Marriage Law Society Marriage, Law

Marriage Law Society

Marriage, Law & Society

Should marriages and families be structured by the political values of the wider society? In societies that value individual freedom and equality, marriages will be based on the mutual consent and social equality of the partners. In societies that believe in natural hierarchies of authority (based on birth caste, gender, and age), as well as the subordination of the individual to the collectivity, rights in marriage will depend on one's gender and caste status, and children will defer to parents and other adults who will determine when and whom they can marry. Because it's unlikely that all societies will come to adopt the same political values and practices, does it make sense to promote one ideal form of marriage for all humanity?

It does make sense to promote an ideal of marriage from an idealistic position. Those who hold personal freedom and mutual consent would be right in trying to spread these ideals. Furthermore, since these ideals can be justified from a human rights perspective, there is a philosophical foundation that can serve as the basis to further these ideals. Although modern western societies are far from perfect, the secular organization of many of the primary institutions has shown many advantages compared to more traditional oriented societies. Therefore, I believe a justification for the promotion of one ideal of marriage could be made along the lines of personal freedoms and mutual consent.

That being the case, I don't think the promotion of one ideal form of marriage will be effective in practice. Many societies have a dogmatic view of marriage based on religious ideals. In many cases these ideals are steadfast and cannot be easily broken or changed in any degree. Even in more liberal western societies there is a strong social sentiment among many members that the institution of marriage is sacred and this perseveres at a political level as well. Although non-traditional marriages are becoming more and more accepted over time, it has been a long an slow process that has required significant amounts of activism to make these groups accepted. In more traditional societies, these sentiments permeate even greater percentages of the population and will take a significant amount of time to attempt to change the culture. Therefore, even though one might be justified and promoting an ideal of marriage the likelihood of it being a global trend in the near future is small and there will have to be a massive effort to make minimal changes in the global culture.

2. Should marriage be a path to citizenship for an American citizen's alien spouse, children, siblings, or parents? Discuss the pros and cons of prioritizing family reunification in our immigration policies.

Marriage should certainly be a path towards American citizenship. People should be free to determine their spouse and this choice should not be restricted to any geographic area. It is often the case that love knows no boundaries. Individuals should therefore not be limited by geographic restrictions when choosing a partner. Because of this it would be a crime to separate spouse based on immigration policies. Furthermore, children who certainly need their parents should also be included in similar categories in the eyes of immigration policy. However, the less immediate question is more difficult. There would have to be a line drawn somewhere and siblings might not be a close enough relationship to justify a path to citizenship and this point could be heavily debated.

3. Should the terms of marriage be drawn up by each set of spouses (as with most private contracts), or should there be one standard package of rights and duties that is publicly negotiated and set by law? Explain and justify your answer.