cannot fuck and who I can and cannot marry? Why should the government be allowed to define actions between consensual adults?

Oh and Crid...you are projecting feelings, beliefs and emotions on the rest of us that aren't justified or validated by anything. If you want to debate this further with me, quit writing as if you have any ability to psychoanalyze me or anyone else here based upon blog comments.

Because today's civilization is the distillation and hard-won genius of millenia of experimentation and conflict and study.

Tradition doesn't make something intelligent or right. If tradition made things right, we wouldn't be sitting on computers creating 1s and 0s in cyberspace. What makes our sociey's current definition of marriage something valuable beyond tradition? What is the hard won value in restricting adults ability to make crucial decisions on their own and in their own best interest?

It's as though Jeff lives in an alternate universe in which human emotions don't play a part in marriage and it can all be reduced to a quick trip down to the lawyer's office to sign or dissolve a contract...with any and all disputes quickly settled by a judge or mediator. (Conan the Grammarian)

Oh, no. I don't think private contract disputes are any less messy to resolve than government contract disputes. The benefit of a private contract is the the terms of marriage can be determined by the parties. The enforcement mechanism is still the courts, for all proposals on the table, including the status quo.

So, while you are making things up about my claims. I'm accurately describing your inattention to facts in current system. In other words, you're doing that straw man bullshit.

The reason divorce courts "have wasteful legal battles with expensive lawyers" is because human beings invest so much more emotionally and psychologically in a marriage than they do in a contract. (Conan the Grammarian)

Nope. Lots of other contractual disputes endure the same wasteful process.

You may want to hurt the car dealer who fails to live up to his end of the purchase contract, but you generally don't spend thousands of dollars over and above the financial investment, get restraining orders, make domestic violence claims, sue for custody of his children, etc. In other words, your emotional involvement in a contract is limited. Not so in a marriage. (Conan the Grammarian)

Nope. Ask any tort lawyer. People sue to punish, humiliate, and for lots of other personal, emotional reasons.

You've also probably never seen him naked, poured your heart out to him, showed him your innermost vulnerabilities, envisioned growing old with him, had knock-down screaming matches with him over the color of the couch, had children with him, etc. (Conan the Grammarian)

Probably not. But that's not the essential character of the disputes. But even under the current system, the identical method of dispute resolution is used: the courts. It's just the n one case,you got to negotiate the terms of the contract, but in marriage you don't.

This is your error. We're not arguing over how contract vs. marriage disputes are adjudicated. They are dealt with in the same way, a judicial process under the law. We are arguing over whether individual should be allowed to set the terms of the agreement at law. You're doing the straw man and non sequitur all at the same time.

It would be wonderful world if we could just decide we're married to the ones we love, sign a contract...and, if necessary, quietly dissolve the contract when we are no longer in love. (Conan the Grammarian)

Why shouldn't people be allowed to set the terms of dissolution, just as in a normal contract? Why is state control over the terms a better solution? Why do human emotions preclude the ability to determine the boundaries of a marriage relationship?

You can pout on about emotions, but the tendency for humans to get emotional is the precise reason for contracts in the first place. Courts provide a place for people to resolve disputes in a non-violent way. Your arguments from human emotion and irrationality are vacuous at the outset.

Because today's civilization is the distillation and hard-won genius of millenia of experimentation and conflict and study. Don't make it sound so whimsical, like a clerk in an obscure office wrote a memo. (crid)

Finally someone gives a real argument instead of vapid emotionalizing.

This is a good argument against privatizing marriage --- if and only if "millenia of experimentation and conflict and study" is what brought us modern marriage.

It didn't. The state didn't license or regulate marriage until the late 19th century. It was a private, largely religious, affair. Congress passed the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act in 1923. Prior to that, marriage was largely unregulated except for the disposition of children in which the state has a clear interest. So, for most of this "millenia of experimentation and conflict and study" marriage has been a private affair. then government got involved and forcibly established for everyone that marriage is a no-fault contract.

Later, birth control changed everything very suddenly. It's not going back to the way it was.

I don't think you can claim the mantle of tradition for government controlled marriage contracts. But I think I can claim that mantle for largely private contracts, with due care for the state interest in the welfare of children.

We're not arguing over how contract vs. marriage disputes are adjudicated. They are dealt with in the same way, a judicial process under the law. We are arguing over whether individual should be allowed to set the terms of the agreement at law.

Thank you Jeff. You were able to phrase this much better than I am capable today. :-)

-Julie

> Why should the government be
> allowed to define actions
> between consensual adults?

Because there are consequences for others.

> you are projecting feelings,
> beliefs and emotions

I only work with what you give me, and you've provided a wealth of resources.

> Tradition doesn't make something
> intelligent or right.

I didn't say tradition made things right. I said today's civilization is the distillation and hard-won genius of millenia of experimentation and conflict and study. Impulse and petulence don't make things intelligent or right, either.

> What is the hard won value in
> restricting adults ability to
> make crucial decisions on their
> own and in their own best
> interest?

The recognition that these decisions have effects on others.

> The benefit of a private contract
> is the the terms of marriage
> can be determined by the parties.

Did we cover this? Yes! Society gets to make all sorts of specifications about what's permissible in a contract. The fact that something's in a contract doesn't mean you can put whatever you want in it.

I actually disagree with Conan about this part...

> It would be wonderful world if
> we could just decide we're
> married to the ones we love,
> sign a contract...and, if
> necessary, quietly dissolve the
> contract when we are no longer
> in love.

...Because I think he left out all the other things that would have to be be "quietly dissolved" before things were "wonderful".... The kids, the promises of mutual support for a lifetime, the often disproportionate support given by one partner to another in early days, the shared ownership of property, etc. Y'know, things that involved other people.

Jeff kinda gets this, but still wants to badly to pretend it's a paperwork problem:

> The state didn't license or
> regulate marriage until the late
> 19th century.

But the community did. When spouses misbehaved, there were consequences.

But even under the current system, the identical method of dispute resolution is used: the courts.

But not the same courts!

Family law disputes and contract disuptes are handled in different courts. Because they are different animals. Pretending one can be grafted on top of the other is naive.

You can prattle on about the courts being legal rememdies for dispute resolution all you want (they are) - a marriage simply is different than any other contract and always will be.

You're trying to pretend that two people can sit down and hammer out the terms of a lifelong commitment to each other, including dissolution should it come to that, as if they were buying a car.

Broad generalities are the best that can be agreed to - and that's not a contract.

"I agree to love you, not cheat on you, and treat you with respect...and if we divorce, I get the dining room table and you get the crystal" is not the same as "payment is due on the 3rd of every month with a 2% penalty if payment is not received by the 10th of every month."

I'm accurately describing your inattention to facts in current system.

No, you're not. You're treating your viewpoint as established fact and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of ignoring that "fact."

Why shouldn't people be allowed to set the terms of dissolution, just as in a normal contract?

I agree - that's why I said it would be wonderful.

It just doesn't work that way. I wish it did.

A contract can only be dissolved if both parties agree to dissolve it or if one party proves that the other party breached the contract.

A divorce only requires one party to want out - and neither party is required to provide services or live up to the contract during the dispute resolution process.

It's the argument that people can set the terms of a marriage beforehand and stick to the terms in a divorce that I find naive.

You say marriage is something you didn't do to involve the larger community in your lives. I think you ought to have the balls and the sincerity to prove it. Turns out you don't. But if this certification from the community is something you're going to mock, then we'd like it back...

Yes, still hold that marriage is primarily a private business. And that sane people don't enter into it to get things from other people. I have no idea what would constitute "proof" of that.

I don't know where you get mockery of marriage in anything I wrote, but you seem to specialize in misinterpretation of others' comments when twisting them helps you make whatever point you are harping on.

Turns out there are others who want it pretty badly.\

And we know how you feel about extending the rights of marriage to any others!

> You can prattle on about the courts
> being legal rememdies for dispute
> resolution all you want (they are)
> - a marriage simply is different
> than any other contract and
> always will be.

Nothing to add, it just looks pretty.

> I have no idea what would
> constitute "proof" of that.

Well, y'know, not putting your names on the list for the blessings that come with a certificate that means nothing to you.

> And we know how you feel about
> extending the rights of marriage
> to any others!

Exactly. Marriage is special: When properly executed –and only when properly executed– everyone benefits.

You're learning! This is great!

In any case, as you're the one petitioning for change, you're the one with the demonstrative burden.
If you're talking about providing examples of people who would benefit from the change, the original article did that. If you're talking about proving that the public has no interest in marriage, I'd say that's probably impossible . There could always be an example I haven't thought of. It doesn't follow that there is a public interest in marriage or that we should assume that there is one based on no evidence.

Because today's civilization is the distillation and hard-won genius of millenia of experimentation and conflict and study. Don't make it sound so whimsical, like a clerk in an obscure office wrote a memo.
I knew this was the real reason for your opinion - you are, after all, a traditionalist, but for some reason I don't understand you have a hard time admitting it. It seems to me that Jeff did a pretty good job dismantling this argument in this specific case. More generally I wonder when you think new ideas are worth trying. How do you decide? Intuition?

Cui bono.

Sorry. Iphone doesn't do copy and paste, so you'll just have to do some inferring. But what could possibly give you the impression that marriage means nothing to me?

You're "a pragmatist", remember?

"Tradition doesn't make something intelligent or right."

But you do have to consider carefully why that tradition exists before tossing it aside. The reason why is best summed up by Chesteron's analogy to the gate:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion."

Traditions are gates. Remove them only when you know the reasons why people needed them, and after concluding that the gates no longer serve that useful purpose or any other reasonable purpose.

It took a lot of patience to right that, Spartee, thanks for the effort.

One last quibble. Sometimes a

Who am I kidding? There will be more quibbles later.

Sometimes a tradition is a sluice more than a gate, conducting something to a preferred destination at higher speed. One reason –in fact, the main reason– that commenters on this blog are so eager to mock tradition (and to inappropriately accuse me of favoring it) is that they want to think the problem is that people are too eager to slow things down, while their own twitches are the stuff of unbounded genius: We can do whatever we want! There are no boundaries! No human being had ever received total consciousness until the hour of our birth! Our compassion is faultless, and nothing can go wrong...!