where?

First: Define the "why and what for"? of marriage. Then decide what falls under those parameters. From there we can logically conclude what constitutes marriage if there is such a thing any longer.

1: I want to marry my girlfriend.
2: Go ahead.
1: She thinks she's a hen.
2: Get her help.
1: I don't want to.
2: Why not?
1: We need the eggs.

tdechaine, you claim that individual rights cannot be extended to "mere" computer interaction, yet, very many websites insist on some sort of "Captcha" scribble to set humans apart from programs. If a program could read a "captcha" would you accept it as having rights under law? If not that, then what would it take?
_Star Trek: The Next Generation_ "Measure of a Man"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PMlDidy...

In fairness to MM, common law marriage has always involved opposite sexes, but the basic concept could still apply.

MM, there is no place where common law defines the purpose of marriage as pro-creation. Cite!

Mike -
I already have medical powers of attorney filed naming two reasonable people as my surrogates in case I am incapacitated. And - by the way - I am a medical surrogate for a friend...and her husband is not. You can already make sure that the State does not decide - you just have to take extra steps to do so.

The consistent conclusion is that an individual makes these decisions, the State does not. Any single person has the problem you describe (it is not necessary to propose a change in culture for real world examples). The State does set a black-box default for marriage; I do not dispute that. Making a custom to hand-pick a medical surrogate is a process that is currently occurring and which can be extended.

Jan
(NB I would trust my horse over a couple of my ex-boyfriends...!)

Yes I understand. >+/-3SD would have clarified but also would have almost placed you outside the area of the curve entirely.

thank you MM

What if the infertile man and infertile woman insist that they love each other? Ummm... flapnap... this "God" thing you refer to, just what is it? (In the words of Ellen Johnson former President of the American Atheists, "The invisible and the non-existent look a lot alike.") You seem to think that the purpose of marriage is procreation. What happens when one or both are infertile? How do you determine by Biblical standards which partner it is? Having made that judgment, what next? Do you order the marriage dissolved because they cannot have children as you claim your mythical "God" (capital-G: Jehovah, Yaweh; not Elohim though, because that is a plural, right??) has so commanded you to enforce His law? What if the infertile man and infertile woman insist that they love each other?

Really, k, just how does so-called "common law" address this? What "common law" (so-called) allows two people of the same sex to be married?? By "common law" (so-called) the purpose of marriage is procreation.

Jan jlc4 I largely agree with your perspective. What happens when you do not come to consciousness after surgery? Does your horse decide? Your ex-boyfriend? Your current girlfriend? Your mother's ex-husband? Legally recognized marriage assigns that right and many others. If you want to deny that, or replace it, you will have to think this through at a deeper level and come to a more consistent conclusion.

flanap is annoying and he knows it! We invented the phrase lectern banger just for him. He's gleeful over it

Barwick11, you ask the right questions, but you provide the wrong answer. The essential distinguishing characteristic is an individual capable of giving consent. A child cannot. A horse cannot. A computer (computer program, actually) cannot (yet). You can, indeed "marry" your horse, granted that you have arranged for her (him??) to have some mechanism that will manage your estate on her (his) behalf.

Abaco, you have blanked out on the premise. To whom else would one go except the government for a _license_ to be married? In Jewish tradition, for instance - the Jews long denied of civil process - all that was required was that the bride and groom come together before the community i.e., the synagogue members, and exchange two things of value (rings were common; could be anything). But that is not a _license_. The core of the problem is _property_. Who inherits? For that, you need government. It is a direct consequence of the proper role of government in defining ownership. See Ayn Rand's essay, "The Property Status of the Airwaves."

Beard, you sort of begged your question there where you said, "This is why the government should not be mixed up in the business of licensing marriages and providing tax-favored treatment." Did you mean that as a logical .AND. && or do you accept the severing of the premises? Your fundamental contradiction is in the fact that _licensing_ marriages (or anything) is indeed a government function by definition. Who else would "license" something? I agree that like mortgages for homes ("the American dream") the government favors married couples over individuals. You would be surprise (or maybe not) at how tenuously two people can be married and still enjoy the tax benefits. The government considers marriage to the foundation of society. That argument goes back to Aristotle.

You need to read the U.S. Constitution. The "full faith and credit" clause says that every state will recognize the legislation of other states unless they do not want to. So, if you are a lawyer or civil engineer in Virginia you may or may not be a civil engineer in Massachusetts, but if you drive in Illinois, you can probably drive in Wyoming. My first wife and I (see "Happy Birthday, Seetheart!" here in The Gulch - http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/22...) were married in Illinois because she was under age - 18 not 21 - in Ohio. However, Ohio law back then said that a marriage in any other state not recognizable under Ohio law was not valid. We did not care. For one thing, I found case law supporting marriage as an institution even in Ohio, where an under age girl was married in West Virginia. Bride and groom swore to an Ohio judge that they wanted to be married and that was that.) For another thing, we had both read _Atlas Shrugged_ and did not care what the State of Ohio thought. Be that as it may, this furrow was plowed long ago. Get the facts.

Rob, marriage is _not_ (yet) a federal issue, though some conservatives want it to be. That is an example of the many inherent contradictions in being "conservative" without a rational-empirical foundation of metaphysics and epistemology as the basis for political theorems. Marriage is defined differently by different states.

Like most independent thinkers, I flip-flop on the sign of the direction. Please note that my above post would not normally be construed as 'right'.

Jan

Tradition is not sacred. And who is "they"? See what you choose, eyecu2, but in the Gulch many people reason from first principles as tested against the evidence of the senses. Start with consciousness of identify and then (eventually) show how marriage "must" be this or that or something else but not the other thing or whatever.

Obviously he is making a rhetorical point. It challenges the definition of "marriage."

At root, in every society, marriage is always about property and status. (In most societies property defines status. More primitive assignments are rare today and putatively projected to our past.) In our society today, we mask the fact that women are property with religious drapery. Most women take their husband's names. Some hyphenate the families. Only in a rare case - as rare as a man marrying his computer - does a man take his wife's name. (That said, once when I was a teenager and dated a high-powered girl, my mom warned me that if I married that girl, I would be known socially as Mr. Her-Name.)

People have wills and testaments that leave money to their pets. To do that, they have to make arrangements for trusts. Same here. He can marry his computer and make love to her all night long, but who inherits his property? Who cares for the computer when he dies?

Also, marriage implies divorce. In the barbarian ages of the West, we had a tradition called "Morganatic marriage" - known also in other cultures. It comes from the German word "morgen" for "morning." If the bride is not satisfied (ahem) on then wedding night, she can leave the marriage and keep the bride price as her own. Can the computer do that?

I point to _Valentina: Soul in Sapphire_ by Delaney & Stiegler, a science fiction story for our time in which an intelligent self-aware program files iher own incorporation papers electronically and thus achieves personhood.

Just sayin'... if you want to understand this, you have to reason from first principles.

banging on the lectern again, flanap! seriously-
en·gage:
/enˈgāj/verb
verb: engage; 3rd person present: engages; past tense: engaged; past participle: engaged; gerund or present participle: engaging
1. occupy, attract, or involve (someone's interest or attention).
"he plowed on, trying to outline his plans and engage Sutton's attention"
synonyms: capture, catch, arrest, grab, snag, draw, attract, gain, win, hold, grip, captivate, engross, absorb, occupy More
"tasks that engage children's interest"