While I applaud your ultra-liberal stance, there’s more to marriage than just children. What about tax laws, inheritance, medical contracts, insurance, spousal benefits and rights…?
Why or how is a “sacramental covenant” the business of the State?
The taxpayer has an interest in encouraging couples to form mutual insurance pacts. When one of the partners falls on hard times, the other can provide a safety net. In practice, coupling also tends to discourage wrongdoing: e.g. I understand that single men are more disposed to crime than married men.
So the State has an interest in encouraging such unions of one sort or another. Whether the state should be investing spiritual power into the relationship, or even whether the state is particularly good at giving a relationship a social blessing is a separate matter.
Granting all or even some of the incidents of marriage -except one- to willing MM and FF couples would be a substantial step forward. I would suggest that MM and FF couples who want to have a particular coveted term attached to their relationship, simply state to their acquaintances, “We are married”. (Also, they may take a vacation in Canada and/or have a ceremony at a sympathetic altar.)
Hamish’s points regarding international travel would still remain, however.
It is no business of the government what someone considers a sacrament or a God-created state of union, granted. It is, however, the personal attitude of a large chunk of Americans that marriage is something more than a mere civil contract.
And it is my personal belief, and that of a significant chunk of Christians and Jews, that a religious marriage is quite possible between two persons of the same sex.
All this “separate the civil institution from the religious one” is reinventing the wheel. Those whom the state permits to marry under its laws may enter into the civil institution; those whom a particular church permits to marry, may enter into the religious institution. And, saving everyone time and trouble, if a couple qualifies under both standards, why, lo and behold, the law provides that the clergyperson conducting the religious ceremony may incorporate the civil requirements into it and produce a one-step process for marrying.
Why people think that needs to be thrown out is beyond me. Nobody is forced to go through a religious ceremony in order to marry – every state has a plethora of civil officiants for weddings prescribed in their laws. Those whose personal beliefs require them to do both, can accomplish it in one easy process.
There is, of course, the question of whether the Loving holding that marriage is indeed a fundamental right should trump the state’s present privilege to decide limits on who may marry. That will be an interesting question to watch being resolved.
The civil institution already is separate from the religious one - even though only one ceremony may be involved. A couple who qualifies under both the religious and civil standards may have both institutions begin and end at the same time or they may not - the RCC wouldn’t consider me married if I had only a civil ceremony and wouldn’t recognize a divorce as ending the sacramental marriage if I had a religious ceremony. It seems to me that a lot of people don’t distinguish between the two institutions , perhaps because their religion recognizes the civil steps as both beginning and ending the marriage or perhaps because in their case, both institutions began simultaneously. And that’s were the trouble seems to start- I’m sure a large number of Americans see marriage as more than a civil contract. But in truth, that’s all a civil marriage is. Sure, a particular civil marriage may be more than that, but it doesn’t have to be. The civil institution doesn’t need to be separated from the religious to the point of requiring two separate ceremonies- the civil institution could begin at the point where the license is currently issued. Or the civil institution could be called by a different name than the religious one - for both same-sex and opposite sex couples.
And now a question for Hamish- how would it affect the portability if a country had no institution called “marriage” at all ?
Good question. You’ll have to ask a lawyer. I’m just someone who’s read up a lot on the subject of marriage law recently.
It is likely the biggest impact that getting rid of marriage altogether would have is in the areas of divorce and child custody. Things like retirement and insurance benefits, and decisionmaking powers in the case of incapacity, would be impacted somewhat, but it wouldn’t be too hard for the providers or the law to just say “you have the right to designate one beneficiary/decisionmaker in the event of your death or incapacity. Here is how you do it in a way that the court recognizes, and here are the rules about who it can be and what rights they get.”
If you get rid of marriage, however, you throw pretty much all divorce law out the window, as the whole point of divorce is to set forth rules concerning the results of dissolution of marriage. Maybe you’d come up with something like “palimony” or “common law relationship” based on a continuing course of conduct between the parties to which you would staple on divorce law, but it would be messy.
Having said that, there is no way in hell you’d ever get political support for getting rid of marriage. There are too many people who either enjoy its benefits, or hope to do so some day.
I have to admit I see things Reeder’s way. I don’t see any good reason why married couples should be treated differently with respect to tax law - and I’m married, so I do have a dog in this hunt.
As to spousal benefits, inheritance, and such, there’s no particular reason why a competent adult cannot nominate someone to inherit their money, serve as their medical power of attorney, etc. Insurance and benefits are rather easily credited to your spouse - I had Mrs. RickJay as an insurance beneficiary through my employer before we were married, in fact. You could convert the entire legal institution of marriage into a few one-page forms no more complex than a change of address stub. If people want to engage in the religious and traditional ceremony of marriage, they’re still free to do so.
Either way, things should be equal. It’s either marriage for everyone, or civil union for everyone. Having two different categories, even if you don’t think it’s offensive and discriminatory, is STUPID. The government will find a way to waste millions upon millions of dollars and man-hours on distinguishing between the two.
this is how i feel too… if a gay marriage is called a
‘civil union’ then a straight marriage should be called
the same. to give separate names (even if the 2 are legally
exactly the same) is discrimination.
maybe they should call the legal version ‘civil marriage’
or ‘legal marriage’. (i’d say keeping the word marriage as
part of it would cause fewer problems than a new name as
far as the general population is concerned)
whatever the name there’s no reason to waste tax money
and time re-createing existing laws, just modify wording
and such in them.
It’s not really beyond either of us, Poly.
This week’s Economist discussed some of the politics behind the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, a ban which extends beyond the presumptions in the OP:
I’ll add that this issue could cause some voters to swing in 2004, if we fail to act strategically.
Politics is the art of the possible: this is yet another area where liberty will have to be gained in steps. A worst-case scenario would be Gay Marriage victories in lower courts-- and a subsequent Bush victory followed by a sweeping anti-gay decision by the SCOTUS in 2005. IMHO, of course.
So we need a compromise. Within the governmental sphere, granting a muddled civil union to homosexuals and reserving the word, "Marriage", for a Holy Union --I mean *Wholesome Union*-- between man and wife, along with a couple of additional concessions, seems like the way to go.
Outside of the realm of civil paperwork, people can call themselves what they please.
I think your bias is leading you to make a faulty generalization, AZ. The OED primary definition for marry, “to join in wedlock or matrimony; to join for life as husband and wife…,” has as it’s first cite a source from 1297 (#2 is 1375).
Now I don’t know about you, but 700+ years of precedent does make for a rather substantial historical bias, at least as far as applies to the term “marriage”.
Married is married, as far as I’m concerned. As much as I may find one person’s choice of life-partner distasteful for whatever reason, I don’t think I have the power to stop someone from choosing to dedicate their lives to someone else. If a person is willing to make that kind of lifelong pact with one other person (which requires quite a sacrifice) then I think they should be accorded all the legal protections (as well as all the headaches, fights, disappointments, and restrictions) maried life provides.
But, I very strongly feel that these protections can and should only be granted to persons entering into monogamous pacts. Sorry, AZ, I know that rubs you the wrong way, but that’s a discussion for another thread…
Even using your definition, please explain how it prohibits plural marriage? Does it limit participation to two? And then, for fairness, look up “polygamy”. Does it use the term “marriage” in the definition? Hmmm.
But frankly, who cares what is inserted next to the word “marry” in the OED? Should that definition be the ultimate determination of social policy? I mean, do you really even have a point?
Also, do you recognize that polygamy wasn’t all that uncommon here in the United States prior to the late 1800s? Are you aware that Martin Luther endorsed polygamy? Your contention that the definition of “marry” has historically been limited to only two participants is unfounded.
That’s a new position. You suggest that only monogamous persons should receive the legal protections of marriage? Just curious, which definition of monogamy are you using? The strict definition is having one sexual partner for life. Even if you are referencing serial monogamy, I fail to understand why you think it is a basis for determining the legal protections of marriage.
A definition doesn’t prohibit, it identifies. The definition I quoted identifies marriage as a joining for life of a man and a wife.
Ummm yes. **A ** man and A wife.
It does, “marriage with several, or more than one at once; plurality of spouses…” (first cite 1591, BTW).
So what exactly does this mean? To me it means that marriage is still the relationship of a man to a wife (and vice versa of course), and that polygamy so defined is the state of a person have multiple marriages to multiple spouses. This does not change the fact that the word “marriage” refers to a monogamous state.
You’re absolutely right to point out that dictionary definitions do not laws make. Yes, definitions change over time. However, you’ll recall my only point in bringing the dictionary definition to your attention was to illustrate that you were making a faulty assumption in stating that, “Historical marriage did not, * /assume that marriage was defined as between two monogamous partners/ * although I will grant that recent tradition does.” Marriage is and was the union of a man and wife to one another. Polygamy is the extension of the marriage pact beyond one spouse. It may sound like splitting hairs to you, but in an argument that is generating more and more discussion of semantics maintaining a clear idea of the definitions is very important.
So? As I recall the pratice of slavery was rather common during that time period as well.
Again, so what?
That’s actually closer to the archaic definition. Again the OED, "Monogamy - 1.the practice or principle of marrying only once, or of not remarrying after the death of the first spouse. " I feel that the second definition listed is closer to the common modern usage of the term, “the condition, rule, or custom, of being married to only one person at a time (opposed to polygamy or bigamy)”
Even if you are referencing serial monogamy, I fail to understand why you think it is a basis for determining the legal protections of marriage.
[/QUOTE]
You haven’t demonstrated that.
I am married to my husband. This is a relationship for life of a husband and wife.
If I were to marry my mate as well, that would also be a relationship for life of a husband and wife.
It would not be monogamy; I would be a participant in two marriages. It would still be marriage by the definition that you posted.
Correct it’s not monogamy. It’s two simultaneous marriages. That’s polygamy. The state of marraige and the state of polygamy are not the same thing. Each marriage in the polygamous state is its own unique monogamous commitment. Therefore, if you are a polygamist, you find yourself in what appears to be an unresolveable paradox. Hence one of my problems with legally sanctioning polygamy.
As long as we understand marriage to be a mutally given, monogamous committment between two people, I don’t see what difference it makes what sex those people are. (To answer the question at hand in this thread.) But sanctioning the use of the term marriage for homosexual and heterosexual commitments does not automatically open the door for more than two people to get married to one another at one time.
Er . . . monogamy and polygamy are mutually exclusive.
I’m not in any monogamous commitments.
Marriage as opposed to civil union is the route Canadians have taken so far. I am hoping that the ammendment of the definition of marriage to ‘the union of two persons’ is passed. We have a federal election coming up and the two lead parties may put up roadblocks.
Marriage is the right choice. I’m not religious, however I can understand the desire to be married in the eyes of God. Many churches are willing to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies; you may have seen news coverage of the happy gay and lesbian couples who tied the knot in Canadian churches on Valentine’s Day.
Hence the unresolvable paradox.
Marriage is the commitment of a man and a wife. Polygamy is, “marriage with several.” I don’t see how this situation can be logically resolved. But then again, I don’t see why anyone would for the life of them want to put up with sharing a bathroom with more than one person.
Okay, but but do you claim to be married?
The problem you are having, Wrenchslinger, is that there is nothing inherent in the concept of “marriage” as historically practiced that mandates that the relationship be exclusive. The modern Christian notion of marriage purports to demand exclusive monogamy of the participants, but this demand is met so inconsistently by its practitioners (and is not even expected all that seriously, especially for members of more privileged classes of society) that it cannot be considered a true requirement. And there are other cultures within the American “melting pot” for which exclusive monogamy is entirely foreign to the concept of marriage.
If you are going to demand that marriage mandates exclusivity, you’re going to have to make the case for that demand. And I think you’re going to fail in your effort to define marriage to include exclusivity as a denotational requirement.
As long as everyone has access to the same category, I’ll be happy. I’d prefer that category be called “civil union,” but I’m willing to compromise and see it remain marriage.
This argument, as I’ve said elsewhere, is completely flawed: if civil unions are the only coupling arrangement available in the US, they’ll very quickly be written into comity agreements with other nations. SSM will probably not be written into comity agreements with nations that don’t allow them; but civil unions, by virtue of not being analogous to something the other country has, are less likely to be divided by the other country into SS and OS.
No – what’s obnoxious is your insistence on calling this a compromise. I already explained to you in the other thread that it’s NOT a compromise, and you responded to someone else in the other thread; your continuing to call it a compromise is misguided at best.
If you’re talking about a position other than “civil unions for everyone!” of course, I withdraw the criticism and apologize.
Daniel
I agree with this, but in reality, the church portion of a marriage doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. None of the pomp and circumstance of a church wedding counts in the United States of America. I was married in a civil service with no religious reference whatsoever, and the Polycarps were married in a church with all the religious trimmings. But we have exactly the same legal agreement with our spouses (save for a few state-to-state differences, I suppose…but they’d probably only come into play in a divorce anyway). We also have similar emotional agreements with our spouses. And we both refer to ourselves as married.
That said, the emotional aspect of marriage is the issue here. We, as a nation, who throughout history have stressed equality for all human beings, needs to acknowledge that homosexuals are not freaks that should be banished to the world of sitcoms and reality shows. We need to acknowledge that they fall in love like the rest of the citizens. They have children, pay taxes, buy homes, and participate in their communities. To deny them the recognition that everyone else gets effectively puts them into a sub-human category. And that effectively brings us back to the same mindset America had prior to the civil war. And that is patently wrong.
At the end of the day, we all have civil unions as far as the government is concerned. As long as gays are given exactly what the rest of us are, both legally and socially, we will not be equal.