State-Sanctioned Marriage
Harris asked a question about which I wanted to post and hopefully start a new discussion thread.
He raised the question of whether there should be state-sanctioned marriage. Marriage is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
There are 3 parts: 1) legal union, 2) of a man and woman, 3) as husband and wife. In the popular consciousness this is not only a legal instrument with the attendant benefits, but a sex-specific one (not gender, sex) that requires or calls for or gurantees a certain degree of spiritual/emotional/interpersonal commitment and legitimacy in society's -- and the government's -- eyes.
It's the last two parts which should be separated out and given back to churches and other organizations that can confer the "qualitative" significance to such a union.
Individuals should have to go through a civil union process separately from getting married -- make getting a "marriage license" from the State getting a "civil union license" from the State.
The civil libertarian in me goes on to mumble "not only should the state not sanction marriage, it shouldn't be able to regulate civil unionship beyond the union of two (or more) living, breathing human beings over the age of consent and not blood related (e.g. 1st cousins)". That is to say, those specific conditions which threaten minors (from statuory rape) and unborn offspring (from birth defects).
I say let 'em all get civil unions: the straights, the gays, the polygamists (why is this banned? who cares?), the swingers, the mail-order bride buyers, the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads... give 'em out at Starbucks for all I care.
I'm being flippant, of course. We still have very serious issues with dissolution of these unions which will mean property ownership rules, child custody and support issues -- everything we associate with divorce today as it relates to the legal portion of "marriage".
What we won't have is the State determining what God -- or whatever or whomever -- means by "marriage". Which I think we all agree is... well... impossible. It's a bit like the State telling us what life means.
posted by Sean @ 3/16/2005 05:46:00 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Actually, it was Tracy who raised the question of whether the state should be in the marriage-sanctioning business. But, I agree with you, Sean. Civil unions would give the state purview over the aspects of relationships that it can and needs to weigh in on--namely: property rights, child custody, tax codes, medical and end-of-life decisions, etc. To go further--and delve into the 2nd and 3rd parts of the marriage definition--oversteps its rightful authority. I would also argue that moving to a civil union-only format would not degrade the institution of marriage nor weaken the family unit (as I'm sure some on the Christian right would assert.) Those who want to take their relationships further in the eyes of God can do so at their pleasure. But, the state has no compelling interest at this level and it should stay out of it.
Hear, hear! Leave civil unions to the state and marriage to God. This is the thrust of marriage privatization.
In fact, it used to be this way until the state 'outsourced' its recognition function to the clergy.
Post a Comment
<< Home