It’s a social issue because there are social rules about how it works. It’s not a government issue because they aren’t rules people should (or do) get punished for breaking. Also, because it’s nigh impossible for the government to control it anyway. They can refrain from calling you married, but they can’t really keep you from living together, having sex, and possibly deciding to have kids. Not everyone that lives together is in a relationship. The government isn’t going to know if you have sex. They could take away your kids and/or force you to get an abortion, but they won’t.
If I die intestate, is who inherits my house a government issue? If my husband wants to visit me in the hospital after my stroke, and the hospital staff refuse to allow it, is that a government issue? Certainly, my government is currently involved in passing laws about such things. And whether I’m married or not affects how those rules apply to me. That seems to indicate that right now, marriage in my country is a government issue.
Perhaps if the government was not involved in any issues like that, to which the social status of my husband and me were relevant, I would agree with you that our status was a purely social issue and not a government one. That might even be an improvement over the current situation, I’m not sure.
If I die intestate, is who inherits my house a government issue?
The obvious thing would be for people to put it on their will, but I’m not sure how often people actually update them. I imagine it would be something people would do when they get married, along with contracts for sharing property and such. I’m not sure exactly how feasible that is.
If my husband wants to visit me in the hospital after my stroke, and the hospital staff refuse to allow it, is that a government issue?
Are there laws about that? I’d expect the choice of who can enter would fall to the hospital. If they care if you’re married and aren’t willing to take your word for it, they can still check. It’s an issue, so someone will be keeping track of it.
For example, I agree with you that putting information about who inherits my house in my will is the obvious thing to do. But what I’m asking is, if I die without having specified who inherits my house, is determining who inherits my house a government issue, or not?
If it helps, in most jurisdictions the U.S. today, the mechanism for this determination is controlled by law, which is understood to be a function of the government. I don’t know whether that’s sufficient to make it a government issue, or not.
If it is a government issue, then marriage in the U.S. is a government issue as well, since one of the things the government must establish in order to make that determination is whether I am married and if so to whom.
It is a government issue, and it is a good point. I don’t think (but I’m not sure) that it’s not good enough on its own.
At the very least, the government should stay out of marriage when possible, and they should keep everything optional (perhaps you don’t want your spouse to inherit your stuff).
If it is a government issue, then marriage in the U.S. is a government issue as well...
It’s fuzzy. That means that it’s at least a little a government issue, but not necessarily important enough that they really should do it. You could find some reason why the government should care about anything.
I’m not saying “the government should care about who gets my house, and marriage relates to that decision, and therefore marriage should be a government issue.” I’m saying “right now, today, in the real world, the government does care about who gets my house, and marriage relates to that decision, and therefore marriage is, right now, a government issue.”
As I said initially:
Perhaps if the government was not involved in any issues like that, to which the social status of my husband and me were relevant, I would agree with you that our status was a purely social issue and not a government one. That might even be an improvement over the current situation. I’m not sure. But it’s not the situation I’m in.
It’s a social issue because there are social rules about how it works. It’s not a government issue because they aren’t rules people should (or do) get punished for breaking. Also, because it’s nigh impossible for the government to control it anyway. They can refrain from calling you married, but they can’t really keep you from living together, having sex, and possibly deciding to have kids. Not everyone that lives together is in a relationship. The government isn’t going to know if you have sex. They could take away your kids and/or force you to get an abortion, but they won’t.
If I die intestate, is who inherits my house a government issue?
If my husband wants to visit me in the hospital after my stroke, and the hospital staff refuse to allow it, is that a government issue?
Certainly, my government is currently involved in passing laws about such things. And whether I’m married or not affects how those rules apply to me. That seems to indicate that right now, marriage in my country is a government issue.
Perhaps if the government was not involved in any issues like that, to which the social status of my husband and me were relevant, I would agree with you that our status was a purely social issue and not a government one. That might even be an improvement over the current situation, I’m not sure.
But it’s not the situation I’m in.
The obvious thing would be for people to put it on their will, but I’m not sure how often people actually update them. I imagine it would be something people would do when they get married, along with contracts for sharing property and such. I’m not sure exactly how feasible that is.
Are there laws about that? I’d expect the choice of who can enter would fall to the hospital. If they care if you’re married and aren’t willing to take your word for it, they can still check. It’s an issue, so someone will be keeping track of it.
I am somewhat confused by your response.
For example, I agree with you that putting information about who inherits my house in my will is the obvious thing to do. But what I’m asking is, if I die without having specified who inherits my house, is determining who inherits my house a government issue, or not?
If it helps, in most jurisdictions the U.S. today, the mechanism for this determination is controlled by law, which is understood to be a function of the government. I don’t know whether that’s sufficient to make it a government issue, or not.
If it is a government issue, then marriage in the U.S. is a government issue as well, since one of the things the government must establish in order to make that determination is whether I am married and if so to whom.
It is a government issue, and it is a good point. I don’t think (but I’m not sure) that it’s not good enough on its own.
At the very least, the government should stay out of marriage when possible, and they should keep everything optional (perhaps you don’t want your spouse to inherit your stuff).
It’s fuzzy. That means that it’s at least a little a government issue, but not necessarily important enough that they really should do it. You could find some reason why the government should care about anything.
I’m not saying “the government should care about who gets my house, and marriage relates to that decision, and therefore marriage should be a government issue.”
I’m saying “right now, today, in the real world, the government does care about who gets my house, and marriage relates to that decision, and therefore marriage is, right now, a government issue.”
As I said initially: