Marriage myth 4: You get better legal and financial benefits<\/strong><\/p>\nThere’s no denying this as perhaps the best of the terrible reasons for marriage. Married couples get certain legal and economic benefits we otherwise can’t get. The 1,138 benefits in the US alone are noteworthy, as many are all over the world. Social security, property, visitation rights, travel benefits and tax breaks. It’s an express option on tax filing, health and travel (not exactly romantic. The Book of Common Prayer should read: “Till taxes do us part”.)<\/p>\n
Any marriage solely for tax benefits needs help. It doesn’t tell us anything about the relationship itself, save that the couple want benefits from the state. It’s not that much different from the infamous “green card” scenarios, where citizenship is obtained or a visa extended due to marrying a local. But this, too, undermines what many think marriage is \u2013 or should be.<\/p>\n
Further, we should question why only one kind of relationship is recognised: namely the monogamous kind. Monogamy should be an option, not mandatory, on any level \u2013 let alone the legal and financial.<\/p>\n
You could argue that the state needs some way to recognise stability. If marriage is the only way, then perhaps the state and I can nod and wink as we pass each other our papers for our mutual benefit. Similarly, this assumes the state should be involved in marriage at all, which itself requires serious consideration. If as adults we can decide how to spend the rest our lives, we can, on a case-by-case basis, say, draw up legal documents. Then, as Edward Morrisey points out:<\/p>\n
Those who choose to cohabit in non-traditional relationships have ample options for formalizing their arrangements through [this] private contract process, which government enforces but does not sanction. That leaves adults free to choose whatever sexual arrangements they desire outside of the actual prohibitions that are objectively applied to everyone. That is actual freedom and equality.<\/p>\n
Thus, if possible, even for these important economic and legal reasons marriage appears unnecessary. In the UK, for example, people can draw up similar documents to those of married couples. There’s no reason unmarried but cohabiting couples should be denied those rights earmarked solely for the married.<\/p>\n
Why should anyone have to pass a government’s arbitrary, and usually archaic, notion of what constitutes a stable relationship to obtain benefits? If much can be done from a legal and contractual side without marriage, then marriage loses all credibility.<\/p>\n
The “sanctity” of marriage \u2013 whatever that really means \u2013 has long been undermined for conservatives by: high divorce rates, polyandry and polygamy, gay marriage, recognition that there’s no “one” way marriage has always been, and so on. But, aside from these, we should wonder at marriage’s necessity.<\/p>\n
We want a society in which we’re all treated equally like adults. Marriage as the assumed end goal of social life creates a stigma on unmarried people who are viewed as, for example, less stable, meaning they’re less likely to be able to adopt children \u2013 despite such people being as stable as married people.<\/p>\n
My point isn’t eradication of marriage, but rethinking marriage’s importance and assumptions. This could help open all people up to different kinds of sexual and romantic interactions they might otherwise never experience \u2013 or, at the very least, increase tolerance, since society isn’t rewarding only one kind of relationship. It could help lessen stigma and actually treat all citizens \u2013 single, in relationships or otherwise \u2013 with respect. Marriage’s benefits, of stability, legal ease and economic pay offs can still be met, without institutionalisation.<\/p>\n
All this shouldn’t deter fights for things like gay marriage \u2013 indeed, that cause also is about undermining marriage assumptions and norms.<\/p>\n
For myself, I can see no reason that sufficiently makes marriage, in general, a viable option worth wanting or supporting. I would much rather live in a society that had little interest in my relationship life, but protected me and everyone nevertheless. It’s not a black-and-white situation of total societal interest or disinterest. Keep marriage, if you so want, but it shouldn’t hamper or restrict others from benefits or equal treatment, especially when there appears so little reason for having it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Article: We need to have a frank discussion about marriage by Tauriq Moosa in The Guardian. The Text: Marriage, as most know it in western countries, is regarded as the end goal of a relationship between (usually) a man and woman, and it normally has some sort of religious component. Marriage is regarded as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
What's The Point Of Getting Married?<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n