The problem with the debate about Same SexMarriage is that we are not sure what marriage is really for. Until a century ago, marriage was a relationship between an economically active man and a child rearing women with little place in the working world. It protected the position of all to a certain extent and was relevant to the time- treating each couple/family as a single economic unit and hoping to find security for children.
Move forward to the present day and most women in Western society are economically active and they vote, work and socialize more like men; childcare is shared to a certain extent, and marriage frequently fail to last trhrough the offspring’s childhood.
Perhaps we should redefine marriage as a social agreement (previously often consecrated by religious bodies but also by the state) that is non-economic- each person retains their Tax status and no special exceptions ride on marriage or not.
Then the state can define a further status- Parents- who need to be regulated in the interests of the children whether the parents are married or not. Exceptions to tax laws and so on become dependent on child care relationships, not romantic ones.
If two men or two women declare there parentage for a child via adoption or other means, they become parents with tax breaks and other privileges. This is entirely governed by the state and the churches have no input whatsoever.
Marriage has always been an economic arrangement. First it was a means of property transfer, now it’s a means of tax avoidance and fixing the rights of certain parties. The non-economic features are solely incidental.
What problem are you trying to solve? Because if you think a simple “definition change” is going to make anti-SSM suddenly pro, I think you don’t understand why people are anti in the first place.
I agree. But would it be more rational to let romantic engagement formalisation become social rather than state business, and formalise solely those unions which are responsible in some manner for child rearing?
Here’s the thing: People are anti-SSM because they either disapprove of homosexuality or feel that gays/liberals are trying redefine marriage in a way that affects them. So, to solve that problem, you are proposing… to redefine marriage in a way that affects them.
I don’t think is true. If think that if you’d asked people, one or two or three centuries ago or more, what the purpose of marriage was, they would not have defined it as an economic arrangement. They might well have agreed that it did have an effect on some financial and legal decisions, but they wouldn’t have said that was the main purpose. Nor would most people today say so.
The purpose of marriage according to my own ideals, the purpose of marriage according to the state, and the purpose of marriage according to God are all very different things. I might think that the purpose of marriage is childrearing, someone else might think it’s to formalize one’s love, but as far as the state goes it’s solely about distributing economic rights and benefits. Similarly, I don’t think same sex marriages are ‘marriages’ in the eyes of God, but I have no problem with the state treating them as marriages the same as they would treat opposite-sex couples.
Re: Move forward to the present day and most women in Western society are economically active and they vote, work and socialize more like men; childcare is shared to a certain extent, and marriage frequently fail to last trhrough the offspring’s childhood.
Most women were always economically active, in agriculture and household level production. And there are plenty of stay at home wives and mothers today. I think the difference you’re pointing to is one of degree more than kind.
I don’t think so. Just look at popular novels from the 18th century. In half of them, the hero and heroine are in love with each other and trying to get married, while the villain is trying to keep them apart or force a different marriage for some nefarious other purpose. At the happy ending, the couple who love each other always get married. Likewise for Shakespearean comedies, written four hundred years ago. Or just read the passage on marriage in Ephesians, written almost 2,000 years ago. The idea of marriage based on love is a very old one. (At least in the West)
Ephesians isn’t talking about selecting partners based on love, though. The Shakespearean works are, but even there it’s clear that it’s a radical idea.
The near endless discussions of how much money prospective husbands made is a pretty big giveaway.
Marriage based primarily on love was a radical notion (at least for people with any real amount of money or property). And that it’s precisely why it was fascinating enough to make it into fiction.
That’s not how it looks to me. Shakespeare clearly expected the audience to sympathize with and celebrate the characters who were seeking to marry for love, while viewing the idea of marriage for money as crass. Likewise in Jane Austen, when Elizabeth Bennet’s mother tries to pressure Elizabeth into marrying Mr. Collins, the reader is expected to take Elizabeth’s side and view Mrs. Bennet as a fool.
Given that we already have civil unions, and anti-SSM people are not rushing to allow them for gay couples as an alternative to marriage, I agree with John that any changes to regular marriage won’t make a difference.
Religions support marriage due to the fact that we are natural pair-bonders, not vice versa.
Selection is different. Most marriages through history were arranged based on the premise that women were property - first of the father, then of the husband, which we still have in the sense of the father giving away a bride. But the utility of marriage is independent of that.
Re: Or just read the passage on marriage in Ephesians, written almost 2,000 years ago. The idea of marriage based on love is a very old one. (At least in the West)
What St. Paul means is a very different ideal of marital love than the modern romantic-comedy ideal. His model of marriage is between unequals, it involves a provider and a dependent, a dominant and a submissive partner. He isn’t talking about egalitarian relationships between companions/best friends, which is an increasingly popular ideal nowadays. (For the record, I’m more of a complementarian and tend to agree with St. Paul, but there can be no doubt that what he, and most people in the Christian era as well as in the ancient Greco-Roman world, meant by marriage was very different than the modernist ideal).
Personally, I’d like to see some legal redefinitions in marriage, but I think the OP is making the wrong distinction. As I see it, legally, all a marriage is a formalized contract between two parties that the government bestows certain rights and privileges upon. It serves an important function and it makes sense to allow two people to agree to enter a mutually beneficial relationship. Even without discussing any moral or ethical issues related to homosexuality, I don’t see any reason why this should be limited only to opposite sex couples. I do think some of the privileges and benefits may need some updating, but beyond that, for opposite sex couples, we’ve never required that they actually be in love or prove intent to produce offspring.
I’m also not sure what the OP means about defining an additional status as parents. Isn’t that already done? There’s no requirement that the mother and father be legally married. Now, I could see some issues related to gay couples where at least one of them won’t be a biological parent but wants to adopt and certain laws prevent that. I think those should be changed to make it simpler for gay couples. Especially since, without it, you basically are just stuck with a single parent legally and their partner unable to make potentially important legal or medical decisions. But even then, you’re really just talking about some updating and tweaking to adoption laws, not some kind of new status.
In fact, the only real major definition change I’d be for making is one that isn’t even really necessary since it’s purely social. And that would be that anyone that doesn’t like the social or religious aspects of a certain legally married couple doesn’t have to regard them as such in a social or religious aspect. But we already do that. I’ve known more a few couples who have been disowned by some of their family and friends for various reasons, one was a gay couple, one was interracial, one was for a huge age difference, one was abusive (I didn’t like that last one either, but also didn’t think ostracizing them was the right answer). But all of that seems to be self-organizing as, even if we did, say, force a community to recognize a particular marriage socially, why would a couple want to remain part of a community that was hostile to them?
Agreed. The argument that allowing SSM somehow “destroys” marriage is hyperbole and unsupported. This plan however (and why it continues to be proposed, I have no idea) absolutely and affirmatively DOES destroy marriage.
It’s always asked in these threads: Why is government in the marriage “business”? The answer: Because people are in the marriage “business” and governments simply recognize these relationships that people would like to/actually do form for the same reason that governments recognize contracts, deeds, wills and the like. Government exists to make peoples lives more cohesive.
To put fingers in our ears and pretend that such a thing like marriage doesn’t exist solely in a failed attempt to satisfy those opposed to SSM merely creates problems and solves none.
So, as I see, civil marriage serves three purposes. First, it creates a set of default contract rules pertaining to the organization of a household, agency, property disposition, etc. It’s never made sense to me to deprive any two parties arranging those things anyway they like (same-sex or opposite sex; married or unmarried).
The second is to provide a set of affirmative benefits. I am told by the pro-SSM marriage crowd that these are numerous and significant. It also imposes a significant detriment to dissolving the relationship. The question that I struggle with is: what are the point of these benefits and detriments? Marital status alters the relationship between a citizen and the government in a meaningful way, but I’m not sure why.
The third function of civil marriage is to bestow societal recognition and approval of a person’s relationship. I am told that there is considerable psychological benefit to same-sex couples to have their relationship “approved” by society. (I also assume that’s the reason that the elements of society that do not approve vigorously resist the expansion of civil marriage).
That’s one of the central points of the 9th Circuit Prop 8 opinion. That forbidding the term “marriage” (although continuing to afford all of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples) simply removed state recognition and legitimization and therefore served to “lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.” I’ve certainly heard the “animus” and “dignity” argument elsewhere. That’s what I mean by psychological grounds: the idea that having state recognition of your relationship witheld lessens your personal dignity and status (and, vice versa, that one’s dignity and status is increased when granted that recognition and legitimization).