Privatize Marriage?

[Feltan]

Jeff,

Indeed. I am a firm believer that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own damn business. Furthermore, and importantly, I could care less what consenting adults do in private. The government has no business regulating private behavior that is not harmful to another person.

More on topic to this thread, and being a contrarian, I will also note marriage is not private. Marriage is a public statement.

Apparently, as a society, we have gotten by the last few centuries without having to define marriage. The vast majority of people had a common understanding of what marriage is, and is not, at any given time in recent history. The commonly understood definition is now in question.

One segment of society seems eager to redefine marriage. The arguments are strong to do so, and appeal to our (also) common understading of liberty and freedom. Why should a loving couple be denied the ability to proclaim their love publically and benefit from instruments of government that that have been bestowed upon traditional married couples? That is a tough question. If you are gay, the current situation must be personally and profoundly frustrating.

The other side of this issue has strong arguments too. The traditional marriage is, despite its faults and weaknesses, the basic building block of our society. It should not be tinkered with lightly. Countries that have embraced new concepts of marriage have bragging rights on being progressive; however, negative ramifications on the social order have yet to be realized -- and will not be for a generation or more (assuming that there are any of course). For a concerned citizen, preserving an ordered society deserves close scrutiny and should not be rejected out of hand.

As noted above, religion does (and should) play a leading role in society's opinion. However, it is not a one sided factor in the equation. You may view homosexual marriage as an abomination, and quote chaper and verse to justify such an opinion. Another, equally pious person, can remind us that free choice is an element of sin, and that we should not judge lest we be judged. If based on religion, this argument can spin in a perfect circle and you will end up where you started; nothing will be resolved, and sides will polarize without resolution.

Personally, I think it boils down to government's role in the social order. If you see gay marriage as a vehicle for the government to legitimize an intimate relationship, it makes perfect sense to allow it. If you see traditional marriage as the best available social construct in which to raise children and propogate the race, modifying marriage to grant legitimacy to a homosexual union is absurd.

I am deeply conflicted on the issue. I do not see this argument as a competition between the luny-left and reactionary-right. Rather, I think there are good arguments in competition. The compromise position of civil unions appeals to me personally as a practical solution; compromise and practical in the sense that neither side is entirely happy, nor entirely disappointed. Perhaps, in the foreseeable future, it is the best we can hope for.

Regards,
Feltan

[Mr Epee]

Marriage has very little to do with love and sex, and everything to do with shared property and standards of taxation.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Marriage has very little to do with love and sex, and everything to do with shared property and standards of taxation.

Marriage has a lot to do with sex. If you're tired of sex, get married.

[gojujay]

Posting in order to subscribe. My thoughts are echoed by so many others...

[Morion]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this sentiment has been stated before or not. My take is that a compromise is a solution that nobody is happy with. Marriage should be a term only used for the legal bond established between a man and a woman no matter who performs the ceremony. A "Civil Union" should be allowed for any couple of any gender combination that wants to enter into such a contract. After all why should heterosexuals be the only ones who need lawyers to clean up their mistakes!

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Morion

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this sentiment has been stated before or not. My take is that a compromise is a solution that nobody is happy with. Marriage should be a term only used for the legal bond established between a man and a woman no matter who performs the ceremony. A "Civil Union" should be allowed for any couple of any gender combination that wants to enter into such a contract. After all why should heterosexuals be the only ones who need lawyers to clean up their mistakes!

uuuum? what would the difference between the two be?

and it seems that this would turn into the argument that it would be two separate things for gays and straights, and that "separate but equal" isn't easily constitutional.............

[Morion]

The only difference legally would be the title. This would "protect" the sanctity of "Marriage" for the religiously inclined who somehow feel that using the term for same sex couples would somehow defile it. The "Civil Union" would give a couple the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage without the title. Just a matter of semantics. As I said it is a compromise so neither side will be happy with it.

My take on what the different sides "want" is that the religously inclined want to ban same sex unions as "morally wrong" while same sex couples want to be treated like everybody else. Take it as you want this is just an opinion. I don't think anybody should be denied legal protection because of somebody elses beleifs.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Morion

The only difference legally would be the title. This would "protect" the sanctity of "Marriage" for the religiously inclined who somehow feel that using the term for same sex couples would somehow defile it. The "Civil Union" would give a couple the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage without the title. Just a matter of semantics. As I said it is a compromise so neither side will be happy with it.

My take on what the different sides "want" is that the religously inclined want to ban same sex unions as "morally wrong" while same sex couples want to be treated like everybody else. Take it as you want this is just an opinion. I don't think anybody should be denied legal protection because of somebody elses beleifs.

sure, if we put all the white people in white schools, and all the black people in black schools, everyone will be fine. except for all the white kids, and all the black kids.

separate but equal rarely works well (except for bathrooms) when there's actual equality. and equality is rather hard to create........... i mean, look at bathrooms..........

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Morion

The only difference legally would be the title. This would "protect" the sanctity of "Marriage" for the religiously inclined who somehow feel that using the term for same sex couples would somehow defile it. The "Civil Union" would give a couple the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage without the title. Just a matter of semantics. As I said it is a compromise so neither side will be happy with it.

My take on what the different sides "want" is that the religously inclined want to ban same sex unions as "morally wrong" while same sex couples want to be treated like everybody else. Take it as you want this is just an opinion. I don't think anybody should be denied legal protection because of somebody elses beleifs.

It also lets other states discriminate based on the type of union. A gay couple in Canada, for example, are "married" in Canada and not in Arkansas. If gay's are officially "married" then you can't tell the difference in Arkansas between a gay couple and a straight couple.

This is also the objection that straight couples have, BTW, that they are treated by Arkansas as if they are possibly gay merely because they've been married in Canada.

James.

[Morion]

*sigh* In a perfect world everybody would respect everybody elses rights and this debate wouldn't be happening. Sadly we do not live in a perfect world. My "solution" would give a couple the exact same legal rights, just a different title. It would also allow anybody who chooses a Civil Union to bind in one not just same sex couples. There is no "seperate but equal" in this, in the eyes of secular law they would be the same contract. It just limits the shrill crys about the "sanctity of marriage".

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by jBirch

{snip}
This is also the objection that straight couples have, BTW, that they are treated by Arkansas as if they are possibly gay merely because they've been married in Canada.

????

In what way does Arkansas (for example) treat a straight Canadian couple as if they were possibly gay?

--Philistine

[Fencergrl]

Canada is a tourist destination for a number of people who want to combine a honeymoon with a marriage. Many (but not all) are gay because gay marriages are permitted here. It's represents a considerable amount of tourist dollars.

http://gocanada.about.com/od/gblt/a/gaylesbian.htm

[Fencergrl]

For those that are interested.... http://www.gayvancouver.net/marriage.htm

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Philistine

????

In what way does Arkansas (for example) treat a straight Canadian couple as if they were possibly gay?

--Philistine

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they currently do. The idea is that if you are married in Canada, for example, there is no way for anyone else to know whether you are gay or not unless they know both you and your partner. For the heterosexual couple, many object to not being able to distinguish between straight marriages and gay ones in any sort of official capacity. The reverse problem, as it were, that unless someone else knows your spouse, they don't know whether you are gay or not.

If a gay couple were "married" but called something different then that "marriage certificate" could be discriminated against. For example, my wife and I went to Disney World for our Honeymoon and got lots of discounts because we were recently married. If my wife were actually a guy, would we have been able to take advantage of all the same discounts? If me and my gay wife were not married but "civil unioned" and had a "civil union" certificate, it is far too easy for the girl at the registration desk in Disney World to say, "sorry, we only accept marriage certificates as proof of marriage. Unfortunately you're not eligible for the discount."

James.

[lochinvar]

How about this...

How about we call all unions "civil unions", and those who want to have their union recognized/sanctioned by a religious ceremony can have a marriage performed? Instead of speaking of being "married", we'd just say "united" or "conjoined" or some such.

Frankly, I've never seen the problem. I don't think of myself as any less married if some gays go to Canada or wherever to get married.

Marriage was originally instituted as a contract between two people for the purpose of regularizing inheritance and providing for the financial and material support of children. That is where the state's interests are concerned, and only there. So long as those functions are served, who cares what it's called?

A rose by any other name still has thorns...

[D.O.A.R.]

Originally Posted by Feltan

The other side of this issue has strong arguments too. The traditional marriage is, despite its faults and weaknesses, the basic building block of our society. It should not be tinkered with lightly. Countries that have embraced new concepts of marriage have bragging rights on being progressive; however, negative ramifications on the social order have yet to be realized -- and will not be for a generation or more (assuming that there are any of course). For a concerned citizen, preserving an ordered society deserves close scrutiny and should not be rejected out of hand.

Originally Posted by Feltan

Personally, I think it boils down to government's role in the social order. If you see gay marriage as a vehicle for the government to legitimize an intimate relationship, it makes perfect sense to allow it. If you see traditional marriage as the best available social construct in which to raise children and propogate the race, modifying marriage to grant legitimacy to a homosexual union is absurd.

Good points as to the importance of marriage as it contributes to a stable society. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could roll back the clock a hundred years or so, and insert the new watered down version of marriage. Just for fun, imagine the USA (arguably the biggest player in the last century) was progressive enough to have been the only country in the world to have done so. Is the phrase "Hell in a handbasket" still used?

Looking ahead.....
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...17/190218.html

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Marriage was originally instituted as a contract between two people for the purpose of regularizing inheritance and providing for the financial and material support of children. That is where the state's interests are concerned, and only there. So long as those functions are served, who cares what it's called?

You and Mr. Epee have hit the nail on the head. The reason I think, this is an issue for the gay community is mainly for those reasons. If gay marriages are not recognized as a union in the same way as straight marriages are, it is unfair.

It has nothing to do with any uncomfortable pictures that may occur in your head at the thought of two men or two women being together.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

You and Mr. Epee have hit the nail on the head. The reason I think, this is an issue for the gay community is mainly for those reasons. If gay marriages are not recognized as a union in the same way as straight marriages are, it is unfair.

It has nothing to do with any uncomfortable pictures that may occur in your head at the thought of two men or two women being together.

Fencergrl,

Is it really that simple? It the issue of gay marriage all about property and inheritance?

While this is oft cited, it is not a compelling argument. Many legal instruments exist to allow the will of anyone (gay or straight) to be carried out. Living wills, conventional wills, general and limited powers-of-attorney, etc.

I suspect, deep down, it has more to do with enforcing social acceptance of a relationship by passing laws, or redefining terms, to equate heterosexual and homosexual practices as legally and morally identical.

Regards,
Feltan

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Feltan

Is it really that simple? Is the issue of gay marriage all about property and inheritance?

Well, it's not quite that simple, but almost.

While this is oft cited, it is not a compelling argument. Many legal instruments exist to allow the will of anyone (gay or straight) to be carried out. Living wills, conventional wills, general and limited powers-of-attorney, etc.

The "compelling argument" lies in the fact that current law recognizes the a priori claim of a surviving spouse--in other words, if you die your spouse inherits even if there is no will. Such cannot be said for gay couples.

The net effect is a fundamental legal right enjoyed by "straight" people, even if they don't choose to exercise it, which is denied to "gay" people. While fairness may not be a compelling argument for you, there are those who feel that everyone is entitled to equal standing under the law.

I suspect, deep down, it has more to do with enforcing social acceptance of a relationship by passing laws, or redefining terms, to equate heterosexual and homosexual practices as legally and morally identical.

Irrelevant. What may or may not flow from such decisions in the realm of public attitudes does not refute the legal argument.