As you may have heard, many scientists believe that marriage evolved. The human brain was growing too large for the birth canal, and causing babies to be born premature in order to fit through. As natural selection goes, mothers who had to be with their newborns for all hours of the day were unable to hunt or gather enough to survive. Men who stayed around to help would then share their food with the woman nurturing the child. At a certain time in human history, people spread out, and dind't live amongst a lot of other people. This is when love between a man and a woman became dominant. At other points in human history, there were plenty of people around. These people had to work together in a cohesive way, and that is how friendship became dominant. All emotions, including emotions of love and friendship, can be traced back to when they were required for survival.

 

As time passed, and civilizations grew, it was only natural for the legal system to incorporate these fundamental survival systems into law because of how beneficial they are. Eventually, however, marriage was reworked in culture to give someone power over someone else. In some cultures, men were given dominance, and in others, women were given dominance. As time went by, parents were given power over the relationships of their children. Later, people were obligated to marry because they had had sex and a child was born as a result. Now, there is a split. Some people choose to have rampant sex, some people choose to live together, and some people continue to follow the old ways, whatever they may be. Now, although there are many lifestyles, and although there are many customs for partnership, there is only one law, and that is deeply flawed.

 

From its evolutionary origins, we may extrapolate a relationship between marriage and law. There are two things involved in marriage that the law applies to. The first concept is the agreement to cooperate in a household. The second conceptis the agreement to cooperate in order to raise a child. Without these two fundamental agreements, when applicable, having a functional family is impossible. It is also important to separate these two concepts. It is also extremely important not to limit either concept to the idea of an agreeement between two people, since in many cases, more than two people are closesly involved.

 

Another issue is parenting. One of the fundamental definition of parenting is having the right to make decisions for a child, and teach the child how to think, and what to believe. This is an obsolete belief, since everyone knows that when you send your child to school, the school does all of those things. In many ways, it can also be an illegal idea, since some parent may teach a child to kill, to rape, and to steal. When all else fails, there is still the option to take care of a child. This means providing food, shelter, and clothing. Legally, anyone can do this at any time, and for any duration of time. It is one of the worst legally defined components of parenting. The final, most fundamental element is the biological element. Although many mentally disturbed people have become famous pondering the implications of passing on ones genes, normal everyday people understand the meaninglessness of the genetic component of parenting. No matter what the childs origins, the end result is the same, the child will become an adult.

 

There are certain things that every parent is thought to want for the child. A parent wants a child to live, not be too unhappy, have a healthy parent/child relationship, share the parent's values and beliefs, and to grow up to be a responsible adult. Lets cover each one of these wants one at a time from the legal system's point of view. The legal system provides laws against having a child be mistreated or neglected, thereby reducing the chance of, or preventing the child from dying. There are many social services set up for children in most systems that deal with children, or the family in general, thta try help them with any social issues that may arise. In most cases, parents are held responsible for their child's actions. This gives parents an incentive to keep control of the child as best they can, reenforcing the parent/child bond. It is the parent's decision to take children to any institution, religious or otherwise, that may help indoctrinate the child in the ways and beliefs of the parent. Not only is there no legal way to manage this freedom, but there is also an unspoken understanding that once a child becomes an adult, the new adult may have completely separate beliefs. There is also no legal guarantee that the child will develop into a responsible or autonomous adult, one who can carry a job and provide for his or her self. In fact, all responsibility issues lay solely on adults, with children looked upon as completely dependent and unable to make decisions for themselves, then suddenly mature enough to have a role in society. No responsibility is legally set upon the parent to prepare the child for adult life and responsibilities. However, this is slowly being realised by the government.

 

 

Now on to the provocative issue of legal marriage. According to the Unted States constitution, in a very basic way, it is unconstitutional. Marriage, as it is defined today, is a fundamental component of religious freedom. It is both a statement of love, and an agreement between two individuals to cooperate in a household in a way defined by religion. It is a bond that is not legally appreciable in any way except child rearing, and only then in an abstract and clumsy way. It is most commonly created by the legal authority given to a religious leader to perform a religious ceremonial ritual, which is completely alien to, and largely unregulated by the law. It also has legal economic implications involving the separation of household value, which is not only outrageous and perverse, it is unfair to any other partners of the household, who are by default, not included in this legal union between two people.

 

 

All issues not covered under the law are subject to religious scrutiny and determination under the final definition of marriage. For instance, religious views on social interaction and moral ideology that do not intersect legal authority, issues of household roles and command heirarchies, religious rituals and obligations that do not intersect the law.

 

There is to be made a legal agreement between adult household members. This agreement automatically applies to any children who come to maturity in the household. The agreement outlines the legal power and positions that each member holds, and it assigns a piece of household value to each individual. The default agreement, which takes affect after a considerable period of time, is an equal share of the household, which may be claimed upon vacating the premesis.

 

There is to be made a legal agreement between all adults who have guardianship over a child for a considerable period of time. There may be permanent, temporary, or cyclical versions of the agreement. This agreement is useful for declaring responsibility beyond the customary family unit, and may be used to gain family level clearance or access in most situations. The default agreement, which takes affect after a period of time, includes personal contact with the child, miscellanious responsibilities, outside activities, legal benefits, and legal penalties. Also, the child, if old enough, should be included in the proceedings.