Do we need a Marriage Act?

Legitimation

Part VI of the Act declares that illegitimate children become legitimate when their parents marry. Such legitimation is backdated to the time of the child's birth or the commencement of the Act. Why does the government need to distinguish between illegitimate and legitimate children? If decisions have to be made based on the relationship of the child to its parents then they should be made on the basis of biological or emotional relationship and not legitimacy. If the government declares that such advantages as inheritance should fall to a child simply because of the relationship then why is legitimacy relevant? If no distinction is relevant then there is no point in maintaining legislation which states that there is.

Offences

Part VII describes the offences and prescribes the penalties relating to the act. Since the government cannot control any of the behaviour that could be deemed an offence then what is the point of having penalties against the act. If a man lives with a woman who is not his wife then he is behaving in a way that section III of the act is trying to curtail yet there are no laws preventing a man living with a woman. If the government is powerless to stop what it sees as an offence then legislating for penalties is a complete waste of time and taxpayers money.

The remaining parts of the act detail similar criteria for eligibility to receive a marriage certificate without having any control over the behaviour which it aims to restrict.

There are no logical reasons for maintaining this act but there may be illogical ones and these need to be addressed.

Legality of marriage

Why exactly does marriage need to be a legal relationship? What does the legality provide to either the married couple or the government that they could not live without?

Security for citizens

Despite all the illogical arguments for its existence many citizens want the Act to exist because it creates a law which they think will give them security of relationship. The government says you cannot go on to marry someone else whilst already married. You cannot have any of those things that marriage offers with another person whilst already married to your first spouse. This is obviously not true since you can leave your spouse and go and live with another person and have everything that legal marriage has except a certificate. The hope that some citizens harbor is that the legality will somehow constrain a spouse who would otherwise leave a marriage. What is the point of having a marriage relationship that exists only because of legal restraints? There is only one good reason for remaining in a marriage and that is because you truly love that person – anything else is a sham. People do not always marry for love or they stay in marriage relationships long after love has ended. They may do these things for security, for fear of being alone, for hope of money to come, for status, for fear of family, because of peer pressure and so many other false reasons. They want marriage to be a legally binding relationship in order to try and protect those things they feel afraid and insecure about.

It is not the duty of government to legislate for the insecurities of its citizens nor should it waste taxpayer funds in administering such legislation. The government however may have its own insecurities that keep such legislation as the Marriage Act on the statute books.

Security for the government

It could well be that the government needs to know exactly who is married and who is not. It may distribute benefits based on the relationship that two people have with each other or it may withhold benefits for the same reason. This may explain the part of the Act which defines marriage. Based on its own definition it can give or take away material benefits for those in a marriage relationship.

Does the government want to make such decisions based on the relationship or upon the possession of a certificate? Should two people who live under the same roof but have totally separate lives be given benefits purely on the basis of the certificate they acquired thirty years ago? Is the relationship still truly a marriage? Is it in fact a fraud maintained in order to take advantage of the government's lax definition of marriage? Correspondingly are people who should have a right to benefits being denied on the basis of a definition which is patently ineffective? To suggest that a true marriage exists simply because a couple possess a certificate is extremely naive. It can also be seen as discrimination.

The government also gives or withholds benefits to those who live as a couple. Whilst married couples only need to display their certificate in order to receive benefits couples can be subject to a great deal more scrutiny. Their financial details are examined as well as accommodation and domestic arrangements, social relationship, sexual relationship, relationship with children, and their commitment to each other. If the government is trying to determine who is truly justified in having benefits then it should treat everyone equally. Everyone should be subject to such scrutiny whether they are married or not. It seems by their actions that the government are giving an advantage to married people which is blatant discrimination. If they are truly committed to distributing benefits equally then it should not matter to them who is married and who is not. Therefore there is no point in having a definition of marriage in the Marriage Act for this particular reason.

Conclusion

If all the supposed reasons for each piece of legislation contained in the Act have no justification then the Act as a whole obviously has no purpose.

Whilst I may have not covered every possible reason why a marriage act should not exist the principles should be readily applied to other examples. The government must justify all legislation and unless it can be proven otherwise there are no good reasons why the Marriage Act of 1961 should exist.