Should the state stop meddling in marriage institution?<\/p>\n
As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor\u2019s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn\u2019t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner\u2019s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.<\/p>\n
Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep \u2014 who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor\u2019s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn\u2019t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments. [Taking Marriage Private<\/em><\/a>. Coontz, Stephanie. New York Times. November 25 2007]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n