when one is married or enters into a civil union they are agreeing
to respect the legal precedents which value ALL these things.

I think that is the illusion of marriage but not the reality. That is the "fairy tale" but not how it generally works out. If it was real there would not be so many divorces.

I do not believe that people are agreeing to any of that when they get married. In fact, I don't believe people ever really even talk about what they are agreeing to and probably have different views on their responsibilities when they get married. They usually find out how different their beliefs are after they get married.

I disagree. I think this is the real reality. When people get
married they expect all of the above and generally they get it
unless/until the relationship breaks down.

So far, the benefit to society is that it eases property disputes. That's probably a big one.

Okay, I gotta leave for a while but will be interested to see what others post.

They are agreeing to this whether they understand the full implications
or not. Everybody is different. I certainly discussed all of these
things in my relationships. But the point is that all of these
issues are an essential and inseparable part of every relationship
and the body of marriage law and by proxy civil union law already
is set up to handle it. And any new relationship model would
eventually have to handle all the same problems because we are
human and this is the nature of our relationships.

Saddest part is your already thinking about breaking up and you havent even found him yet.

AND - marriage also handles all the emotional issues and the valuing of
non-monetary and non-property related valuations.

marriage is a contract....emotional, spiritual, legal, etc.

common law = verbal contract
legal marriage = written contract

Both are contracts in all aspects, but a verbal one is harder to prove. But it's not just material property...example:

wife: I use that frying pan more than you so it's mine
husband: yes but you use it to hit me upside the head with it. My head goes in it more so it's mine

(had to throw in some humor there)

But you have kids (sometimes) and you have to deal with visitation and child support where the parents may not agree.

You, also, have to deal with the IRS. After my divorce I went back to my maiden name...had it legally changed. Without it being documented on who is was before during and after the marriage....I could run an IRS scam and it would take them a while to pick up on it. Without documentation, I could marry often and change my name just as often.

I think the definition of marriage is changing. In Canada we have a lot more Common-law relationships than marriages now

Actually, I'm not thinking about a personal relationship at all. I was thinking about the pros and cons of changing the current marriage laws and how that would impact/help/hinder society as a whole. That's why I posted in "politics" and not "relationships".

Venus.

Yes, I see the whole institution changing. Times have changed and so have views on relationships and marriage. It will be interesting to see where we end up.

Edited to remove the controversial statement about original marriage contracts so as not to lose focus on the original question.

With all due respect I think you are mistaken about the ownership
issue. The first marriage contracts were in fact human rights documents
which gave the husband and wife certain responsibilities toward each
other and specifically gave the women legal rights which they had
not previously had.

In fact, these documents were the first indications that the woman
was NOT to be considered property. Research it.

I'm not really interested in researching it so if you think it's that important than I'd be happy to listen to you explain it.

The fact is that attitudes and beliefs about marriage are changing and I'm still wondering what benefit it is to society. However, I have been pretty well convinced that it is at least beneficial in regards to the property disputes as they've already been settled by the marriage laws.

Okay, I edited my original statement so we don't have to argue about something that is irrelevant to the main topic.

Depends on the lawyer you talk to here in Texas. One says it still has to be divided, the other says no. Due to gay couples tryng to claim common-law, the state really is refusing to acknowledge common-law marriage, unless there are children involved.

My ex-bf tried to get a "divorce" via common-law and was laughed out the door by the lawyer.

We can't function as a society with out a common law of the land.

Without it we have anarchy!

So, abolishing civil unions would create anarchy?

Thinking about this a little more...

Abolishing civil unions would solve the problem of allowing gays to marry as well as the few Mormons who want to practice polygamy. (I have no problem with them marrying....just thinking that it might be easier to eliminate marriage than to change it to allow for different kinds of unions).

However, I guess it really does come down to property issues and money and health insurance. And, those are no small issues. As a society we do benefit from having those rules in place and settlements already decided based on the marriage/divorce laws.

Have a look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity


Many of these maxims and their explanations aid in thinking logically about such matters of law. Particularly these :

Equity delights in equality.

One who seeks equity must do equity.

One who comes into equity must come with clean hands.

Equity delights to do justice and not by halves.


-Kerry O.

I wouldnt wish to see the state stop supporting and encouraging and rewarding those foundations of family that start with the male and female committing to each other...even if that commitment later doesnt pan out.