Monday, December 3, 2007

Family planning: government intervention edition

There was an interesting op-ed in the New York Times last week that discussed some of the reasons that the government should not license marriage. Here is a very brief history of government intervention in marriage; not surprisingly the genesis of government intervention in marital affairs are less than wholesome:

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.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the state supreme courts had it right in the mid 19th century.

Where did we go wrong???

Wasn't that when the Republicans came into power???

John G. Boyle said...

Interesting. I'd heard pieces of that before. Not all, though.

FM,

Got a question for you: purely academic...

With your views on limited government and in guessing as to what you tthought of that article, if we were to magically redo the way that government and marriage interact, do you see merit to governments (state or fed) maintaining a minimum age for marriage?

Eludius said...

I like your blog. I've linked to it from my blog. Mine is more right-wing tasteless humor. But it's fun. Keep up the good work!

www.votenomalley.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

John- a legitimate purpose of government is to enforce contracts between private parties. Most people would agree, as do I, that minors should not be able to enter into a contract (be it for marriage or anything else) without parental consent. I don’t think that marriage should be treated differently than any other contract with respect to minors.

John G. Boyle said...

FM,

Thanks! You look at a number of issues very differently than I do, so I'm always curious to get your opinion on things that I see as a "given."

Eludius said...

You said that a minor should not be able to enter into a contract without parental consent. However, a minor can get an abortion from a government clinic without parental notification. It's not exactly a contract, but it shows you how our government approaches different topics with conflicting logic. Yet, that same child cannot go to the dentist and get their teeth cleaned without mommy's permission.