Why get married before the state?

[Aphex_Twin]

The generally accepted definition for marriage is:

"A partenership between two people, for the purpose of raising a family"

Now, given the fact that the conditions of this arrangement can be established perfectly well via a well-crafted legal contract, why do so many people flock to get their recognition in front of a civil servant? It just seems that such an important affair ought not be subjected to such volatile political waters.

For instance, wouldn't it be easier to determine, in advance, conditions such as: what is commonly owned, what are the responsibilities of the parties, what are the conditions for divorce, how to handle the custody of children, or how to raise them. Of course, it has to be about love, but given that the relationship is long-lasting and affects so much of the lives of the parties involved (including the children themselves, if they are born), then some caution should, in principle, be taken.

Or simply, should the institution of the prenuptial agreement be expanded to wholy replace the idea of marriage before the state?

Not only is my proposed solution safer, it's also much more flexible. If you want gay marriage, it's only a contract away. You want polygamy, polyandry, polyginy, polyamoury, hippie commune village... everything is possible, and voluntary.

What do you think?

 

[The Last Conformist]

The neat thing with state-sanctioned marriage is that it's a standard form that's good enough for most people, and doesn't require you to handle all the legal niceties yourself.


Oh, and legal contracts are only as good as the state enforcing them, so your way wouldn't remove any of the "political volatility".

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The neat thing with state-sanctioned marriage is that it's a standard form that's good enough for most people, and doesn't require you to handle all the legal niceties yourself.


Oh, and legal contracts are only as good as the state enforcing them, so your way wouldn't remove any of the "political volatility".

There's nothing that is stopping any law firm or organisation from mass-producing private marriage contracts. It could actually be a lucrative line of business. It's also not "good enough" when say: a husband loses custody of his children and then has to pay 60% of his income to his wife for the remainder of his working life. Or for a wife that no longer loves her husband, but has to stay married to him because it takes both of them to agree to conclude a divorce.

And generally speaking, a state that does not enforce contracts would not be called civilised, nor legitimate by contemporary standards.

 

[punkbass2000]

I'm not married, but I think that legally I would be bound to the laws of marriage anyway.

 

[spankey]

To answer the thread's question--because that is the only way that one can choose to get married (throwing common law and a multitude of years out).
The individual states (in the US) license marriages. Generally speaking, marriages sanctioned in one state are recognized as valid in another.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

given the fact that the conditions of this arrangement can be established perfectly well via a well-crafted legal contract

No, they all can't. For example, SS survivor benefits.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Generally speaking, marriages sanctioned in one state are recognized as valid in another.

Not always the case with my state!

 

[mitsho]

Now you want to privatize marriage? What is next, taxes?

m