So, what IS marriage now?

[Starlight]

Is consent all the government is concerned with? Should people be allowed to marry strictly for the monetary marital benefits, for instance two soldiers? Or a marriage between two consenting adults solely for immigration benefits for one party? What would cause the government to declare that two consenting adults could not be married, and why?

Even countries that have laws against the use of sham marriages for immigration fraud etc still nearly always recognize those marriages as valid marriages in and of themselves.

They don't alter the definition of marriage itself to try and prevent such sham marriages. They instead have quite separate laws that get very specific about if a person is using their marriage to claim particular immigration benefits and the marriage fails to meet certain strict criteria, then that particular law penalizes them for that, but their marriage itself is not revoked and is still legally recognized.

So, does the government have a potential interest in trying to separate actual marriages entered into out of love and commitment from legal contracts temporarily contracted in order to accrue certain benefits (eg immigration, taxes)? Sure.

This entire discussion reminds me of the same-sex partnership ceremonies that were a feature of Christian Europe from about 700-1200AD. They were marriage-like ceremonies performed in Churches for two people of the same sex, and we know gay couples used them. But what historians are unsure of is exactly who else used them, or why. It is not clear, for example, whether good friends would use them to cement their friendship formally as 'blood brothers' or similar, or whether there could be some financial or economic benefit from them. A later version of them in France in the 1700s was open to people of the opposite sex as well, and seems to not have involved sexual partners as often, and seems to have most commonly served as a formal contract for joint living and the division of household property... ie like a modern day rent-sharing agreement or possibly like a prenuptial agreement.

So the exact status of interpersonal unions has often throughout history been a bit vague between "real marriages" and "doing it for the economic benefits". A lot of the early Christians, of course, believed in celibacy and both man and wife would remain celibate their entire 'married' lives. Were those "real marriages"?

[Bill the Cat]

Even countries that have laws against the use of sham marriages for immigration fraud etc still nearly always recognize those marriages as valid marriages in and of themselves.

It's probably not fair of me to ask you questions about things like the military's UCMJ rules on sham marriages since you have not ever been involved with the US military.

They don't alter the definition of marriage itself to try and prevent such sham marriages. They instead have quite separate laws that get very specific about if a person is using their marriage to claim particular immigration benefits and the marriage fails to meet certain strict criteria, then that particular law penalizes them for that, but their marriage itself is not revoked and is still legally recognized.

They are typically legally annulled unless they have already been dissolved by other legal means.

So, does the government have a potential interest in trying to separate actual marriages entered into out of love and commitment from legal contracts temporarily contracted in order to accrue certain benefits (eg immigration, taxes)? Sure.

But, again, why? If both individuals consent to the marriage, why does the government have a say on its legitimacy?

[Starlight]

It's probably not fair of me to ask you questions about things like the military's UCMJ rules on sham marriages since you have not ever been involved with the US military.

Indeed. The US military might have very specific rules which I am totally unaware of.

They are typically legally annulled unless they have already been dissolved by other legal means.

I was talking about the general practices of most countries around the world on the subject. I assume you are here talking about specific US military practices... I'm curious, what particular interest does the US military have in sham marriages? What is the purpose of them in the minds of the people obtaining the sham marriages? And why are they legally annulled? (because that's an extremely unusual action from the standpoint of general and historical practice)

But, again, why? If both individuals consent to the marriage, why does the government have a say on its legitimacy?

Well, as I said, it doesn't generally have any say on the legitimacy of the marriage itself. Sham marriages are almost always fully valid as marriages.

The only times the government gets interested in the legitimacy of a marriage are where the marriage is being subsequently used for a particular legal purpose. In those situations the government sometimes wants to say "of the various types of marriage, a subset of those are relevant for this purpose, and a subset of them are not" and so wants to try and use some criteria to distinguish relevant marriages from irrelevant ones for that purpose. So when you ask me "why?" the answer is due to whatever the purpose is.

eg for example, if the purpose for which marriage is being used is to meet the criteria for immigration, the idea is that two people who love each other and have sexual relationships with each other and want to live together and build a family together, obviously need to be in the same country as each other. But the government doesn't want immigrants sneaking in by pretending that that is their situation when it isn't.

[Bill the Cat]

Indeed. The US military might have very specific rules which I am totally unaware of.

Here is a relevant case:

http://afcca.law.af.mil/content/afcc...el-37341.u.pdf

I was talking about the general practices of most countries around the world on the subject. I assume you are here talking about specific US military practices...

US marriages in general.

I'm curious, what particular interest does the US military have in sham marriages? What is the purpose of them in the minds of the people obtaining the sham marriages? And why are they legally annulled? (because that's an extremely unusual action from the standpoint of general and historical practice)

Since they are entered into fraudulently, the contract is null and void from the onset. Therefore, annulment is the proclamation, not divorce.

Well, as I said, it doesn't generally have any say on the legitimacy of the marriage itself. Sham marriages are almost always fully valid as marriages.

I'm focusing on the US here.

The only times the government gets interested in the legitimacy of a marriage are where the marriage is being subsequently used for a particular legal purpose. In those situations the government sometimes wants to say "of the various types of marriage, a subset of those are relevant for this purpose, and a subset of them are not" and so wants to try and use some criteria to distinguish relevant marriages from irrelevant ones for that purpose. So when you ask me "why?" the answer is due to whatever the purpose is.

eg for example, if the purpose for which marriage is being used is to meet the criteria for immigration, the idea is that two people who love each other and have sexual relationships with each other and want to live together and build a family together, obviously need to be in the same country as each other. But the government doesn't want immigrants sneaking in by pretending that that is their situation when it isn't.

So, we are getting into the meat of what I was asking. Criteria. According to this, love, sex, and living together to build a family are criteria for marriage. And lack of those is evidence for its lack of relevancy. Would you say that is a fair deduction?

[Starlight]

Since they are entered into fraudulently, the contract is null and void from the onset. Therefore, annulment is the proclamation, not divorce.

I think you've got your wires crossed here. A sham marriage is good grounds for one of the parties to apply for an annulment. But nothing I can find suggests the marriages are automatically annulled, and the most common course seems to be an application for divorce not for annulment.

So, we are getting into the meat of what I was asking. Criteria. According to this, love, sex, and living together to build a family are criteria for marriage. And lack of those is evidence for its lack of relevancy. Would you say that is a fair deduction?

For the relevancy of the marriage to immigration, yes. For the relevancy of the marriage to marriage, no.

[Starlight]

I would point out that the legality of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with any of this. In terms of the OP, same-sex marriage hasn't affected the idea of a 'real marriage' vs a 'sham marriage' in the slightest.

[JimL]

Since the Supreme Court has redefined legal marriage, what IS the definition of marriage now?

For you personally the definition of marriage is the same as it always was, so whats your problem?

[Bill the Cat]

I think you've got your wires crossed here. A sham marriage is good grounds for one of the parties to apply for an annulment. But nothing I can find suggests the marriages are automatically annulled, and the most common course seems to be an application for divorce not for annulment.

If someone is convicted where I live in Virginia for conducting a sham marriage, in the case of immigration, the marriage is typically annulled by the courts and the immigrant is either imprisoned or deported. And the citizen is either fined or imprisoned. In the case of military benefits, Submitting a false BAH claim, whether it involves a sham marriage or doctoring numbers to get a bigger payment, is punishable under the UCMJ. In the most severe cases, the penalty is a dishonorable discharge and up to 10 years in prison.

For the relevancy of the marriage to immigration, yes. For the relevancy of the marriage to marriage, no.

But why? If marriage is a "fundamental right", it should not be the government's business WHY anyone wants to get married. It's their right to enter into marriage with whomever they please for whatever reason they see fit, as long as the other member is consenting to the arrangement.

The state's interest in marriage has been redefined. And in doing so, they become hypocritical in their pursuit of marriages of convenience.

[Bill the Cat]

For you personally the definition of marriage is the same as it always was, so whats your problem?

No it isn't.

[Bill the Cat]

I would point out that the legality of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with any of this.

It has EVERYTHING to do with this. Marriage in the US has been thoroughly divorced (pardon the pun) from the state's interest in child bearing and rearing. It is no longer supported by the state as the ideal situation for raising a child. It has become subservant to the idea of "consent to contract". When parenthood has been removed from the interest of the state, and it most certainly has been removed, the reasons for entering into said contract become moot.

In terms of the OP, same-sex marriage hasn't affected the idea of a 'real marriage' vs a 'sham marriage' in the slightest.

Yes it has. On a very fundamental level. The "it's not fair" argument used to foist same sex marriage on the country is quite applicable to a host of other contractual situations. It has become none of the government's business why the contract was entered into.

[Starlight]

If marriage is a "fundamental right", it should not be the government's business WHY anyone wants to get married.

A fundamental right to do a specific thing for a specific reason is not at all the same as a general right to do anything for any reason. The government can legitimately want to ensure that the people who are claiming to be exercising a fundamental right are actually doing so for the reasons that that right exists, rather than using it as a cover for doing something completely different.

It's their right to enter into marriage with whomever they please for whatever reason they see fit, as long as the other member is consenting to the arrangement.

Well a lot of people would dispute the "for whatever reason they see fit" part of that and suggest marriages have to involve the intention to commit to one another, usually emotionally, physically, financially, and socially.

However, as I have mentioned, the way most governments choose to do it is precisely to let people marry for any reason, and only potentially investigate if it was the right reason later on if it's brought to their attention that the couple are claiming benefits of some kind that seem dubious.

The state's interest in marriage has been redefined. And in doing so, they become hypocritical in their pursuit of marriages of convenience.

Ridiculous. Things from the following list are basic characteristics common in 'real' straight marriages (of course, not every real marriage will involve every single item on this list, and especially military service will often involve protracted periods where the couple are not physically near each other), and all of them can be equally done by gay couples:
1. Living together
2. Having sex
3. Being in love, or having an extremely strong emotional bond
4. Pooling financial resources
5. Raising children
6. Sharing household chores
7. Spending time together in private
8. Attending public events together

Detectable sham marriages typically involve zero of those. Gay marriage has changed nothing whatsoever regarding this.

Marriage in the US has been thoroughly divorced (pardon the pun) from the state's interest in child bearing and rearing.

We've been through this before... child bearing and rearing is not the state's only interest in marriage per se is, your citation of weird dissenting opinions from over the years notwithstanding. Furthermore, gay couples can raise children together, and are already doing so at significant rates.

One of the arguments that the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated (in both the 2015 and 2013 decisions) that it considers important is that the children currently being raised by gay couples are actively harmed when their parents' relationship is stigmatized and denied recognition by the state as a marriage. Insofar as the state's interest in marriage does extend to the question of raising children, it is therefore important to acknowledge that gay couples raising children are indeed married.

Same-sex marriage decision:
many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples.... Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one.

It is no longer supported by the state as the ideal situation for raising a child.

The various hundreds of laws giving financial benefits or tax incentives to married couples that may be raising children have not suddenly and mysteriously evaporated as a result of the court's decision. So you're talking complete nonsense here. The state is continuing to do everything it ever did to favor the situation of the people raising children being married. It is in fact doing more than it ever did, by extending those same protections and benefits to the same-sex parents who are raising children, thus doubling down on its previous support for couples raising children to be married. This ruling strengthens that rather than weakens it, and that was part of the logic the judges used, as I explained above.

The "it's not fair" argument used to foist same sex marriage on the country is quite applicable to a host of other contractual situations. It has become none of the government's business why the contract was entered into.

You haven't read any of the actual supreme court case, have you? Nothing in the case says that it's none of the government's business why the marriage was entered into. There is zero discussion of a right to privacy or of it being none of the government's business why a marriage is entered into. That's just a ridiculous idea that you're making up. The court case explicitly says the exact opposite - that gay couples enter into marriage for all the same sorts of reasons as straight couples, and that that is why the state is unjustified to discriminate against them because they clearly do meet the criteria for real marriage. The case says that with regard to the sorts of things I listed in my list of 7 'real-marriage' points above, that gay marriages are not meaningfully different to straight ones.

Here are a few examples from the decision, where the judges repeatedly emphasize that they see those wanting same-sex marriage as motivated by the same concerns that motivate opposite-sex couples getting married:

Same-sex marriage decision:
The petitioners in these cases seek to... hav[e] their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.....

Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.....

Their stories reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined by its bond.....

The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation....

“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."....

Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning....

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.

The decision is abundantly clear that same-sex couples are entitled to marry because they meet the criteria for marriage, not because the criteria for marriage are being abolished.

[Joel]

A fundamental right to do a specific thing for a specific reason is not at all the same as a general right to do anything for any reason. The government can legitimately want to ensure that the people who are claiming to be exercising a fundamental right are actually doing so for the reasons that that right exists, rather than using it as a cover for doing something completely different.

I really disagree here. For the government to be discriminating based on the reasons people do things is for it to be creating thought crimes. To suggest reasons are inherent to fundamental rights is to say thought crimes are inherent in fundamental rights--that imposing thought crimes is morally required by good government.
I think Bill is correct when he said, "If [X] is a "fundamental right", it should not be the government's business WHY anyone wants to [do X]." It would merely be the government's job to defend everyone's right to do X.

1. Living together
2. Having sex
3. Being in love, or having an extremely strong emotional bond
4. Pooling financial resources
5. Raising children
6. Sharing household chores
7. Spending time together in private
8. Attending public events together

...provide loving and nurturing homes to their children

“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.
...Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning....

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death....

None of which requires a piece of paper from the government or any special legal privileges. Nor can a piece of paper or those legal privileges bestow these things. Thus these things clearly are not what legal "marriage" is. Surely they cannot serve as the definition of legal "marriage".

A legal "marriage" can lack any or all of them. And for the government to discriminate based on any of those things is to have "marriage" inequality.
I also note that these same things could be had by close friends, close relatives, and by the polyamorous. And that neither should people be deprived of equal legal rights just because they unfortunately lack these things.

The decision is abundantly clear that same-sex couples are entitled to marry because they meet the criteria for marriage, not because the criteria for marriage are being abolished.

Of course what the conservatives in this thread are talking about is that at least one legal criterion has been abolished: the little criterion that it consist of a husband and wife. So you could perhaps see how this could leave people wondering what criteria, if any, are essential. And wondering what criteria can be left standing if the arguments of legal equality and fundamental right are taken to their logical conclusion.

[Starlight]

For the government to be discriminating based on the reasons people do things is for it to be creating thought crimes.

'Thought crime' has an accepted definition which you are misusing here rather extremely. The situation you describe is not a 'thought crime' by any normal definition.

I think your view falls apart when you start considering things like fraud, where intentions to deceive and mislead start to become highly relevant (especially to the size of the penalties imposed even if not always the definition of the crime itself).

Furthermore there is a hugely blurred line between intentions and actions which I think you are conveniently ignoring here. Obviously the government (nor anyone else) cannot magically know what is in someone's head, so anytime anyone judges someone else it is based on the persons actions which are empirically observable. So the government is always, of necessity, going to judge people on what they do, not on what they think.

I think Bill is correct when he said, "If [X] is a "fundamental right", it should not be the government's business WHY anyone wants to [do X]." It would merely be the government's job to defend everyone's right to do X.

If a person takes an action that they claim to be X, the government is totally reasonably entitled to want to check that the action is X and not Y.

The question then comes down to "what exactly does the X consist of?" And the court was abundantly, repetitively clear, as I cited above, that marriage was not simply a legal contract between two consenting adults, but rather involved physical, emotional, social, financial, and spiritual commitment between the people. That is what the court said there was a fundamental right to have. If the government wanted to get involved to check that that was indeed what the people claiming to be married actually had, then that would be completely within the bounds of defending that fundamental right (of course, it would potentially start violating rights to privacy etc).

None of which requires a piece of paper from the government or any special legal privileges. Nor can a piece of paper or those legal privileges bestow these things. Thus these things clearly are not what legal "marriage" is. Surely they cannot serve as the definition of legal "marriage".

Well as I have repeatedly stated, the government tends to be fairly lax in terms of letting people get married in the first place, and only if they try to use that marriage for immigration purposes does the government tend to really take a harder look at whether it is a 'real' marriage. So there are two different standards in play here... the 'legal' marriage follows the first very lax standard of basically any two consenting adults who aren't already married can obtain it. Although, of course, in the process of doing so they may have to fill out forms that involve signing their names to a number of declarations about their purpose in marrying, and in that sense they are making legally binding claims about their intentions and purpose.

Of course what the conservatives in this thread are talking about is that at least one legal criterion has been abolished: the little criterion that it consist of a husband and wife. So you could perhaps see how this could leave people wondering what criteria, if any, are essential. And wondering what criteria can be left standing if the arguments of legal equality and fundamental right are taken to their logical conclusion.

The ~5% of the population who previously weren't allowed to marry their partners now can. That's all that's happened. Anyone who's seriously afraid that the entire idea of marriage will now fall apart or society will collapse is quite simply an idiot. 5% more people getting married is not going to destroy marriage, it's not going to abolish marriage, and it doesn't seem likely to lead to any other changes whatsoever in the near future.

[Tassman]

So, do you think two people should be allowed to marry strictly for the monetary marital benefits, for instance two soldiers? Or a marriage between two consenting adults solely for immigration benefits for one party?

This sort of thing happens already among heterosexuals and has done for a long time. The morality of such behaviour is questionable but it's not necessarily a SSM thing.

[Joel]

I think your view falls apart when you start considering things like fraud, where intentions to deceive and mislead start to become highly relevant ... Furthermore there is a hugely blurred line between intentions and actions which I think you are conveniently ignoring here.

Intent to do X is different from the reasons why someone does X.

If a person takes an action that they claim to be X, the government is totally reasonably entitled to want to check that the action is X and not Y. The question then comes down to "what exactly does the X consist of?"

In this particular case, the persons intend to obtain a "marriage" certificate, and they do obtain a "marriage" certificate.

And the court was abundantly, repetitively clear, as I cited above, that marriage was not simply a legal contract between two consenting adults, but rather involved physical, emotional, social, financial, and spiritual commitment between the people. That is what the court said there was a fundamental right to have.

If you interpret those quotes as you are trying to do, it means the court is equivocating between different meanings of "marriage." A "marriage" certificate does not confer such a emotional (et al) bond, and people are perfectly able to enter into such a commitment without (and prior to) the government granting them a "marriage" certificate. If by fundamental right the court just means the right to enter into such a commitment, that in no way implies a right to be given a government certificate (and the legal privileges that go along with it), which is superfluous to the commitment. People try to draw that conclusion only by the sophistry of equivocation, by calling them both by the name "marriage". In the commitment sense, nobody was ever legally denied that right, as far as I know of.

Although, of course, in the process of [obtaining a marriage certificate] they may have to fill out forms that involve signing their names to a number of declarations about their purpose in marrying, and in that sense they are making legally binding claims about their intentions and purpose.

Do you know of any actual example of that in any state?
I googled California (because I happen to live there), and they merely have to sign that they "DECLARE THAT NO LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE MARRIAGE NOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE IS KNOWN TO US." E.g., that they are not already married and are not close relatives--things where the statute specifically denies issuance of a license.

The ~5% of the population who previously weren't allowed to marry their partners now can. That's all that's happened. Anyone who's seriously afraid that the entire idea of marriage will now fall apart or society will collapse is quite simply an idiot. 5% more people getting married is not going to destroy marriage, it's not going to abolish marriage, and it doesn't seem likely to lead to any other changes whatsoever in the near future.

Here's a tip: if you can't understand how someone can hold the opposing view that they do (apart from supposing them to be an idiot), you probably don't actually understand their position.

Now, you are being dishonest (or willfully blind) to say "That's all that's happened." It is a fact that the legal criterion that a "marriage" certificate apply to a husband and wife was abolished. Now you might think that that criterion was non-essential, or stupid or whatever, but surely you can at least comprehend that many other people do think that it's an essential criterion (or even the fundamental definition) of marriage. So you should be able to comprehend how such people (without being idiots) can wonder something like: If this essential criterion can be ejected, can any essential criterion logically withstand such an ejection? You should also be able to comprehend how such people could reasonably come to the conclusion that legal "marriage" is now not marriage at all (reasoning that legal "marriage" now lacks the fundamental criterion of marriage).

Next it's dishonest to imply, as you do, that "marriage equality" has been achieved. There are still people who are not legally allowed to obtain a "marriage" certificate with their partner. And logically we could extend the discussion to yet others who are denied equal legal privileges conferred by a marriage certificate.

Finally, you are arguing against a slippery slope, but that's not what's being discussed in this thread. The question is not that of predicting what is going to happen. The question is about the logical conclusions about what can be the legal definition given such arguments about fundamental right and equality.