A Proposed Solution to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

[rjung]

While thinking about the Massachusetts ruling on same-sex marriage, and the same-sex marriages in San Francisco yesterday, and the public opposition to the same, I think I may have an answer to the whole logjam.

Consider:
Axiom 1: Folks opposed to same-sex marriage feel that it threatens the idea of “marriage,” which should be limited to a man and a woman.
Axiom 2: Folks in favor of same-sex marriage want the same privileges and protections that married couples have.

The solution? Let’s get rid of the privileges and protections for married couples.

Sure, it would mean a few changes in existing laws: health insurance, instead of providing coverage for a member and his/her spouse, would have to provide coverage for a member and his/her partner. Adoption policies would not be biased towards married couples, and have to weigh the worthiness of applicants based on other factors instead. Inheritance laws and hospital visitation laws would be similarly affected. But none of these changes are insurmountable; in most cases, it’s simply a matter of changing a benefit from a “spouse” (the other member of a marriage) to a “partner” (an adult designated by the subject).

Under this idea, since there will be no benefit whatsoever to being married, same-sex couples can abandon their quest for legalized marriages, since there’s no point to the battle any more. Opponents of same-sex marriage can breathe a sigh of relief, since same-sex couples won’t be using the M-word for their relationships. And, as an extra side benefit, couples of any gender who happen to be co-habitating would get a whole bunch of extra benefits they don’t already have. Everybody wins!

So, what do you think, ladies and gentlemen? A solution worthy of Solomon, n’est pas?

[MrVisible]

Let’s see… how do you think straight people would react to having a set of rights that they value so highly that they don’t even want to share them taken away from them? And who do you think they’d blame if that happened?

[Dog80]

“Since gays can’t have it, nobody should”

Yeah, great idea :rolleyes:

[erislover]

People are going to get into emotional relationships based on commitment. This commitment will put people into positions where their trust can be abused. The state has an abiding interesting in not just encouraging stable relationships, but providing a means of redress for parties who put their faith in another party only to have this second party abuse their position. Thus, the state has a legitimate interest in such relationships.

It encourages the formation of such relationships through benefits. It enforces the promises such couples make by recognizing obligations parties submit to when they enter into such a relationship should the relationship dissolve.

So I do not feel removing marriage benefits or obligations is a viable solution.

[Phlosphr]

Ralph - Are you married?

I’m a married man and I have something with my wife that I would not want to get rid of…several legally binding things I would not want to get rid of:

Power of Attorney
She is sole the beneficiary of my will…until children arrive.
She decides whether or not to pull the plug if I am suddenly stricken in a vegetative state.
I want my wife to be able be in charge of these things. And a Gay couple should have that same right!
Under your plan what would you do about Wills, insurance, etc…etc…

Come on now…this theory is chock full of holes.

[Phlosphr]

Whoa! ignore the abhorrable grammar in that post…

[John_Mace]

rjung:

Are you sitting down?

I agree with you 100%. I hope that doesn’t prompt you to change your stance on this issue.

At any rate, most of us of the libertarian persuasion have been arguing this from the beginning. In fact, I don’t think you’re the first one to open a thread proposing it.

It’s a great solution, except that it’s not practical in our society. Too many people think “family” is something that needs to be protected, encouraged, and rewarded. And to most people, “family” means mom, dad, and kid. I don’t know of a way to change that societal point of view.

[erislover]

John Mace, would you also agree to removing other legally binding entities like corporations which confer both benefits and obligations?

[Captain_Amazing]

You know, your suggestion reminds me of a story.

There was this guy who found a lamp, and, as people do in these sorts of stories, he rubbed it. Sure enough, out popped the genie. “Thanks for freeing me from the lamp”, said the genie. “In gratitude, I’m giving you one wish. However, there’s a condition. Whatever you get, your worst enemy gets double.” (Yeah, this guy actually had a worst enemy).

So, the guy thought about it for a while. Finally, he said to the genie, “Could you remove one of my balls?”

Everybody agrees that the rights given to married people are good things to have…power of attorney, social security benefits, joint custody of children. So, why take this away from married straight people just because gay couples want it? It makes more sense to extend these rights, rather than take them away.

[rjung]

@MrVisible

Let’s see… how do you think straight people would react to having a set of rights that they value so highly that they don’t even want to share them taken away from them?

Well, my idea isn’t so much as the rights are taken away and never returned, as much as re-worded so that they’re no longer specifically benefitting only married couples. Like, instead of saying “your medical benefits cover yourself and your spouse,” we’d say “your medical benefits cover yourself and one other adult partner.”

@John Mace

It’s a great solution, except that it’s not practical in our society. Too many people think “family” is something that needs to be protected, encouraged, and rewarded. And to most people, “family” means mom, dad, and kid.

Probably, though I’d have thought that twenty years of cheesy sitcoms have taught us that “family” means a bunch of adults, some cutesy kids, a wacky neighbor, and a dog. I mean, wasn’t that the point of “Full House,” “Three Men and a Baby,” and “Two and A Half Men”?

[Loopydude]

@rjung

Well, my idea isn’t so much as the rights are taken away and never returned, as much as re-worded so that they’re no longer specifically benefitting only married couples. Like, instead of saying “your medical benefits cover yourself and your spouse,” we’d say “your medical benefits cover yourself and one other adult partner.”
Probably, though I’d have thought that twenty years of cheesy sitcoms have taught us that “family” means a bunch of adults, some cutesy kids, a wacky neighbor, and a dog. I mean, wasn’t that the point of “Full House,” “Three Men and a Baby,” and “Two and A Half Men”?

Like you and John Mace, I want the Gubmint OUT of the marriage game. Completely out. I see “marriage” and “sanctity” uttered in the same breath by Dubya Shrub, and I say “Separation of Church and State: NOT!!!”

There’s a logical problem with your solution though: It’s indistinguishable (except in name) from same-sex marriage. If people won’t go for same-sex marriage, they won’t go for the “you get to designate one adult…” solution either.

Not that I don’t think that is precisely the framework the nation should adopt. I do. But, you see, it would make too much sense. Common sense and fairness is something the majority of Americans simply cannot cope with. It gives them heart burn and constipation. Plus, it would leave the soap-box-riders on all sides with nothing more to discuss on the subject, and the AFL-CIO Pundits Chapter would raise a holy stink with the politicians, who fear the union and its power.

I suggest you pick 1000 people and start a colony on Mars. Some day your children can watch the fireworks through a telescope as the Earth’s inhabitants nuke each other.

[zig]

This was my post from this tread :

As a single heterosexual male, here is my shout from left field.

Ban all “marriages” from being recognized by the law.

Leave the question of who can and can get married up to the churches, synagogues, temples and ship’s captions. Legally the government would only recognize domestic partnerships as being a legal relationship existing between two or more persons contractually associated, having specified and joint rights, ownership and responsibilities (similar to a business partnership).

The reason behind the law and the legal challenges is the concept of equality. If the government changed the legal statues of all marriages, gay or straight, to domestic partnerships and left the concept of marriage, sex and morality to individuals we would all be better off.

It separates the religious concept of marriage and the legal concept of marriage.

Wow, separating church and state, what a novel idea.

[Skammer]

@zig

This was my post from this thread :

It separates the religious concept of marriage and the legal concept of marriage.

Wow, separating church and state, what a novel idea.

Speaking as someone who opposes gay marriage… I would completely support this. In fact I like it better than what we have now, even before gay marriages are factored in.

[John_Mace]

@rjung

Probably, though I’d have thought that twenty years of cheesy sitcoms have taught us that “family” means a bunch of adults, some cutesy kids, a wacky neighbor, and a dog. I mean, wasn’t that the point of “Full House,” “Three Men and a Baby,” and “Two and A Half Men”?

All examples of Godless, communist, Hollywood propaganda!

@erislover

John Mace, would you also agree to removing other legally binding entities like corporations which confer both benefits and obligations?

I don’t know all the benefits and obligations, so I’m not sure. Can you be specific about what they are?

[Anduril]

@Dog80

“Since gays can’t have it, nobody should”

Yeah, great idea :rolleyes:

That was lovely.

[Gorsnak]

Could someone please explain to me how this “govt out of marriage, just do domestic partnership/civil union/whatever, and let religions do marriage” proposal is different from what we have now?

Seriously.

We have civil marriages, i.e., what the government recognizes, which have nothing to do with religion beyond the fact that some religious functionaries are deputized by the state to formalize the arrangement. Some religious functionaries are also public notaries, too…this is basically irrelevant.

Then there are religious marriages, which are are completely independent from civil marriages, neither one being either a sufficient or necessary condition for entering into the other. Frequently both types of marriage are entered into simultaneously, but this again is irrelevant.

So what, exactly, does this proposal everyone thinks is so great do besides changing the label of legal entity from ‘civil marriage’ to ‘civil union’?

[Hamish]

I’ve posted this at least twice to this board, but this “getting government out of the marriage business” thing keeps popping up.

To review:

This is not a semantics game, and it’s not about church and state being entangled. There are benefits to marriage that can not be granted by legal contract, by civil unions, and certainly not by reducing it to a purely private ceremony.

Most important of these, in my mind, is the right to marry someone who is not a citizen to keep your loved one in the country. I have two friends for whom this is a potential issue, so it’s rather dear to my heart, and since I was practically married to an American man, it could have been an issue in my life, too.

You cannot resolve that by legal contract. No church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or circle can grant that right.

Secondly, marriage is portable. Talking from the Canadian context here: If go to Ontario and marry a guy, I’m still married to him in the Netherlands. If I get civil-unioned in Quebec, he and I are strangers in Alberta.

Thirdly, under most legal systems, the spouse has more rights in the case of accident or death than the family, but the family has more than a “stranger.” In many places, the family still has rights over the “stranger” even if a legal contract signed states otherwise.

So I think “getting government out of the marriage business” is probably a worse idea than the status quo.

[Loopydude]

Civil unions, as they exist, don’t carry the same legal weight as a marriage. They don’t go up to the Federal level, that’s for sure, and other states have no obligation to recognize them.

Two things about a “marriage”: It’s a legal union between two adults that is recognized by states other than the one in which the marriage took place, as well as at the Federal level (e.g. income and Soc. Sec. taxes, and Soc. Sec. benefits).

A “marriage” can only occur between a man and a woman. Why? Because “marriage” is sacred, and the govt. recognizes this. Our president said it himself. Even if a Justice of the Peace or Capt. Stubing performs the ceremony, apparently this “marriage” is still sacred.

Where does this “sacred” thing come from. Well, our traditional Judeo-Christian value system, that’s what. I consider this a blatant violation of the separation of Church and State. You chuck the “sacred” part, and simply leave the “union” part, and the sex, orientation, whatever of the conjoined fails to be relevant. The Federal Government has no business telling us what is sacred or not. Arguing that the govt. should now recognize the sanctity of gay marriage is, in my estimation, a step backwards, not forwards; or, at least, it’s a step in the wrong direction.

Change the law: One adult gets to pick one adult to have all the legal status currently associated with a spouse. That adult could be anyone. If you want to give it to your mother, your father, or Mr. Rogers, so be it, as long as that other person is willing to sign on. Dissolving this contract would require the same or very similar legal proceedures to the ones already in place to dissolve a marriage contract; this would provide all the impediment most folks should ever need to entering into such unions frivolously.

As for other countries: We can’t help what they recognize and don’t. If Namibia won’t let me emmigrate there with my mother because they don’t recognize our “civil union”, that’s the price I’m willing to pay. At any rate, I imagine most countries would recognize the “civil union” my wife and I share, so I doubt immigration is really that much of an issue. For people coming into the US, we can honor legal unions that the home govt. of the immigre honors. Simple, clean-cut, and as fair as can be expected.

Why on Earth don’t we have such a system already? Oh, yeah, not “sacred” enough…

[Hamish]

@Loopydude

As for other countries: We can’t help what they recognize and don’t. If Namibia won’t let me emmigrate there with my mother because they don’t recognize our “civil union”, that’s the price I’m willing to pay. At any rate, I imagine most countries would recognize the “civil union” my wife and I share, so I doubt immigration is really that much of an issue. For people coming into the US, we can honor legal unions that the home govt. of the immigre honors. Simple, clean-cut, and as fair as can be expected.

Perhaps this is not a major issue for you, but it is for some. Working abroad is becoming very common. I’ve known people who taught English in Japan or Korea, for instance.

As a larger number of nations recognize gay marriage, it will become increasingly portable. I doubt civil unions will be.

[erislover]

@John Mace

I don’t know all the benefits and obligations, so I’m not sure. Can you be specific about what they are?

I don’t know what they all are either, as I am not and never have been a corporation, but for starters, corporations represent an economic shield for the parties making the decisions in most cases. The company gets sued, not the board (or stockholders), and when its pockets run dry, well, can’t get blood from a stone. Similarly, they may sell ownership in the form of stock as a way of raising funds, and with this comes certain obligations in terms of paying dividends and so on.