Privatize Marriage?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

In previous gay marriage threads here, the overwhelming majority (including myself) has seemed to find consensus in privatizing marriage- that the state will provide civil unions, and churches/mosques/fast food places will offer marriages, if they want to, based on whatever criteria they want. This was also discussed in this Slate article (http://www.slate.com/id/2085127).

I went a very long time without hearing a convincing or well worded argument against this particular solution.... But today, as I was browsing the articles written by the Econ prof I'm planning on asking to be my minor advisor, I found one:

Originally Posted by James Miller

To summarize my argument, I pointed out that marriage is a valuable brand name that has strength only because it stands for something very important to many people. Consequently, if anyone could set the conditions under which they got married, the marriage brand name would have no value and consequently marriage would be essentially abolished, not privatized.

{the quote is from here, and the article he's summarizing is found here}

To make it perfectly clear, I don't really care what people think about whether or not gay marriage is moral or not.... I'm just kind of curious if you would still get married if the state no longer had anything to do with the process, if you think it makes sense.... if you've found some sort of logical flaw, etc...........

So: Thoughts?

[Parsifal]

"...is a valuable brand name that has strength only because it stands for something very important to many people."

- I'd say its' strength lies in its' importance (definition) to the state and the economy (tax code, life insurance provisions for 'spouse', etc.). I'm not sure that the branded name is important, outside the moral and ethical context. Being married is nether necessary nor sufficient to live together, have children either together or adopted, share debts (:[), regardless of its' definition. It's only necessary (for the time being) in certain economic capacities.

I think most of the problem folks have with the definition of marriage is due to conditioning: What if we stopped calling only a cat, a cat and started calling all animals with four legs a cat. It's awkward and makes the word 'cat' somewhat meaningless. Same thing is happening to the word marriage. The better solution is probably to continue to call man-woman marital unions a 'marriage', and call man-man, woman-woman, woman-gerbil, man-rock, woman-tree stump relationships something else. Invent a new name to descibe and enshrine the new relationship (i.e. brand it as a new product!!)

I like the branding notion. It really cuts to the chase on the issue being one of language.

(Kind of rambling and wandering here, I know. Didn't read the whole Salon article either. It's Saturday night for God's sake))

[jeff]

I'm not convinced by this argument. Isn't privatized marriage just a return to the status of, say, 150 or 200 years ago? Back then, the state had very little to do with the institution of marriage (in the US at least). The notion of "state involvement in marriage" and "marriage is a valuable brand name" seem quite unrelated.

MP, to your question: my wife and I would be married regardless of state involvement; it really made no difference at all. It's a public declaration of our commitment to one another, requiring no state sanction. Which reminds me: 50 years ago, some states prohibited marriage between black and white - mixed marriages being thought immoral and unnatural. This shows that the definition of the "brand" is a little more flexible than some might think.

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by jeff

50 years ago, some states prohibited marriage between black and white - mixed marriages being thought immoral and unnatural. This shows that the definition of the "brand" is a little more flexible than some might think.

And before that Black people were not allowed to mary each other. Today there is an easy formula for being a parent in america
man and woman > single man or single woman > Gay couples = people having sex with animals

[grotto]

yes the branding argument is a good one, but it still is about perception. Marriage means different things to different people. The prof is painting with a very big brush. Marriage can also mean subjugation, loss of ones dreams, being "stuck" into a mold. Becoming the "bread winner" etc. This brand has so much baggage a fair number of people shun it out right. I bet the Gay community want "marriage" for the same reason others in society didn't much care for the "separate but equal" brand

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by jeff

I'm not convinced by this argument. Isn't privatized marriage just a return to the status of, say, 150 or 200 years ago? Back then, the state had very little to do with the institution of marriage (in the US at least). The notion of "state involvement in marriage" and "marriage is a valuable brand name" seem quite unrelated.

i suppose that the counter argument would be that 150 or 200 years ago, the brand was more popular.... that women having sex/children without the brand name were ostracized,etc........ and as the cultural and religious prominance of marriage has dropped off, the state has created more importance.... so that privatized marriage probably wouldn't return it to the status of the state institution of marriage.........


this makes me want to do research into the "marriage" brand name........

[jeff]

Definitely a subject worth researching. A lot of our assumptions of what constitutes marriage are influenced by post-Victorian mores. Consider "working outside the home" as a new notion - but incorrect because the idea of the "housewife" who stayed at home while hubby went to the office is itself a modern idea, or the very idea of a split between "work" and "home" life probably being a modern concept as well.

Just doing a little Googling on this shows that even the Church wasn't necessarily involved in marriage: "There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses." (From http://marriage.about.com/cs/general...agehistory.htm) So, even church, let alone the State, wasn't necessarily a participant in brand management. .

[keith]

Even if you assume that the historical nature of marriage isn't relevant and that the 'brand' that we want to preserve is the current ideal (whatever that actually is) there is still the question of what the various challenges to the brands value are.

After all if the value of the brand needs to be protected what about a requirement obtaining it? After all I imagine that a McDonalds franchisee enters into the process far more aware of the obligations than a great many couples walking up the aisle do. Restricting marriage to those who have completed a counselling course on the obligations and requirements and have demonstrated a suitable level of financial and psycholigical responsibility would do far more to protect the brand than limiting it to heterosexual couples. A libertarian in favour of increased regulation who'd have thunk it


There is also the issue of what is actually degrading the brand - is it couples who head to the registry office to get married to shut up the in laws and are not entering the brand for its value but merely because some social norms are worth the peace and quiet?

Or perhaps its couples that marry and divorce within the year? Hardly an advertisement for the benefits of the brand.

So even if he is correct and the brand is worth protecting and strengthening I fail to see how preventing homosexual marriage helps. Indeed if there is a brand worth protecting then why not advocate for an increased regulation of any and all marriages (irrespective of the couples sexuality)?

[bmcfencer]

Originally Posted by Parsifal

"...is a valuable brand name that has strength only because it stands for something very important to many people."

- I'd say its' strength lies in its' importance (definition) to the state and the economy (tax code, life insurance provisions for 'spouse', etc.). I'm not sure that the branded name is important, outside the moral and ethical context. Being married is nether necessary nor sufficient to live together, have children either together or adopted, share debts (:[), regardless of its' definition. It's only necessary (for the time being) in certain economic capacities.

I think most of the problem folks have with the definition of marriage is due to conditioning: What if we stopped calling only a cat, a cat and started calling all animals with four legs a cat. It's awkward and makes the word 'cat' somewhat meaningless. Same thing is happening to the word marriage. The better solution is probably to continue to call man-woman marital unions a 'marriage', and call man-man, woman-woman, woman-gerbil, man-rock, woman-tree stump relationships something else. Invent a new name to descibe and enshrine the new relationship (i.e. brand it as a new product!!)

I like the branding notion. It really cuts to the chase on the issue being one of language.

(Kind of rambling and wandering here, I know. Didn't read the whole Salon article either. It's Saturday night for God's sake))

I am, I must admit, extremely offended by the comparison of same sex marriage to bestiality. The "slippery slope" arguement never made sense to me either- how is it logical that if you allow people who wish to marry someone of the same gender to do so that suddenly people will be wanting to marry rocks and gerbils? That's like saying as soon as you let women vote the trees will be wanting to vote too, and two year old children, and dead people. It's not just silly, it's ridiculous and dehumanizing. The arguement for same-sex marriage is that those unions are really just like heterosexual marriages and therefore should be given the same recognition.

I don't think that taking the religious/spiritual/community aspects of marriage and handing it back to the private sector where it belongs would make it a "brand name". I think government should recognize the union between two people in the ways that apply to government- ie, with regard to taxes and property rights, and such. Give every couple a governmental civil union and let marriages happen in churches and on scenic hillsides and in community halls.

Truthfully, I can see the other side on many things, but I've never understood why same-sex couples are really considered any different. Their unions are as complex and loving and often even more functional and long lasting than heterosexual couples, why should they face so much discrimination?

It makes me want to cry and hit things.

[Fencergrl]

Bah... come to Canada to get married where gay marriages are legal.

[mrbiggs]

I feel that the argument that marriage will no longer have meaning just doesn't make sense. Do these people honestly feel that their marriage will suddenly have no meaning because two guys that they don't even know also get married?

If we're going to talk about things devaluating marriage, how about the 50% divorce rate?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Parsifal

I think most of the problem folks have with the definition of marriage is due to conditioning: What if we stopped calling only a cat, a cat and started calling all animals with four legs a cat. It's awkward and makes the word 'cat' somewhat meaningless. Same thing is happening to the word marriage. The better solution is probably to continue to call man-woman marital unions a 'marriage', and call man-man, woman-woman, woman-gerbil, man-rock, woman-tree stump relationships something else. Invent a new name to descibe and enshrine the new relationship (i.e. brand it as a new product!!)

Is not "Civil Union" an example of a new branding?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[JackOfHearts]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

To make it perfectly clear, I don't really care what people think about whether or not gay marriage is moral or not.... I'm just kind of curious if you would still get married if the state no longer had anything to do with the process, if you think it makes sense.... if you've found some sort of logical flaw, etc...........

So: Thoughts?

If I love someone enough to marry her, and she loves me the same, then I will. If the government didn't allow me to marry, for whatever reason, I'll still do whatever I can to spend the rest of my life with the woman I loved. If the government had nothing to do with marriage, then my opinion wouldn't change. If I love her, and she loves me, and we wish to be together, why not? It doesn't neccesarily have to involve the government or any other body. As long as there is love, what else is needed?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by JackOfHearts

As long as there is love, what else is needed?

Tax breaks.

And a way to divide assets and children in the event of an untimely death or divorce.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by JackOfHearts

As long as there is love, what else is needed?

Coverage on spouse's employer-provided health insurance...

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by bmcfencer

Truthfully, I can see the other side on many things, but I've never understood why same-sex couples are really considered any different. Their unions are as complex and loving and often even more functional and long lasting than heterosexual couples, why should they face so much discrimination?

It makes me want to cry and hit things.

People think being gay must be wrong because the bible says so. Of coarse the bible also says the earth is flat, and the earth is only about 5 or 6 thousand years old, and has 4 corners.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

People think being gay must be wrong because the bible says so. Of coarse the bible also says the earth is flat, and the earth is only about 5 or 6 thousand years old, and has 4 corners.

No it doesn't.

People can interpret it to imply such things, but such things are not spelled out like that. Especially when the language is interpreted as symbolically and idiomatically as the original speakers/writers/readers/listeners would have done.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

People think being gay must be wrong because the bible says so. Of coarse the bible also says the earth is flat, and the earth is only about 5 or 6 thousand years old, and has 4 corners.

In their defense, the bible does say "being gay is wrong" (or some such), but never spells out any of those other things.

[bmcfencer]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

In their defense, the bible does say "being gay is wrong" (or some such), but never spells out any of those other things.

Actually, the bible says that men raping men is wrong. I agree with this, rape is a bad thing. Nowhere does the bible condemn consentual loving same sex relations. But people are capable of twisting things however they'd like.