Comments on: Gay Marriage: A Way Out, Part 4

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:30:51 +0000

dragonlady: I agree with you that the entire concept of privatizing marriage is ridiculous. It would allow polygamy among Mormons, "muta" among Muslims, and result in more social breakdown.

The institution of marriage between two people who love each other and vow to remain faithful till death do they part, seems to me like a good thing for society. We shouldn't trash it to make everybody equal without it.

It would be like just shutting down all the segregated water fountains in the South in the 1950s. Making both blacks and whites equally thirsty in the hot weather is not an improvement over just integrating those water fountains.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:27:07 +0000

dragonlady: I believe that the original point of marriage between a man and a woman was to ensure that the woman’s child would be regarded by the man as his biological offspring. Hence that child would be the legal heir to the man’s estate. Otherwise the woman could have multiple sex partners, and in those days before DNA testing there was no way to know which man was the child’s biological father.Now that clearly is out of date, with many childless couples, with surrogate mothers, with in-vitro fertilization and so on.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:11:16 +0000

I believe the authors proposal of privatizing marriage is highly impracticable. If no one issues a marriage license, how do I ensure that for example, minors are not married, or that I’m not marrying three other people? There also needs to be some kind of legal documentation that a ceremony was performed with either a marriage certificate or license. How do I deal with inheritance if say, my husband dies shortly after the wedding but did not have time to make adjustments to his will? What legal documentation shows we were married? So if my religion says its okay to have numerous wives, how does govt deal with this? Say I want to apply sharia law to my marriage. My wife shows up in court now and asks for a divorce claiming domestic abuse. But my religion says it’s okay to lightly slap her. How does govt judge this? Recognizing marriage goes just beyond economics. It has brought forth family law which deals with some defacto situations surrounding family, property, and children. Govt has to be involved somehow if the marriage dissolves. Marriage laws are really a combination of particular rules limiting and enforcing the marriage bargain and social welfare rules about children.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:13:06 +0000

Again, there is no discussion on the impact of all this on kids. So marriage is all about adult desires and that’s it?

By: esurience

esurience — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:29:53 +0000

This is actually a good rationale for why same-sex couples should be allowed to get (government-recognized) marriage. The longer marriage discrimination against gay people continues, the more people like Bramwell there will be arguing that the solution is to get rid of the institution of marriage altogether to solve the problem. Should the government really be neutral on an institution whose absence in a child’s life is linked to things like a higher crime, drug abuse, delinquency etc? Should it really be neutral on an institution which gives adults health, stability, and financial security?Allowing same-sex couples to get married won’t end “traditional” marriage. Opposite-sex couples will still be able to wed. On the other hand, *NOT* allowing gay couples to get married might just end “traditional” marriage as a result. It seems the choice is pretty clear.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:55:47 +0000

This is a good point, and I for one feel that getting gov't out of the "this is an acceptable relationship" business makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, I suspect the zealots on both sides will find this offensive and unacceptable (good evidence that it's a fair deal). They each want ultimate victory, and state-approved vindication of their specific value set.

So I think it will be difficult or impossible for this to happen on a federal level. It could become the policy in some states where the issue is a toss-up, and a strong executive and legislature suddenly care about resolving it and getting it off the table so they can deal with important things like budgets. One can only hope.

By: mlindroo

mlindroo — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:42:44 +0000

> Marriage existed for thousands of years before the
> modern state even came into being. Government
> classification is no more necessary to maintain the
> institution of marriage than, say, joint tax returns.

Pretty good "out of the box" thinking, Mr.Bramwell!

I wonder if Obama has the guts to propose solving the Gordian knot of government-endorsed marriage in this manner...

MARCU$