BIRT THW Abolish Marriage.

The Concept As you probably know, the historical origins of marriage are not in love, but economics. This is reflected in the benefits of a marriage partnership. While two people can spend their life together without a legal contract, a more efficient partnership that can better support a family financially can be created through marriage, and most couples who choose to spend the rest of their lives together will opt to reap the benefits of that system. Knowing this, you provided for this under your proposed model by arguing that these benefits could be created in other ways - but why would a couple elect to do this, having to ensure that every benefit is being utilised, when one contract will ensure them all? Let's consider what marriage partners receive as benefits: - inheritance of property - rights to make a medical decision for a spouse, or making other decision such as funeral arrangements - joint tax filing and joint adoption - rights to non-resident or alien partners - marital confidence privilege and spousal testimonial privilege - parenting rights (access or rights of both partners to make decisions for their child) - custody of children - shared property and shared bank accounts just to name a few, and not including social program benefits either. Undoubtedly, as you suggest, such advantages can be used without the marriage contract, but that one contract makes things much easier because a.) it requires just one contract while your system would require many b.) it means partners can still get benefits they didn't know about without having to specifically apply for them. Moreover, your model increases the risk of abuse. Now, currently, the marriage laws allow for such abuse, such as aliens who deceive citizens into marrying them in order to gain citizenship, however the marriage is on record and it requires a full ceremony and so on. Under your system, abusers would find it much easier to receive this benefit, needing only to live with the partner for some time. (Admittedly, those who have been deceived would at least not bear the cost of a marriage ceremony.) De-Clutter A very good argument, however one that in no way proves your argument. As you say, the contracts of marriage put such a strain on the court system, but so would partnership contracts under your model, as would divorce, custody hearings still being an issue under your system. The high divorce rate is also not an argument to end marriage. Things just don't work out sometimes and at the beginning it can be difficult to know what will happen. I actually believe that under your system, the looser contractual relations between partners might even mean that court proceedings would be lengthier and more complicated, as you would have to prove that valid contracts were created, etc., and the courts will still be involved in broken relationships. Marriage has it roots in property matters and so on, and our courts can't do much to stop getting involved. You can discourage people from getting married, or encourage the use of pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreements to clean up messy divorces, or maybe even REQUIRE the use of these agreements when getting married. But abolishing marriage won't free up our courts. You're right, it does seem foolish to waste the court's time with a trivial marriage, but if this is the case, we can simply shift the responsibility of performing civil ceremonies to other court personnel or legally authorised people such as justices of the peace. And lastly, the much of the public don't see marriage this way, or at the least, are content with the current system (let's not talk about the details, as many aren't happy with certain aspects when they get disadvantaged by their divorce settlement, but that's another issue). People are still getting married and despite widespread cynicism, they are happy to do so, they believe in the concept at least in the beginning, it may be part of their religion, and many never divorce at all. I admire people's ability to challenge the status quo as my opponent has done, but it is evident that when it comes to marriage, which is a complicated and difficult thing to regulate with pragmatism, the status quo is the best system we have.