You confuse an unenforceable contract with an illegal contract. It is perfectly legal to agree with your bride on sexual exclusivity and most couples, explicitly or implicitly, do. It is legal to enforce the agreement by social or religious pressure or appeals to morality. The change is that the state won't enforce it.
You use "polygamy" when you mean promiscuity. Polygamy is a form of marriage that traditionally included a commitment to sexual exclusivity, at least by the women.
You ignore the fact that, although the old mechanism for reliable paternity has in part broken down, paternity testing provides a new mechanism. It is not only a wise child who knows his father — a good lab will do it.
(comments made after reading the first part of your very long essay)
I accept your distinction between an illegal and an unenforceable contract. I believe that social, religious, and moral pressures are a preferable way to enforce marriage contracts than the old ways (involving thumb-thick sticks). The state does still violently enforce marriage contracts, its just that the state only enforces the half of the marriage contract directed at men. If the state refused to enforce both halves, or neither half, of the marriage contract, the institution may still be intact.
I think you are correct that I interchange the words "polygamy" and "promiscuity" too much, causing confusion. I will perhaps look over my essay and change this.
As for paternity testing, most divorce courts will force a man to pay child support even if he has procured a paternity test and proven that his wife's child is not his. The state also gets to define the term "father," and it's definition has no relationship to DNA. The definition of "father" is: the husband of the mother. If my mother has no husbands, I am legally a bastard.
What happens if the paternity test identifies the biological father? The state obviously has an interest in getting someone else to support the child but I would have thought it would prefer the biological father, if known, to the mother's husband.
What is your source for your claimed definition of father? That sounds like Lord Mansfield’s rule, a common law rule long predating the existence of paternity testing. A few US states still follow the rule, most do not. I am not sure that even in those that do the rule beats DNA testing, given that the rule is usually put as barring testimony by the spouses about marital access or adultery and a DNA test is a different sort of evidence. There is a list of states that do or do not follow the rule at https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200306026.
Your "thumb thick sticks" is an urban legend — there was never a common law rule permitting. a husband to beat his wife as long as the stick was no thicker than his thumb. The origin of that is dictum by one judge, extensively mocked by his contemporaries.
If you want people to read your essays I suggest making them much shorter. I'm interested in the subject and still stopped well before the end.
An interesting essay. A few problems:
You confuse an unenforceable contract with an illegal contract. It is perfectly legal to agree with your bride on sexual exclusivity and most couples, explicitly or implicitly, do. It is legal to enforce the agreement by social or religious pressure or appeals to morality. The change is that the state won't enforce it.
You use "polygamy" when you mean promiscuity. Polygamy is a form of marriage that traditionally included a commitment to sexual exclusivity, at least by the women.
You ignore the fact that, although the old mechanism for reliable paternity has in part broken down, paternity testing provides a new mechanism. It is not only a wise child who knows his father — a good lab will do it.
(comments made after reading the first part of your very long essay)
Mr. Friedman,
Thank you for reading my essay!
I accept your distinction between an illegal and an unenforceable contract. I believe that social, religious, and moral pressures are a preferable way to enforce marriage contracts than the old ways (involving thumb-thick sticks). The state does still violently enforce marriage contracts, its just that the state only enforces the half of the marriage contract directed at men. If the state refused to enforce both halves, or neither half, of the marriage contract, the institution may still be intact.
I think you are correct that I interchange the words "polygamy" and "promiscuity" too much, causing confusion. I will perhaps look over my essay and change this.
As for paternity testing, most divorce courts will force a man to pay child support even if he has procured a paternity test and proven that his wife's child is not his. The state also gets to define the term "father," and it's definition has no relationship to DNA. The definition of "father" is: the husband of the mother. If my mother has no husbands, I am legally a bastard.
What happens if the paternity test identifies the biological father? The state obviously has an interest in getting someone else to support the child but I would have thought it would prefer the biological father, if known, to the mother's husband.
What is your source for your claimed definition of father? That sounds like Lord Mansfield’s rule, a common law rule long predating the existence of paternity testing. A few US states still follow the rule, most do not. I am not sure that even in those that do the rule beats DNA testing, given that the rule is usually put as barring testimony by the spouses about marital access or adultery and a DNA test is a different sort of evidence. There is a list of states that do or do not follow the rule at https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200306026.
Your "thumb thick sticks" is an urban legend — there was never a common law rule permitting. a husband to beat his wife as long as the stick was no thicker than his thumb. The origin of that is dictum by one judge, extensively mocked by his contemporaries.
If you want people to read your essays I suggest making them much shorter. I'm interested in the subject and still stopped well before the end.