Cohabitation and marriage...thoughts?

[All-American]

Sure bro....its okay to admit you were wrong.

Prove it.

[imanihonjin]

Proved it.

FIFY.

[SoCalCoug]

I haven't even begun to describe all of my reasons for thinking the cases are different. But I can't muster any enthusiasm to debate it with you. Sorry.

Tex? Is that you?

[Uncle Ted]

I haven't even begun to describe all of my reasons for thinking the cases are different. But I can't muster any enthusiasm to debate it with you. Sorry.

There really isn't a debate here. It seems that cohabitation instead of marriage is becoming the new norm. Let's review the facts:

- A federal judge ruled that the government can't regulate cohabitation. The legal experts in the above video don't expect that to be overturned. So if the dude (not to be confused with the Dude) on the show "Sister Wives" wants to live with a bunch of women and their kids (which he happens to be the biological father of) then he has that right.

- A large number of people are already living together unmarried. The video above mentioned around 8 million in the USA are currently cohabiting. In Europe most people approve of it and less are actually going to the trouble to get married. Marriage is largely a religious thing and government required marriage licenses really only came around in the 1920's (see the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act) so the government could try to regulate cohabitation (at that time interracial marriages). By simply cohabiting you don't have to put up with the government trying to regulate who you can or can't "marry".

- The incentives for getting a legal marriage are being reduced all the time. For example, the new ACA (formerly known as "Obamacare") law actually penalizes people that are married (see above). In addition, companies like UPS are dropping health care coverage for spouses to save money. The current progressive tax rate structure does really give incentives for two working adults making the same amount of money to file jointly (it looks like from the chart that a couple would be better filing as "single" people) and there are lots of marriage penalties in the tax code. Given that estate taxes apply to very few people (not to mention generate very little tax revenue) there is really no incentive there.

- Really the argument for getting married boils down to religious reasons. If the USA follows the trend of what is happening in Europe then religion is on its way out.

- Folks that say that getting legally marriage shows commitment have been watching too many girl movies and liked the BS they taught in American Heritage at BYU. If you want commitment then two (or more) people should sign a civil document (a contract). In this day and age of non-fault and $299 quick divorces being legally marriage doesn't mean a whole lot.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Tex? Is that you?

Prove it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There really isn't a debate here. It seems that cohabitation instead of marriage is becoming the new norm. So if the dude (not to be confused with the Dude) on the show "Sister Wives"

Let's review the facts:

- A federal judge ruled that the government can't regulate cohabitation. The legal experts in the above video don't expect that to be overturned. So if the dude (not to be confused with the Dude) on the show "Sister Wives" wants to live with a bunch of women and their kids (which he happens to be the biological father of) then he has that right.

- A large number of people are already living together unmarried. The video above mentioned around 8 million in the USA are currently cohabiting. In Europe most people approve of it and less are actually going to the trouble to get married. Marriage is largely a religious thing and government required marriage licenses really only came around in the 1920's (see the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act) so the government could try to regulate cohabitation (at that time interracial marriages). By simply cohabiting you don't have to put up with the government trying to regulate who you can or can't "marry".

- The incentives for getting a legal marriage are being reduced all the time. For example, the new ACA (formerly known as "Obamacare") law actually penalizes people that are married (see above). In addition, companies like UPS are dropping health care coverage for spouses to save money. The current progressive tax rate structure does really give incentives for two working adults making the same amount of money to file jointly (it looks like from the chart that a couple would be better filing as "single" people) and there are lots of marriage penalties in the tax code. Given that estate taxes apply to very few people (not to mention generate very little tax revenue) there is really no incentive there.

- Really the argument for getting married boils down to religious reasons. If the USA follows the trend of what is happening in Europe then religion is on its way out.

- Folks that say that getting legally marriage shows commitment have been watching too many girl movies and liked the BS they taught in American Heritage at BYU. If you want commitment they two people should sign a civil document (a contract). In this day and age of non-fault and $299 quick divorces being legally marriage doesn't mean a whole lot.

Was that supposed to be directed at me? Because I am on record as saying that the judge made the correct ruling. Cohabitation should be legal.

[Jacob]

Couldn't folks also express their love for each other with a religious ceremony that doesn't involve the government determining who gets a marriage license or not?

As for marriage and family law couldn't that be a civil agreement between the two (or N-number) of parties?

I can't always tell whether we are agreeing or disagreeing, but I think we largely agree here. But to answer your question, no, family law cannot be a mere civil agreement. The point of family law is to assign obligations towards the children who don't have the capacity to enter into a contract.

[All-American]

Proved it.

FIFY

[All-American]

I can't always tell whether we are agreeing or disagreeing, but I think we largely agree here. But to answer your question, no, family law cannot be a mere civil agreement. The point of family law is to assign obligations towards the children who don't have the capacity to enter into a contract.

We weren't talking about the law's perspective on the relationship between parents and their children. Family law has much to say on that matter whether the parents are married or not.

[Uncle Ted]

Was that supposed to be directed at me? Because I am on record as saying that the judge made the correct ruling. Cohabitation should be legal.

Like I said there is really no debate. So, yes, in a way it was directed to you.

Polygamists can cohabit and the government can no longer regulate who people can "marry" just like a gay couple can do. The incentives to actually have the government recognize that marriage are being reduced all the time. Really the debate is: "Are there really strong compelling reasons to get legally married that are not religious?"

[Jacob]

We weren't talking about the law's perspective on the relationship between parents and their children. Family law has much to say on that matter whether the parents are married or not.

I don't think you were involved in the conversation I was having with Tex on this point. I think we were talking about that. At least I was. But to your point, while family law does indeed have some things to say on the matter regardless of marriage, it makes perfect sense for the government to recognize the typical family structure and allow people to register as married in order to clarify the law regarding that family structure, including the inherent obligations and many other relations and default rules. I hesitate to describe many, if any, of them as benefits.

[Uncle Ted]

I can't always tell whether we are agreeing or disagreeing, but I think we largely agree here. But to answer your question, no, family law cannot be a mere civil agreement. The point of family law is to assign obligations towards the children who don't have the capacity to enter into a contract.

There are laws that require the biological parents to be financially responsible for their children even if they were never legally married. In fact, I read about a sperm donor recently that was found by a court that he was financially responsible for his off-spring.

Edit: Here is the case of the sperm donor: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/us/kansas-sperm-donation/

[All-American]

I don't think you were involved in the conversation I was having with Tex on this point. I think we were talking about that. At least I was. But to your point, while family law does indeed have some things to say on the matter regardless of marriage, it makes perfect sense for the government to recognize the typical family structure and allow people to register as married in order to clarify the law regarding that family structure, including the inherent obligations and many other relations and default rules. I hesitate to describe many, if any, of them as benefits.

You're shifting your argument again. In response to me, you're saying it makes perfect sense for government to recognize marriage. But above, you said that it could not possibly be otherwise. Those are two very different statements.

[imanihonjin]

I don't think you were involved in the conversation I was having with Tex on this point. I think we were talking about that. At least I was. But to your point, while family law does indeed have some things to say on the matter regardless of marriage, it makes perfect sense for the government to recognize the typical family structure and allow people to register as married in order to clarify the law regarding that family structure, including the inherent obligations and many other relations and default rules. I hesitate to describe many, if any, of them as benefits.

With so many kids being born out of wed lock I am not sure how much weight this type of argument carries.

[Jacob]

You're shifting your argument again. In response to me, you're saying it makes perfect sense for government to recognize marriage. But above, you said that it could not possibly be otherwise. Those are two very different statements.

You've lost me. Maybe you have confused me with someone else?