Given that spouses of, say, deceased war veterans are entitled to government payments because of their marital status, there could be considerable advantages to an individual in being legally married to more than one person, and I can see why the government would want to outlaw that. But generally, yes, the government should have no role in defining or proscribing whatever relationships may hold between consenting adults. (Nor, of course, should any religion.)

Great article.

"It could well be that the government needs to know exactly who is married and who is not."

But the government doesn't even accept its own certificate of marriage as evidence of the existence of a marriage. For example if you want to prove a marriage for social security or immigration law purposes, the feds won't accept a federal Marriage Certificate as proving what is in issue.

Plus the Marriage Act is inconsistent with the Family Law Act, in that a marriage is defined as a permanent union. But obviously the effect of the FLA is to make it terminable at will: in a word, temporary.

And in conferring benefits, the government itself contradicts the Marriage Act, by assimilating to the benefits of marriage categories of non-marriage or quasi-marriage, such as de facto relationships in the Property (Relationships) Act.

So while on the one hand the Marriage Act does not protect marriage, and other Acts contradict or ignore it, the Property Relationships Acts actively impose it on non-consenting parties! A dreadful jumble.

The Marriage Act also spreads through the whole population this confused idea that marriage is constituted by government, even though not even the Marriage Act itself claims that. The Marriage Act provides for the registration of *pre-existing* marriages - constituted by the act of the parties in taking each other to spouse - not by the government in registering them.

It is this confusion underlying the whole same-sex marriage movement, based on the factually untrue proposition that gays don't have a "right" to marry, or that it's "illegal".

The Marriage Act should be repealed, along with any criminal law relating to consensual marriage. None of the government's business to regulate or register or people's private consensual sexual relationships, legitimising some and marginalising - or even criminalising - others.

But if it is the government's business to impose the sexual regulations of mediaeval churchmen on modern society, then logically divorce and adultery - and even homosexuality, prostitution and masturbation for that matter - should be illegal.

JKJ:
Sometimes you make perfect sense, and then say it so well, there is absolutely nothing one can add!
Rhrosty.

Thanks Rhostry.

A very superficial and one-sided piece, though making the odd valid point.

I would have thought that with over 90 per cent of people getting married at some stage in their lives, and groups like same-sex couples wanting to get married, the case for a Marriage Act of some sort is compelling.

Other reasons for a Marriage Act include providing a means for secular people to commit to a marriage, and a need to facilitate public administration in areas of social security, taxation, child support and family breakdown.

In answer to some of the author's questions:

I agree that it is arguable whether the taxpayer should support marriage counselling. One can make a case for such subsidies on the basis that marriage/family breakdown often costs the taxpayer a lot of money, and that the children of stable marriages are known to experience better outcomes.

We need a minimum age for marriage to prevent forced marriages (especially of young girls) and because those who are immature (through youth) should be protected from entering lifetime commitments. Young people are already barred from entering many types of legal contracts.

There are obvious public interest reasons for prohibiting incestuous marriages and voiding marriages entered into as a result of duress.

A Marriage Certificate is an important administrative document and there are therefore strong reasons for regulating who can perform and certificate such ceremonies.

(Continued in second post)

(Comment continued)

"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". (Answer) Emotional relationships are hard to measure but being the child of married parents is easy to prove using birth and marriage certificates.

"Why exactly does marriage need to be a legal relationship?" (Answer) Because it involves legal obligations involving property and the support of families. A marriage certificate is also important evidence in divorce proceedings and inheritance, and in administration of social security.

"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 (Marriage) Act". (Answer) The same applies to murder but we still have penalties for murder, in part as a deterrent.

"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". (Answer) These citizens are right. The rate of break-up for formal marriages is far lower than for de-facto relationships.

"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". (Answer) Spot on! Many mothers in de-facto relationships illegally claim sole parent pensions. On the other hand, when superannuation or inheritance benefits are at stake, common law spouses are generally not backward in coming forward.

Overall I see a need both for a Marriage Act and a compulsory register of de-facto relationships.