On Societys Meddling with Marital Issues - Essay Example

Stephanie Coontz writes about how times have changed in terms of people’s regard for the power of the marriage licence. In the course of history, marriaglicenseeen seen from various perspectives –from simple agreement between a man and a woman, with the blessing of their parents, regardless of the ceremony, to being subjected to church and state restrictions to control moral behavior, resource allocations for “legal” beneficiaries, and so many other reasons.

Government involvement in matrimonial issues began in the 16th century when it required marriages to be registered. By the 19th century, it relaxed its ruling, accepting public cohabitation as sufficient excuse for the validity of a maa marriage. However, later in that century, the US again took an active role in controlling who was allowed to marry, with certain populations prohibited from marrying. Marriage licences were requirements in the provision license stain federal benefits and privileges for legal dependents.

For example, in distributing benefits to employees’ children such as medical insurance, the employees should first present marriage licenses as proof that their children were legally their own. The same goes for inheriting properties from partners. Spouses should be able to present a marriage license to claim an inheritance from their husbands/ wives. That meant that illegitimate children did not have a claim to their parents’ resources simply because they were borne out of wedlock.

Nowadays, due to strong advocacy for children’s rights, a marriage license no longer has the power to strip “illegitimate” spouses and children from claiming their rights to an inheritance. This way, the government accedes to the reality that everyone should be given what is due them with or without the proof of a marriage license. Coontz’s claims that people need the state’s permission to marry may be easily interpreted as the state having authority over who a citizen should marry.

In a sense, there is value in that, as it serves as protection for individuals who are not aware that the person they are marrying may already be married, hence, leaving him or her to be a second priority or an illegitimate spouse. One should be ensured that his or her marriage is valid or legal under the law to be protected of his or her marital rights. Being licitly married means being permitted by society, and not forbidden. It is possible to have a valid but not licit marriage. One example is a marriage between a legally married black man and white women.

It may be valid under the law but women are favorably viewed by prejudiced people who believe it is socially acceptable. However, one’s choice of whom to marry or not should not really be dependent on the mandate of socigovernment rulings. Personally, I believe that if two people here, are legally free to marry and can commit to each other for a lifetime, I should go ahead and get married. The government may support marriage by keeping it sacred by not allowing individuals who are still married to other people to marry someone else.

This is to ensure that moral and legal obligations to one’s family are continually met. However, if civil authorities are given too much power over one’s choice of marriage partner, then that is already taking away one’s right to choose whom to commit one’s life to. I believe in the institution of marriage, as given structure by the legalities set by civil authorities, but ultimately, the strength of marriage should depend on the integrity of the marital partners who have been given the freedom to love and support their spouse in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, till death do they part.