Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Giannoulias wants to pool all pension funds
Next Post: A long roundup in order to get to a caption contest
Posted in:
* The setup, from Scott Reeder…
It’s time for government to get out of the business of marriage.
Why are we leaving it up to a bunch of politicians and judges to decide what constitutes marriage?
Marriage ought to be a religious or cultural institution, not a governmental one.
Like most folks, when my wife and I got married it required trips to both a courthouse and a church.
I believe marriage is ordained by God and should be between one man and one woman.
That is my religious belief. But who am I to impose it on someone who doesn’t share my particular faith? Different religions take varying views on what constitutes marriage. […]
Leave it up to government to create a legal framework for recognizing relationships and deal with issues like child custody, division of assets, insurance, inheritance rights and pension benefits.
* The Question: Should state government get out of marriage, except for the legalities of the contractual relationship? Explain fully, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 10:49 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Giannoulias wants to pool all pension funds
Next Post: A long roundup in order to get to a caption contest
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The government cannot get out of the marriage business, even “except for the legalities of the contractual relationship.” Government’s entire stake in marriage is that contractual relationship. The onus of cohabitation is less and less a cultural/societal bugaboo, and so the sexual relationship that is inferred. The government wants “legitimacy” to track taxes applied to inheritances and those responsible for paying those taxes, and does not much care about intimacy. The government could easily abandon its interest in marriage if it is willing to forego those contractual legalities.
Comment by Captain Flume Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:05 am
i agree, and have long advocated this position. churches alone should define who are allowed to be married, while governments should continue to oversee civil unions…
Comment by bored now Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:07 am
to be clear, i agree with scott. the captain’s comments can easily fall under the guise of legally-accepted civil unions…
Comment by bored now Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:08 am
Why not just institute a legal procedure (call it civil registry) whereby ANY two adults become one another’s next of kin, if they are not already next of kin by blood relationship? That takes care of inheritance, insurance, healthcare decisions, etc. right there. This relationship would be dissolvable at will; property issues following a dissolution (what we now call a divorce settlement) could be handled as any other property dispute between relatives would be now.
Child custody and support issues can be decided solely on the basis of biological or adoptive parentage. Since the court systems already have extensive experience dealing with children born outside of legal marriage, this should not be a huge problem.
While the majority of people taking advantage of a civil registry would likely be traditionally married couples, plus a smaller group of same-sex couples, this could also be used by people not involved in any kind of sexual relationship — platonic friends, neighbors, roommates, or distant relatives — and would therefore not “discriminate” against them.
Couples who wanted to marry according to the rules of their faith or culture still could; whether they wished to also be civilly registered would be entirely up to them. No religious official would be obliged to sign a marriage license or report a marriage to the state. This might be helpful to couples who want to be married “in the eyes of God” without giving up Social Security or pension benefits from a previous marriage.
Comment by Secret Square Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:18 am
Secret Square-
If we are opening up civil registry to cover situations of cohabitation as well as platonic relationships (such as caring for a sick relative or friend otherwise not covered by insurance) will there be pressure on the insurance industry to recognize all these relationships in the interest of “non-discrimination?”
Granted, nationalized health insurance with 100% guaranteed coverage might reduce or eliminate this as an issue.
There are also certain individuals and non-mainstream religious sects that would be interested in increasing the number “two” to “3 or more” as to the # of consenting adults that can sign up for the deal. Might be an issue in the “family care” or “friend care” scenario, too. Does this registry get their foot in the door?
I like to anticipate all the intended and unintended consequences of an action.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:30 am
No, the government should not discontinue to mandate that marriage is between a man and a woman.
From my limited perspective, I can recognize 2 main problems for same-sex couples: (1) insurance coverage (though many entities (including the State of IL) provide coverage for domestic partners), and (2) allowing medical treatment or release of medical information due to HIPAA laws. Seems to me that a release would suffice.
As an aside, does anyone know if there are other countries that recognize same-sex marriage/ceremonial unions with the full benefits of heterosexual marriage?
Comment by Captain Fuzz Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:33 am
How is the Social Security Administration going to handle polygamous relationships?
Is the IRS going to have everyone file an individual tax return? Are the Republicans going to say this penalizes married couples?
Inheritance law?
Who gets to speak on a child’s behalf at school? In an emergency room?
I agree with the sentiment that the gov’t should butt out and leave marriage to religious institutions. But it seems like there’s a number of ways gov’t and marriage are intertwined.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:42 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t you only have one official, legal next of kin at a time right now, regardless of how many actual blood siblings, cousins, etc. you have? I assume the same would apply to polygamists; they could marry as many spouses as they wanted, provided they choose just one to be the legal next of kin.
Comment by Secret Square Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:45 am
Yes, in fact, I’m not sure why Illinois needs to get into the civil side of it either other than it would be cheaper than having a lawyer write a custom contract for you.
I think wide spread use of Marriage Licenses is a practice less than hundred years old… society can manage without it.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:45 am
I remember a dimwit who is now in the legislature who I won’t name….
S/he said in an IVI-IPO interview that landlords shouldn’t be able to discriminate against homosexuals, but should be able to discriminate against unmarried couples.
Landlord: “I’m not discriminating against you because you’re gay, I’m discriminating against you b/c you’re an unmarried couple.”
Applying tenant: “But the law won’t allow us to get married.”
Landlord: “Sounds like you have a problem with the legislature and governor. Sorry.”
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:46 am
How is the Social Security Administration going to handle polygamous relationships?
Same as it does now. You claim on your biological parent regardless of how many other siblings or half siblings you have and regardless of anyone bothered to get married or not.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:49 am
claim on a step parent too if they contributed to your support….
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:51 am
Just leaving it up to the government to decide what relationships it will recognize as having particular benefits and burdens, and what those benefits and burdens (especially the burdens!) happen to be, is the entire issue here. Calling the relationships something other than “marriage” doesn’t merely dodge the question, it isn’t even good window-dressing.
That being said, the notion that the law doesn’t require my employer’s health insurance to cover my grown children if I want to do so, while requiring it to do so for a partner in some “civil union,” strikes me as a little strange.
Comment by Anon Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:57 am
Re: Civil Unions.
Oak Park created a registry in the 90s for Village employees to allow them to get Health Insurance for their partners.
I thought it was more symbolic than anything else, but the one Village Employee who really needed the insurance for a disabled parent was denied the right to claim their parent as a partner. That wasn’t the kind of civil union Oak Park was going to tolerate (Liberals said wait for Nat Health instead).
So if you just change marriage to civil unions you’re still stuck discriminationg you who can unite.
Best get the Gov out of it 100%.
You want a contract, see a Lawyer.
You want a sacrament, see a Priest.
David Orr can find other work.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 11:58 am
It’s really a semantics game, isn’t it? For all intents and purposes, a state-recognized marriage is a civil union and vice versa?
Such a move might remove the gay marriage issue (yawn) from the public debate, but the state would still be setting the standards of what constitutes a civil union, right? For example, consenting adults, no first cousins, no polygamy, no dogs and cats, that sort of thing.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 12:01 pm
Gov’t should oversee civil unions, religious (and other organizations) should conduct marriages. If this is considered a “business of family” type relationship, many of the difficult questions can be addressed from the standpoint of how they impact the common good. (Lunch is over, more later.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 12:59 pm
The separation of church and state is a good idea.The separation of marriage from state is a good idea.Separating education from state is a good idea.The state itself,is a bad idea.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 1:05 pm
Typical drivel from self-centered individuals who think it’s all about them. Marriage is all about the greater good for society, not about the benefits to individuals.
The most important legal obligations that result from marriage are the obligations to the next generation. It’s not perfect, but marriage at least assures some stability and support for children. The benefits to the children go beyond the basic legal obligations to provide financial support. Children do best when raised in two-parent families, exposed to the influence of both a father and a mother.
Does that mean that single parents and same-sex couples cannot be good parents? Of course not. But the challenges are greater. Loving single parents and same-sex couples recognize that and constantly work to compensate for their disadvantage.
What about childless couples? This is irrelevant, because in our society there is no longer any stigma attached to adults who chose to live together without being married. One need only look at the percentage of young persons (and the growing number of older adults) who choose to live together without marrying to see that marriage in America has clearly become optional for consenting adults with no minor children.
But, virtually every study that has ever been done has shown that parents are the single most important factor in a child’s emotional, educational and even financial success. We pour money into our school systems and blame teachers when children fail, but the reality is that no teacher can ever have as great an influence on a child’s success or failure as parents.
We live in a culture that is obsessed with the rights and privileges of individuals, at the expense of the greater good of society. In marriage, couples enter into a contract to sacrifice some individual liberty for the benefit of the partnership and ultimately, for the benefit of the next generation.
There is a reason why virtually all human cultures have developed some form of marriage. In fact, it is actually amazing how similar the institution is across widely divergent cultures. That is because it serves an essential purpose for the survival of the culture – societies without a strong tradition of marriage end up on the trash heap of history.
Marriage may be an imperfect institution, but there is a reason societies invented marriage and a reason why it has survived as the world has evolved.
Comment by Old Elephant Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 1:11 pm
Old E,
You’re confusing marriage and Counties Licensing Marriages, and the Feds recognizing Marriages across States.
Marriage has been around a long time, but then so have two men and two women living together (plus some other combinations).
Those traditions don’t make a case for Counties to license marriages, and I don’t believe Child Welfare was ever used as an argument to start licensing marriages. I think if you get into the history it was more a way to enforce miscegenation laws, adjust claims for Civil War pensions, and other more practical reasons involving property.
Those reasons are gone now.
Justice Scalia said a Judge is no better qualified to judge moral issues than any other citizen.
In this case, I think we citizens better off voting to get Government out of this licensing business all together.
It might prompt Churches to do a better job of evangelizing and teaching ethics if Government did back out of it…completely including the semantical dodge of civil unions.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 1:32 pm
BB:
Sorry, but I don’t agree.
It’s fine for adults to choose whether or not to enter into legal agreements to protect their own interests. But, children cannot protect themselves and therefore need institutions to do it for them. (Imperfect, but better than nothing).
Marriage, as a government-sanctioned institution, provides critical protections for children. Marriage as a social and religious convention also provides significant benefits for children.
My point it that Scott’s article makes the common error of defining marriage as all about the bride and groom. A far more important purpose (granted not the only purpose) is that marriage commits the couple to certain responsibilities to the next generation. Because human beings are more complex and mature more slowly than any other animal, all successful societies must establish some system to raise children and school them in the necessary skills to accept adult responsibilities. Otherwise, a society cannot survive from generation to generation.
Marriage works. It’s not perfect, but to steal from Churchill. It’s better than every other system that has ever been tried.
Comment by Old Elephant Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 2:05 pm
Marriage works.
If that’s the criteria for licensing marriage, I think marriage isn’t working 50% of the time, and Government is ill equipped to put it back together.
It can’t even focuse on the problem of security for kids because Governmen is wrapped-around-the-axel of marriage as a right towards personal fufillment, or divine insitution deserving of state sanctions.
The best bet is to get government benefits conveyed to individuals, and not families defined on a religous institution.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 2:39 pm
Old E, There are a couple of points I wonder about: 1) With no-fault divorce, how does marriage make a commitment any stronger than living together? It is no longer a tie that tightly binds. The length of commitment is strictly personal. 2) I am not aware of a body of research that shows m-w couples are any more effective at child rearing than m-m or w-w couples, so assuming marriage is good for child rearing, why not expand it to same-sex couples?
I agree that gov’t needs to promote the common good. In this case, allowing same-sex couples to legally record their commitment is a good fit. Married couples assume a variety of responsibilities for their spouses including medical decisions, insurance, estate settlement, debts, children, etc… Without marital rights, the state might have to cover any or all of those things even though someone who wants to do it is available.
I fail to see where the state (or society) loses when two consenting adults are married.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 2:54 pm
“I believe marriage is ordained by God and should be between one man and one woman.
That is my religious belief. But who am I to impose it on someone who doesn’t share my particular faith? Different religions take varying views on what constitutes marriage. […]”
**
But you are imposing your religious beliefs on others, who may or may not share your faith, by saying that it is an institution ‘ordained by God’ (really? God was at your wedding? Did he give a nice gift?]
Actually it is the churches that should get out of the business of marriage. Marriage was not a church-based act until sometime in the 12th century, when the Church got into the act. Furthermore, if you don’t wish to impose your beliefs on others or if you do not want their beliefs imposed on you, then allow marriage, same sex or opposite sex, in both churches and city halls. Your belief system will not be threatened unless you are forced to take part in one.
Alot of people who are not gay don’t realize this isn’t just some issue or a political matter to gays — this is our lives, this is a matter of human dignity and civil rights. Imagine if you were allowed to live with your opposite sex partner but not alowed to have that committment of yours acknowledged legally and socially. You’d feel as though your growth was stunted, as though you were not a complete, adult person. As a churchgoing person, i feel like my status as half a person as it were is reiterated in my catholic church when recent marriages and anniversaries are publicly acknowledged at Mass, especially when the congregation is encouraged to offer the newlyweds or couple marking their 40th, 50th or other anniversary a hearty round of applause. But were i to dare hold my partner’s hand during a service, as many opposite sex couples do, i believe what we would endure would be most un-christian.
And another thing here. This is not about polgamy or people marrying goats or any such nonsense as that. This is about two committed adults being able to publicly declare their committment to each other and enjoy all the same benefits that come along with marriage as any heterosexual couple. If you don’t want marriage between two men or two women in your church, fine. At least allow it in city halls, banquet halls, resort hotels, tacky wedding ‘chapels’ and anywhere else where it wouldn’t offend your sensitive faith and let the churches sort it out on their own. If the Catholic or Mormon church doesn’t want to bless my marriage, fine, but at I should be able to go to the kind Episcopal or UCC church and have a ceremony there be legally binding.
Additionally, to anyone who’d say civil unions are just as good as marriages, well, then, turn your marriage certificate in for a civil union or at least give up the associated tax and home ownership benefits.
Comment by shoeless jim Monday, Dec 1, 08 @ 7:19 pm