Pretty much any place where I posted my suggestion to privatize marriage I got shit thrown at me. All I can figure is that it's way more important for a whole whack of folks to 'be accepted' than to simply get on with living.

Seems to me: any means by which a person can 'do' sumthin' with a minimal of interference (and assistance) from others is a good thing, but I guess that puts me in the minority.

*shrug*

I don't think anybody here threw shit at you. Maybe in those other forums. Serves you right for cheating on us. ;)

The problem is man/woman marriage... and Christianity... were the accepted norm for so long, tons of laws were written around that given. Therefore we have an entangled legal code which would be impossible to change, so obviously the best solution is to change who can marry and become part of the system. You'd have to designate which is the "wife" though, who's going to give up their social security benefits, tax breaks, etc. ;)

It's a very deep and complicated matter, and simply framing it that way is inaccurate, unfair, and a tad bigoted.

glatt: I don't think anybody here threw shit at you

Undertoad: a tad bigoted

'nuff said.

#

"It's a very deep and complicated matter"

No. It's very simple. Two folks love one another and want to give to one another certain exclusive privileges.

It's made 'deep and complicated' by other folks wanting to stick, and keep, a finger in the pie.

Again,

Once A and B sign a contract under the law, they are applying the force of law, which in a representative government, is all of us.

What A and B like they can agree to, but that's temporary. In order to make it binding they will have to involve the lot.

Again: government's role (in the idiosyncratic marriage contract) is simply as arbiter of contract dispute (not as licenser or sanctioner or promoter).

If there is no dispute then government is not needed.

You are underestimating what it requires to arbitrate a contract. It isn't very long before a system identical to the one we have would evolve. Imagine the year 1965:

Arbiter: "I am the appointed judge for this county and I find that this marital contract is not valid because it was made by two men."

Voters: "Yay we like Arbiter and re-elect him judge."

Hank: "But the marital contract is merely a financial instrument involving a small amount of voluntary servitude."

Voters: "That guy must be a faggot."

You already pulled the 'you are underestimating what it requires to arbitrate a contract' card.

*shrug*

No matter how burdensome the arbitration process is (look at divorce now for your sample), the government, under my scheme still would not license, sanction, or promote marriage, so, voters would not get a say (any more than they get now in any contract) and judges would only arbitrate the disputed contract (as they do now for many contracts).

Your little scenario is more akin to the current circumstance than anything that might spring from my scheme coming to be.

Your scheme cannot come to be because arbitration IS licensing and sanctioning.

I suggest you read the definition of arbitration.

You'll see this "arbitration IS licensing and sanctioning" is wrong.

As for my scheme coming to be?

I have no expectations that it will be implemented in my lifetime.

Can't see why that has any bearing on the conversation/debate.

The definition of the word arbitration has almost nothing to do with how people behave, when given the duty of arbitrator.

I say they will act as licensors and sanctioning bodies when given the duty of arbitrators.

A representative government given the job of "simply arbitrating" will inevitably not simply arbitrate, as if by some dictionary definition. It can't. It must reflect the values of the voters.

This is true even if the voters are wrong.

And I say even if arbitration should come to involve a measure of 'licensing and sanctioning' (though you haven’t really evidenced why that should be) all of it will still come at the unhappy end of a marriage contract and only if -- in fact -- the marriage contract is to be dissolved.

Again: if Joe and Jane, or, Joe and Jack, or, Jane and Jackie are making successful runs of their lives together, government (as arbiter and as big stick of 'the people') is not needed.

That was this:

Arbiter: "I am the appointed judge for this county and I find that this marital contract is not valid because it was made by two men."

Voters: "Yay we like Arbiter and re-elect him judge."

...or it could be anything else:

Arbiter: "I am the appointed judge for this county and I find that this marital contract is valid even though it is between a 40-year-old man and a 9-year-old girl."

Voters: "Our outrage is now on all media. We are storming the courthouse with tar and feathers unless Arbiter resigns."

In a representative government, the voters will create pressure to make the arbitration work according to the community standards.

Hence no need for the contract part? But if you need a contract, it's not worth anything unless the law fully recognizes it.

This happens all the time in real life. Let's say you have a pre-nuptial contract with your spouse, and it is a written agreement that you both have signed, but it's not witnessed and/or notarized. Well, you may feel free to divorce your spouse with no consideration of that piece of paper, because that contract will not be recognized. You don't even have to go to arbitration. Your spouse's lawyer will look at it and say, sorry, none of this applies.