WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS AT ALL?

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

STEPHANIE COONTZ, NY TIMES - Why do people  -  gay or straight  -  need
the state's permission to marry? For most of Western history, they
didn't, because marriage was a private contract between two families.
The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or
state, was what confirmed its validity. . .

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that
marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an
attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed
their match.

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered,
but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled
that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By
the later part of that century, however, the United States began to
nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed
to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks,
"mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or
Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one
partner was a drunk, an addict or a "mental defect." Eighteen states set
barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of
deciding which couples were "fit" to marry. Courts invalidated laws
against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even
extended marriage rights to prisoners.

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as
a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act
provided survivors' benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used
marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance
or pension benefits to employees' dependents. Courts and hospitals
required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of
inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.

In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to
distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost
all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice
were very rare.

Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about
people's interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25
to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations
as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America's children
are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people
are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several
households.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||