Bean has a response up to Stephanie Coontz’s suggestion that the state get out of the business of marriage completely and instead issue a standard civil union contract to all couples who want it, gay or straight. I’ve said before that I think that’s a good idea, and that I also think the contract should be fairly easy to dissolve, and that a lot of benefits of marriage should be reduced. (For instance, I think alimony should be really hard to get, and only available to spouses who were openly dependent for a reasonable period of time.) Bean likes Coontz’s suggestions, but is wary of some of her rhetorical tactics of relying heavily on tradition to argue that marriage isn’t really a state issue so much as a religious issue anyway.
I also have to say that as much as I support Coontz’s marriage proposal (pun intended), there is something about her historical framing of it that makes me a little uncomfortable. Yes, one strong thing going for the so-called privatization of marriage is the practice’s historical roots. That said, I think we need to be careful not to idealize the marriage of the past, in which women were property and a marriage was a business arrangement. Coontz is completely right to suggest that the state is not the appropriate purveyor of “marriage”; the state should recognize civil not religious unions. But I think we can advocate for this shift without recalling the marriage misogyny of days gone by. It continues strongly enough today as it is.
Arguing from tradition is a crappy argument, of course, and not very logical. But I get why Coontz does it. Opponents of same sex marriage rights tend to fall heavily on tradition in their arguments, and she’s basically pointing out that if tradition is your thing, then you should have no problem with a more clean separation of church and state on this issue, since it’s even more traditional. It’s something of a gotcha argument, since we’re all aware that the “defenders of traditional marriage” are more defenders of specific gender roles that privilege straight men over everyone else.
The concern here is the framing issue, a la George Lakoff. When you argue inside someone else’s frames, you reinforce them. Even though Coontz has scored gotcha points that will help win the immediate argument, she’s managed to reinforce the idea that falling back on tradition is a good argument, and as Bean points out, that’s not really good for the overall argument when you’re talking women’s rights and gay rights. The part of me that knows this is at odds with the part of me that’s saying, “Ha! Your ‘traditions’ won’t save you now, wingnuts!”
Thoughts?
155 Responses to “Reframing tradition”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Oh, lots of thoughts.
1) Reinvestigate marriage and the benefits privatized through it. Re-evaluate those benefits as to whether or not they should be privatized through that relationship, or whether they are actually public benefits that should be socialized. In other words, de-privilage marriage.
2) Create a menu of relationship options. Some people may want to take care of end of life decisions but not necessarily property. Recognize the post-modern family and figure out how to deal with it rather than trying to force everyone into monogamous heterosexuality.
3) End the state regulation of sexuality between consulting adults (bye bye adultery laws).
4) Yes, the argument from tradition is a bad one. However, basically every state on the planet uses “marriage.” I opposed to getting rid of it simply because I don’t want to cede another thing to religion. It has, for all intents and purposes, become a civil contract. No need to do away with that. Make the separation complete and no longer allow clergy to serve as state proxies.
5) Protect more families rather than fewer–this means a stronger social safety net. Make fewer benefits dependent on family form.
Remember, the data consistently show this: What’s important in a family is not the form of the relationships but the content. Policy should reflect that.
And here, if I may quote myself, is the framing we should be proposing more generally, not just for marriage equality:
Protect more families rather than fewer
Bean’s suggestion is idiotic, and it’s annoying that this same idiotic suggestion keeps coming up.
Civil marriage is not religious marriage. No church or other religious institution tries to claim that it is. The notion that the “state should get out of the marriage business” is a profoundly stupid one, that could only be proposed by someone who was either trying to think of an excuse why same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married, or who was completely ignorant of the fact that all world religions do in fact carefully distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage, and claim control only over religious marriage.
Further, while civil unions for same-sex couples have proved useful as an intermediate step, the goal should be equality: couples who do not want to marry should be able to get a civil union, and couples who do want to marry should be able to wed. Always level up, not down.
Oh, and the image is only showing up as a link…no image (I like the one you chose)
Regarding marriage: It will be difficult to get past the obvious visceral reaction that straights — even many liberal ones — have against losing “marriage” to religious organizations. For most people, a long-term, formalized commitment recognized by the state is marriage. The anti-gay and reactionary crowds have been able to exploit people’s general confusion over the fact that any religious wedding is in fact two weddings: one faith-based and one civil and secular.
Regarding your argument about alimony: It seems to me that you are arguing for what here in Canada was called a “causal connection” test, linked to what can be called a transitional adjustment yardstick. I’d agree with you 100%** but the court system is often damned odd about that: there is a very wide stream of thought and habit within the Bar and Bench which accepts the provision of alimony as a kind of marriage pension (a pure entitlement) or as an insurance policy for the unluckier (or more spendthrift) spouse. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada has, over the past half-dozen years or so, moved IMHO backward, reopening settled divorce agreements to give extra money to a wastrel spouse, and stating bluntly that since marriage is a special and unique institution within our culture parties cannot expect the normal “clean break” rules applied to commercial and other partnerships. The SCC has also recently re-opened the gates for fault-based increases in spousal support despite the fact that the legislation specifically and unequivocally prohibits fault as a factor in such cases. From a feminist / egalitarian perspective it is worrying to see old patriarchal concepts given a feminist rebranding: a foul brew remains a foul brew, no matter how worthy the new bottle.
One can easily see the linkage between Marriage-Is-Special and the Alimony Game. As long as Marriage (cue organ chord!) is seen as semi-mystical and sacred rather than as an social and interpersonal partnership the Bar and Bench will be free to apply unpredictable and oft-changing rules to how alimony is granted.
** — Disclosure: I’m divorced and neither pay nor receive alimony.
I think of it less as falling back on tradition than revitalizing elements of tradition in a way that’s compatible with progressive politics. You don’t have to adopt a tradition as-is in order to benefit from aspects of that tradition.
To use what is perhaps a terrible analogy, I like cooking a big Thanksgiving dinner for friends and family, but that Thanksgiving dinner doesn’t always have to be turkey, stuffing, pumpkin pie, and so on.
I think you can argue for the practicality of the state’s divestment from religious marriage without suggesting that we necessarily bring back marriage exactly as it was. And indeed, I didn’t read Coontz’s piece as an argument for “traditional marriage” or even as an attempt to pull the rug out from under conservatives’ feet. Perhaps I’m biased because I, too, think that it makes sense to leave marriage to religion and civil unions to the state, but I just thought she was trying to set out a sensible argument for having the state get out of the business of telling people whom they can marry.
Bean has a response up to Stephanie Coontz’s suggestion that the state get out of the business of marriage completely and instead issue a standard civil union contract to all couples who want it, gay or straight. I’ve said before that I think that’s a good idea, and that I also think the contract should be fairly easy to dissolve, and that a lot of benefits of marriage should be reduced.
Thats pretty much my position too. All couples should have civil benefits, and each religion can decide for itself what couples it will marry. The liberal denominations can decide for it, the more conservative ones against.
The effort by the Republican party to federalize marriage through a constitutional amendment is disturbing, as it expands the size and scope of the federal government into an area that has been the purview of the sates since colonial times. Being libertarian, when I think of Congress debating a federal marriage code, it makes my stomach turn.
There are many states which are banning gay/lesbian marriage at the state level, true. And I think its a gross violation of individual rights. But I think quite a few people who voted for the anti-gay marriage amendments fear that if they don’t their particular Catholic or Baptist Church will be forced by the government to preform marriages which are totally against their personal, religious beliefs. Making all couples get “civil unions” and having only Churches “marry” will go a long way towards relieving those fears and would remove the support of a significantnumber of people who supported those amendments.
Protect more families rather than fewer
That’s it in a hard little nutshell, Jeff.
There was this book I read, Leaving Mother Lake by Erche Namu Yang, co-written with Aussie anthropologist Christine Mathieu (who used to teach at my school and, alas, doesn’t anymore, boo!). Yang’s culture is the Moso, who are gender-egalitarian and don’t have marriage at all - and yet, they have *families*, happy ones, with all children provided for even though the Moso are very poor.
In her afterword, Mathieu notes that there is no free lunch: if cultures have “strong marriages” often gender equality is the first to go, and vice-versa, in gender-egalitarian cultures marriages are comparatively fragile and the matrilineal family is what is enduringly strong and unbroken (you can’t divorce your mom or siblings!). I agree with Mathieu, and would add “gays” to the list - I think that recognizing gay marriage is going to weaken the position of the patriarchal traditionalists who want marriage to be one man, one woman (or one man, several women) with clearly defined sex roles for both, and woman subordinate.
The effort by the Republican party to federalize marriage through a constitutional amendment is disturbing, as it expands the size and scope of the federal government into an area that has been the purview of the sates since colonial times. Being libertarian, when I think of Congress debating a federal marriage code, it makes my stomach turn
It’s already federal. Social security and military survivors’ benefits; immigration law; tax law; cross-state property law; federal regulation of pension plans (DOMA is screwing legally married Massachusettsans out of pensions)….let’s be honest about how deeply intertwined the federal government already is.
It’s already federal. Social security and military survivors’ benefits; immigration law; tax law; cross-state property law; federal regulation of pension plans (DOMA is screwing legally married Massachusettsans out of pensions)….let’s be honest about how deeply intertwined the federal government already is.
Thats true, and all those benefits need to be re-evaluated, as you said in your first point above which was excellent. But federalizing it more than it already is is too much for me.
I’d honestly suggest folks read Michael Warner’s The Trouble With Normal. Whether or not you support marriage equality, he lays out an outstanding case for deprivileging it and some of the critical issues that remain. I’m pro-equality, but not terribly pro-marriage, and I know a lot of queer folks that share my ambivalence. Again, we should be protecting more families rather than restricting the definition.
But I think quite a few people who voted for the anti-gay marriage amendments fear that if they don’t their particular Catholic or Baptist Church will be forced by the government to preform marriages which are totally against their personal, religious beliefs.
Any Catholic who tells you they think that needs to be immediately called on their bullshit, because the Catholic Church refuses to marry people who are divorced, and every Catholic knows at least one divorced person who was unable to remarry in the church. Remind them about their friend/son/daughter/self who was unable to force the church to let them remarry without an official annulment and watch them splutter.
Any Catholic who tells you they think that needs to be immediately called on their bullshit, because the Catholic Church refuses to marry people who are divorced, and every Catholic knows at least one divorced person who was unable to remarry in the church.
I know this being from a Catholic background (though now I’m a convinced atheist), but theres a difference between the Church looking the other way and the Church being forced by law to marry a certain couple.
the church is not forced by law to marry anyone. The church is allowed to marry anyone who meets the church’s requirements and reject anyone who doesn’t. JOP’’s are required by law to marry anyone who applies. Clergy serve as state proxies, JOPs are state actors. That’s the difference.
And that’s why we need to split it and give religious ceremonies/marriages no civil standing. Want civil benefits? get a JOP. Want and religious wedding? Get clergy. Want both? Have two ceremonies.
And that’s why we need to split it and give religious ceremonies/marriages no civil standing. Want civil benefits? get a JOP. Want and religious wedding? Get clergy. Want both? Have two ceremonies.
And thats exactly right. Making this explicit would serve to assuage fears many social moderates have about gay marriage, effectively putting a wedge between them and the social reactionaries.
Democrats should give that answer whenever asked about gay marriage, it would help them very much in the polls.
I figured that unless a couple [two seems to be stable but other numbers ???] plan to have kids it just doesn’t matter that they be tightly bound by a sanctioned contract regardless of god bothers or govmints being the sanctioners Grownups can take care of themselves…the corollary of that is that you are a shit if you say marriage is needed to protect the rights of women [well, unless drudgery is your idea of rights]. But kids can not fend for themselves and govmints get in to the act way too late. For their sake and no other, a contract with the mate, the society and the kid, one with some teeth, is in order. Every year my employer asks me who is to be included in my benefits coverage… I would think it an improvement for marriage to be equally reviewable and modifiable.
Laws and courts have one way of dealing with contracts, kept or breached, between equal parties and another for those between a weaker and a stronger party…and THAT is the difference the institution and traditions of marriage ought the be built around.coontz has been on this subject a while now.
I think that what Mnemosyne is saying is that any Catholic who is twisted about same-sex marriage because they’re afraid their church will have to accept teh gay should be reminded that their church already has the option to refuse to marry people.
btw,
I know you have to buffer link-laden comments for moderation so this will show up ahead of what I want to say. but, your own link is not playing well. is there an HTML faux pas?
I think that it would be a good idea for America to do as they do in Yurp - all partnerships/marriages are registered with the state, and then the religious ceremony is optional. This would take the wind out of religious sails as far as opposition to gay marriage is concerned - a clergyperson could well say, “No, I won’t marry you” but if legal marriage were strictly secular, it wouldn’t matter. And making marriage secular wouldn’t mean you couldn’t have a priest, rabbi, Wiccan priestess, or Elvis impersonator bless your union if you chose. Or you could have a big ol’ secular party blowout. Either way, the “state” would be mandatory and the “religious” optional.
thats better
Phrasing it as “the state should get out of the marriage business” seems to me exactly the wrong way to talk about it. Churches should be out of the civil-marriage business, just as they are in pretty much every other civilized country. Nothing would be hurt by requiring a visit to the town clerk’s office to get the marriage license validated, instead of having a priest or minister doing it. (Well, except for various christainists’ delusions of theocracy, but that’s another matter.)
I think we may eventually get to that point by going the long way around. As soon as enough recognized religious denominations (not necessarily christian) have provisions for joining members of the same gender in marriage, there will be some interesting establishment-clause challenges to rules that say, “Any marriage performed in church A is valid for purposes of civil law, but only some marriages performed in church B get the same recognition.”
And yeah, this whole “they’ll be forced to perform marriages between people they don’t like” thing is just another persecution fantasy, along with the dreams of being put in jail for dissing queers or black people.
Want civil benefits? get a JOP. Want and religious wedding? Get clergy. Want both? Have two ceremonies.
I’d simplify this even more. A civil marriage “ceremony” should involve two participants of legal age signing a standard state marriage contract in front of a notary, having it notarized, and submitting it to the state/county/city records agency for filing - boom you’re married as far as the state is concerned. You want more than that - take it up with your priest/rabbi/minister/imam/advocate of the flying spaghetti monster/friend who is willing to say some nice words in a secular wedding ceremony. But as far as the state is concerned no ceremony or judge should be needed - it should be like filing any other bit of paperwork with the state.
Wow, Jer, I can’t seem to get what you’re saying. It’s not about avoiding gay marriage—I can’t believe you’d even THINK that bean is saying that—it’s about the situation as it is now of “marriage”, a social institution, being a legal institution that naturally excludes people. Even if you include gays, you exclude people who don’t make conjugal relationships their primary relationships. Marriage has a whole shitload of problems.
No one is trying to take away ANYONE’S right to call someone your husband or wife, or to have family rights. We’re just saying that “marriage” is a concept that has probably passed for a secular society, and needs to be replaced with civil unions….for everyone.
I don’t want to get married, because it’s an oppressive, patriarchal institution. But I wouldn’t be opposed to getting a civil union, especially if it was easy to dissolve and available to people in non-conjugal relationships, to make it fair.
Phrasing it as “the state should get out of the marriage business” seems to me exactly the wrong way to talk about it. Churches should be out of the civil-marriage business, just as they are in pretty much every other civilized country.
Yup.
Seeker, that’s a shame. I can see it as hard to get feminists to sign onto the no-alimony* attitude, since it initially seems to be screwing women out of money. But it’s important that the state gets away from defining marriage as an institution based on female dependence, which is what alimony payments to working spouses implies.
*Except for genuine housewives. If you are a dependent partner, I think you should have your divorce treated like an unemployment circumstance.
I’ve been thinking about a post on topics related to this….I’ll prob have something up tomorrow and will an include a link in this thread..been percolating since my “Queering Family” lecture in Sex and Gender, and Grandma’s funeral….but that’s for tomorrow’s writing.
Well, if anything the rhetoric regarding both the “war on Christmas” and stay-at-home motherhood shows that Social Conservatives don’t want to roll back the clock to some traditional lifestyle, they want to construct society around some recently-created myths. My ancestors as good Puritans and Quakers were very much opposed to extravagant Christmas, and stay-at-home motherhood for my great-grandparents meant dawn-to-dusk farm labor. Those women who didn’t have the family farm, put food on the table by working in the service sector. My Puritan ancestors certainly had sex before marriage, if we consider both marriage records and birth records to be accurate.
Social Conservatives when they use the word “traditional” really mean “idealistic utopian based on my values.”
I think there can be situations short of being the dependent partner where some level of alimony might be appropriate. The case I’ve seen is when one spouse subsidizes the other getting a higher degree with the not unreasonable expectation that the other will contribute at a higher income level in the future or perhaps just return the favor.
While extending civil marriage benefits to homosexuals is quite straightforward, I tend to think that adjust other parts of marriage should probably be done with some hard data in hand. Fortunately, there’s lots of different implementations around the world and even around the U.S., so it shouldn’t be too hard to find out which systems are more conducive to egalitarianism and feminism.
I don’t think just offering a range of options in and of itself solves this. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some serious downsides to common law marriage, but it also has the benefit of protecting dependent partners who don’t have a formal legal arrangement. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t offer more options, but we that alone won’t be enough.
That said, I’m no expert on these issues and am going mostly off second hand knowledge of a few different legal systems.
Phrasing it as “the state should get out of the marriage business” seems to me exactly the wrong way to talk about it. Churches should be out of the civil-marriage business, just as they are in pretty much every other civilized country.
Indeed. Poor phrasing on my part. What I mean is that government should not discriminate, religious-style, against certain people if those people are consenting adults and want to enter into a civil union. Similarly, like you said, religions should not determine who can get civil-unioned, but they’re welcome to say who can get religious-married.
Indeed. Poor phrasing on my part. What I mean is that government should not discriminate, religious-style, against certain people if those people are consenting adults and want to enter into a civil union. Similarly, like you said, religions should not determine who can get civil-unioned, but they’re welcome to say who can get religious-married.
Why should the state give up “civil marriage?” Why should the state give up the term “marriage” to religious groups.
I keep seeing this point made. Civil unions from the state/marriage from the church. Why should the state give marriage to the religious? I mean it.
Amanda may have issues with the patriarchal and oppressive history of marriage. I share ‘em. However, I’m not in favor of giving religion more control over anything. Just as we need to protect more families, not fewer, we need more social rationality, not more woo.
And for that matter, hundreds of churches have been celebrating same-sex marriage for years now without the benefit of civil marriage rights and protection.
Amanda, a bit of nit-pickiness here: currently marriage is available to opposite-sex couples (and same-sex ones, too, in MA) who are in non-conjugal relationships. Nothing in the law requires the parties to have sex at any time in their legal relationship. As long as the parties meet the legal requirements, they can obtain a license.
Spot on, hence the briefly ascendant “causal connection” test which held sway for some years (roughly, mid-1980s until into the 1990s) . Simply put, alimony(*1) was based on need and ability to pay, and need had to be related to the marriage, with some discretion. The whole aim of the doctrine was to support those who had needs tied to the marriage (or assumed by the marriage) rather than creating an automatic entitlement.I haven’t practiced family law in almost a decade, but I do keep reasonably current. And, frankly, the current unsettling nature of Canadian alimony law is such that any man(*2) with significant assets or a high income should be very, very wary of marriage, at least until the law changes yet again, as it will inevitably do once people and courts have adjusted to and planned around its current form.
*1 - “Spousal support” is the term of art here in Canada; the term alimony is used colloquially but never officially.
*2 - And it’s still mostly men, although that is changing. What I’d like to see is current stats on how many men would be entitled to alimony but (a) don’t claim it, or (b) don’t get it if they claim it (or are they more likely to get it if they claim, and if so, why?), or (c) if they do get it, are the quanta higher or lower than comparable women? Fascinating stuff.
Couple of thoughts: I was with you until ‘no alimony’. I don’t know how to re-craft the part of family law that acknowledges that the partnership, especially when it comes to include dependents, can’t be equitably dissolved like a business that failed, without someone getting financially screwed…without a set of remedies that look a lot like alimony.
As to the framing: Coontz isn’t arguing within the ‘tradition is good’ frame, or even repeating a frame, when she states the fact that traditionally marriage was a property arrangement enforced by the state. She’s explaining what happened before things got ‘the way things used to be’.
Is it a good argument? I think that it undercuts one of the often-stated complaints about same-sex marriage, that it’s never been that way. However, as much interest as social conservatives have shown in the work of the historians who document that in fact it has been (John Boswell comes to mind) she may as well be saying that seatbelts are important because apples prevent heart disease.
Since there are no arguments against the state marrying same-sex couples, the counters to those non-arguments are perforce fairly ineffective and weak.
Amanda, a bit of nit-pickiness here: currently marriage is available to opposite-sex couples (and same-sex ones, too, in MA) who are in non-conjugal relationships. Nothing in the law requires the parties to have sex at any time in their legal relationship. As long as the parties meet the legal requirements, they can obtain a license.
The restrictions, however, particularly the consanguinity restrictions, are based on a conjugal model. One of the things I think the marriage equality movement fucked up on here in MA was opposing reciprocal beneficiaries legislation while still keeping marriage. Let the elderly couple down the road make end of life and property decisions for each other, build a political alliance, and create protections for more families. But, the politics of the moment led to opposing such a measure in order to keep marriage and marriage alone…that’s a problem for me.
Jeff, you’re right about the consaguinity restrictions being based on a conjugal model; however, it’s still true that married / civil unioned / domestic partnered couples are not required to have sex, and the marriage licenses don’t ask if they are.
I’m uncertain on my opinion about reciprocal benefits. I’ve recently had an interesting conversation with a bi law professor on her proposal for a business-contract type model for four types of partnerships. I am still pondering.
(I really hope you and I meet some day.)
Jeff, you’re right about the consaguinity restrictions being based on a conjugal model; however, it’s still true that married / civil unioned / domestic partnered couples are not required to have sex, and the marriage licenses don’t ask if they are.
True, but I believe the University of Florida asked a question to that effect on their application for domestic partner benefits.
Oh, yes indeed. And that crap infuriates me to no end.
When my extremely very large employer in Vegas decided to offer same-sex DP benefits, we were required to prove all the dumb stuff that got NJ in hot water w/ its state supreme court - intertwined finances, joint residence, etc. (Thankfully they did not inquire into the nature of our sexual relationship.)
Why the numbnuts who put together these packages, who granted have their hearts in the right place, continue to set a higher bar for same-sex v. opposite-sex couples is truly beyond me.
By the way, I’m Bonnie.
I really hope you and I meet some day.)
I’ve suggested a Boston-area Pandagon meetup. I was challenged to make it MA-Wide. Maybe in the next couple weeks, I could start using my blog to organize such an event……….
MAers…go here and tell me what you think….yes, no…ideas, concerns, etc. I wouldn’t be scheduling anything til the new year, but i folks want…..
Now, back to the thread at hand.
I don’t want to get married, because it’s an oppressive, patriarchal institution.
Umm, you’re welcome? More seriously, the fact that marriage is no longer the only game in town to protect the interests of financially dependent women and kids didn’t just happen. Civil unions, ‘palimony’ and domestic partnerships were work-arounds thought up by smart queer lawyers who were trying to get a break for our people for the meantime. Feel free to enjoy them, and don’t forget to tip your waiter.
But I wouldn’t be opposed to getting a civil union, especially if it was easy to dissolve and available to people in non-conjugal relationships, to make it fair.
Yeah, it’s either going to be the legal equivalent of marriage as it stands, OR available to people in non-conjugal relationships. It’s not both. One example would be parental attribution: If my wife has a baby, I’m the legal father (some state have crafted limited exceptions, I’ll bore ya later with details by request only). If my civilly-united household member has a baby, who’s the father? Is it the biological father, me or whoever she names as the second parent? This is but one example of why less-than-marriage partnership laws are complicated and end with inadequate solutions.
Marriage may need to be unpacked, although I’m not conceding yet that the game can ever be worth the candle it will consume to do it right and not leave more families worse off than they are now. But this is a complex issue that even lawyers who work FT (I’m a hobbyist) don’t agree about. Mainly the question is, are we unpacking the benefits of marriage as a step to protecting more families, or is unpacking marriage a goal in itself? If so, the question becomes how to accomplish results that are improvement on the status quo.
Keep up the brainstorming, though. We might just figure out a solution everyone can live with except for the 29% who want the rest of us to live like they say to, just because. It’s much more productive to assume we’re going to lose or enrage those folks no matter what, and proceed from knowing that rather than trying to please them.
So here’s my problem with “let’s remove the state from the marriage business” - how? I’m not being facetious or confrontational, I just cannot see how that can be accomplished given the current state of United States jurisprudence. I understand the various ideas that have been floated but I just don’t see how to disentangle the marriage model as it now stands with those various ideas.
I think that marriage, from a civil standpoint, simplifies a lot of legal issues which most couples could not afford to adjudicate and most court systems would collapse under the burden of sorting out. These include property inheritance, healthcare proxy, child custody, etc.. depending on the state you live in.
The answer isn’t to remove these privileges, the answer is to make them rights available to any two adults of consenting age and sound mind.
Otherwise, I agree that civil unions for all is the way to go, and streamlining the privileges down to those which benefit the common good is a good start. I can’t help but wonder if the quest for universal marriage would have the momentum that it does if it weren’t for the stupid healthcare system which ties benefits to marital status and employment.
If my civilly-united household member has a baby, who’s the father? Is it the biological father, me or whoever she names as the second parent?
At present, under CA DP law, the same-sex partner is presumed to be the parent.
Not just famlies, but people. Not how many benefits are distributed through families, like health care. Fuck, unless you have a kid, you’re often not eligible for the most minimal forms of state assistance. We need to protect more people and more families, and unpacking marriage is necessary for that. It’s been built up as a privileged institutions by lawmakers, et al. There have been plenty of people experimenting with other family forms for a very long time as well. We need to figure out how to bring those together. We also need to be willing to deal with the fact that one of the costs of state protection of families is being brought within the regulatory systems through which the state operates—almost unavoidable.
One of the things I think the marriage equality movement fucked up on here in MA was opposing reciprocal beneficiaries legislation while still keeping marriage.
Had that ever been on the table in that configuration, you’d be right.
My position, having been through this at both a strategic-planning and a marketing-execution level, is that the elderly couples need to either provide me with free quality childcare while I solve their problems, or hire their own damn lobbying. I’ve been dropped or forgotten by the AARP so damn many times I feel like a pair of Wal-mart reading glasses.
I’m not bitter; think of me as sadder but wiser.
;) Jeff, surely you remember “Bonnie, High Priestess of All Things Grilled (Among Other Delectables)”? Nom de plum change for . . . numerous reasons.
This isn’t just CA DP’s. The Supreme Court has ruled that marital unity takes precedence over biological relationship in determining legal parentage. If the parents are legally wed (or joined) they are both the legal parents. Here in MA, the birth certificate lists parent 1 and parent 2 because of this–legal parentage is the issue on that one, and marriage confers that relationship.
) Jeff, surely you remember “Bonnie, High Priestess of All Things Grilled (Among Other Delectables)”? Nom de plum change for . . . numerous reasons.
oui, oui
Yes, Jeff - I was addressing specifically the question of marriage v. CU / DP legal parentage. Your recitation of the law re: marriage and presumed parentage is correct as applied in all states in all marriages.
;)
I can’t help but wonder if the quest for universal marriage would have the momentum that it does if it weren’t for the stupid healthcare system which ties benefits to marital status and employment.
No.
I know no one–pro lobbyist, citizen, legislator, judge–who could have been persuaded to go all-out for marriage equality IF we had universal health care. It would have been a few policy wonks sittin’ around drinking and arguing constitutional law under those circumstances.
marital unity takes precedence over biological relationship in determining legal parentage
I am a proud classmate of Cora Roelofs, the first woman to legally declare her wife as “second parent” on a birth certificate in MA.
No court declaration, no legal bs, just “second parent”. One more family didn’t have to tie up a court docket that should be concerned with weightier issues to get what other families get. They just put it down on the form, all automatic, just like Zog and I did when our sons were born.
marital unity takes precedence over biological relationship in determining legal parentage
Thanks to Justice Scalia!
At present, under CA DP law, the same-sex partner is presumed to be the parent
Yes, this was one of the most hotly-debated items in that law, but AFAIK it hasn’t been tested. So if you’re in a CA DP, it is suggested practice to complete a second-parent adoption regardless.
Because IF my wife has a baby, then dies in a fiery wreck, and her parents come from Iowa and attempt to kidnap THEIR grandchild…do I want my kid’s name on a law? I do not. Suspenders and belt, ugly but you know you’re covered.
Scalia - can you say “Jackass”? Say it louder. He spoke here at school this semester. Only took about 1 hour 20 minutes for his true self to shine through.
I needed brain bleach.
Thanks to Justice Scalia!
Well, hey, we used the Hatch Amendment to pull #1Son out of DARE, so it bites both ways, ya know?
I mean that it’s a legal presumption, not that it’s a guess or suggestion.
Yeah, Scalia did this whole spiel about the necessity of maintaining marital unity to the point of denying any legal relationship between a biological father who knew his daugher–and had lived with her when mom moved out of the marriage for a while and into the lover’s house…then back into the marriage with her husband. Michael D. v. Gerald H. I think (I get michael and gerald right–but the initials fuck me up.)
Little did evil Tony know he was making the case for same-sex legal parentage in the Bay State (Willard has been using this in his speeches)
It’s been built up as a privileged institutions by lawmakers, et al. There have been plenty of people experimenting with other family forms for a very long time as well. We need to figure out how to bring those together.
Okay, feel free to get back to me with the date, time and location for the revolution. I’ll bring the dessert snack of your choice. Meanwhile, what is actually happening in 5 more state legislatures this winter is some form of non-marital family recognition. I’ll be reporting developments from the bunker.
We also need to be willing to deal with the fact that one of the costs of state protection of families is being brought within the regulatory systems through which the state operates—almost unavoidable.
Huh? I’m plastered, because it’s the least I can do in honor of Jane Rule’s life, but I totally don’t get that.
Michael H. Yes, another brain bleach moment.
Okay, feel free to get back to me with the date, time and location for the revolution. I’ll bring the dessert snack of your choice. Meanwhile, what is actually happening in 5 more state legislatures this winter is some form of non-marital family recognition. I’ll be reporting developments from the bunker.
That’s right, I keep forgetting that all activity must be now oriented and directed toward immediate political change, and that analytical work that moves in different directions, potentially providing things that might be useful down the road further, just isn’t worth undertaking. I keep forgetting that.
So here’s my problem with “let’s remove the state from the marriage business” - how? I’m not being facetious or confrontational, I just cannot see how that can be accomplished given the current state of United States jurisprudence.
It can’t be done. I don’t mean ‘it’s politically untenable’, like universal health care which I think is both fiscally and politically feasible if properly packaged, I mean you can’t get there from here.
But it’s really interesting for me to hear what ideas smart feminist people can come up with to achieve better outcomes, and test those ideas against realities like the one you’ve raised. Helps a lot.
Okay, feel free to get back to me with the date, time and location for the revolution. I’ll bring the dessert snack of your choice.
Sounds like another collegue and friend Susan and her wife Marcia’s wedding. They were the first to score a legal marriage license on May 17,2004, just after midnight.
They sent around an e-mail weeks later and then did the actual wedding and reception.
The revolution was televised, potluck to follow.
(I don’t know how one small occupational/environmental health department forged such a lesbian rights vanguard)
Ms Kate, you know some absolutely awesome people.
Sounds like another collegue and friend Susan and her wife Marcia’s wedding. They were the first to score a legal marriage license on May 17,2004, just after midnight.
That bird of theirs….
I know, teac, I know.
We also need to be willing to deal with the fact that one of the costs of state protection of families is being brought within the regulatory systems through which the state operates—almost unavoidable.
Huh? I’m plastered, because it’s the least I can do in honor of Jane Rule’s life, but I totally don’t get that.
The “freedom” to marry ironically carries with it less freedom, as the state plays a larger role in regulating various aspects of the lives of the married than it does those of the single. It’s the pursuit of freedom through regulation.
Jeff, you must have class tomorrow. I have exams coming soon and must retire to the boudoir. It’s been nice reconnecting with you.
nope, just various office hours, then a shopping trip to Penzeys for vanilla.
Ms Kate, good night to you as well.
Good luck with the vanilla. Good night.
The “freedom” to marry ironically carries with it less freedom, as the state plays a larger role in regulating various aspects of the lives of the married than it does those of the single.
One option is that I’m not following you, and the other is that you’re partly mistaken.
In more states every year, there is less daylight all the time between married couples and non-marital couples, in terms of their obligations to one another under many circumstances.
IOW, don’t tell the dominionists, but we’ve already destroyed marriage as an exclusive arrangement that is the only way to make a family.
Maybe that’s not what you’re saying, though. Either way, since we’re alone here and I’m about out of liquor, we can also take it offline.
Goodnight teac. Goodnight MA Jeff.
Goodnight johnboy …
How in the world can the state get out of marriage, and have marriage still be of any use to anyone besides the sentimental? Marriage is useful, legally, entirely because it regulates the way the state interacts with a couple as a legal unit. The state has to decide which unions to recognize to do things like distribute financial and health benefits, or extend provisions of the family and medical leave act. You can’t enter into a contract with another individual and somehow have it compel the state to do anything at all.
I am totally baffled that Coontz’ editorial has gained any traction. At all. It’s barely coherent.
Sara has this right- no state, no marriage. As the old law school aphorism puts it, all marriages are involve three persons: the couple getting married, and the state. The church, any church, is not ever, and has never been, essential. The state is absolutely essential.
Even more so, non-religious common-law marriage needs never be solemnized, much less sacralized, in the few jurisdictions that still allow it. In legal terms common-law marriage is every bit as valid (once proved up) as one where the couple gets a certificate beforehand. The abolition of common-law marriage is a very modern phenomenon.
And as for the question posed by our host, it makes perfect sense here to argue from tradition, because citing to (a fallacious notion of ) tradition is the default argument of the wingers. Get right in their faces and inform them that their understanding of history is bunk.
They can keep the empty frame, as there is not much they can do with it.
There are a lot of non-housewives who lose a lot of earning potential due to their greater investment in raising children - mommy tracked, working “mother’s hours” etc. As long as so many jobs require 60 hour plus workweeks, most parents are going to opt for one person at least slowing down their career. After fifteen or twenty years of that, the loss in earning potential is essentailly permanent. Why should the person who made all the sacrifices also absorb all of the cost if the marriage is disolved?
Here are a few ideas about reducing the force of state-controlled marriage. None of them as urgent as single-payer health insurance, but a start:
— Get rid of the join marital income tax return. You earned income, you pay income taxes. You didn’t, you don’t. In the US “married, filing separately” takes a bad financial hit. Most of the civilized world thinks the US is nuts for taxing the marriage rather than a person.
— Make it okay to write a will leaving $0 to your spouse. In Georgia, which is I think the only state that allows that move, it turns out very few people make that choice … and those that do are mostly wives, with *very* good reasons.
— Treat domestic partners the same as spouses for the taxation of family health insurance. Right now health insurance for a D.P. is considered taxable income in the US and health insurance for a spouse is not.
Some people on this thread have been wise to note the issues of privilege and the base question of why the state should be in the business of marriage at all (for validation or benefits-definition purposes). Why not clarify the question: What is the magic about a sexual/romantic commitment relationship between two adults as opposed to a platonic partnership? I’ve been married once, never want to do it again. But why on earth should that decision lock me out of a sea of government-sanctioned advantages? Why can’t domestic partnerships extend to platonic partnerships? I fail to see the public policy rationale of favouring a Couple. The middle class is gradually disappearing; perhaps allowing platonic partnerships for purely economic benefit is a way of slowing the slide.
The foregoing doesn’t even address high-economic-bias issues like income splitting. I hate income splitting in taxation law. It is, in effect, a marriage subsidy hidden in the tax system. Divorced couples with two households to maintain lose access to lower tax rates given to married couples who are already sharing expenses and receiving other benefits.
Except for Canada’s Conservative government, (picking up the Republican ass-kissing where Mulroney left off in the 1980s and early 1990s) which recently brought back income-splitting (see above).When you ask “what is culture?” the answer includes a substantial component of traditions. Therefore any flip dismissal of tradition is bothersome. One needs a good reason not to continue a tradition rather than a good reason to continue it.
Re:We’re just saying that “marriage” is a concept that has probably passed for a secular society, and needs to be replaced with civil unions….for everyone.
This is just as totalitarian as those opposed to gay marriage/civil union. The enormous leap from the self-confessed “marriage doesn’t work for me” to the “no marriage for anybody” is nowhere justified.
One needs a good reason not to continue a tradition rather than a good reason to continue it.
Why? The fetishism of tradition for tradition’s sake is a problem–particularly when it comes to the nonsense of religion.
“One needs a good reason not to continue a tradition rather than a good reason to continue it.”
Why? The fetishism of tradition for tradition’s sake is a problem–particularly when it comes to the nonsense of religion.
Fetishism in whatever cause is a problem.
There are some plus sides to tradition: the bugs are known. They’ve been around forever.
They may be terrible, unacceptable bugs, but they won’t take you by surprise.
Needless to say, the ‘wingers will say “that’s not a BUG, that’s a FEATURE!”.
So I think that a measure of caution is appropriate before abandoning tradition. And yes, it’s exactly like a geeky OS-religious war.
Some people above have hinted at the amazing variety of rights, privileges and responsibilities attached to marriage as now understood by the state. I think it’s crucial to look through all of those and think about how (or if) they should be unpacked before settling on ideas about nonconjugal marriage or marriage-equivalent.
It would be nice if one could substitute contractual arrangements for a bunch of those interlocking rights and responsibilities, but the problem there is that way too many people and institutions aren’t familiar with such arrangements and won’t honor them except after protracted, expensive litigation.
The State should not treat a contract that unifies households and financial resources differently than any other.
Entering into such contracts should confer no tax or other advantages over those who choose not to enter into such arrangements. These contracts should specify their own conditions for revocation, inheritance, medical decision-making, and child rearing and support. The state should have no role in regulating these things beyond setting minimum requirements for competency (age of consent, for example) and to designate which issue areas they must address.
In other words, states should have no role in creating a social institution based on religious or other norms (e.g., the idea that members of unified households somehow “own” each other). If it does, it priveleges these norms at the expense of those who do not share them. This makes the state an actor in creatiing these norms, and that makes the state a tool available to the majority–or some otherwise more powerful group–for imposing its norms on others.
“Get rid of the join marital income tax return. You earned income, you pay income taxes. You didn’t, you don’t. In the US “married, filing separately” takes a bad financial hit. Most of the civilized world thinks the US is nuts for taxing the marriage rather than a person.”
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s a much bigger mess than that because of deductions wich alter your “taxable income”.
Let’s say a married couple are making payments on a house and have three kids. Which of them gets the mortgage interest deduction? Which of them gets to claim the kids as dependents? How do you tie separate returns together to ensure deductions are not duplicated?
That’s just what comes to my sleep-deprived mind. I’m sure there’s a lot more I’m not thinking of right now.
Lot of mess in all that. I’m not saying that eliminating “married, filing jointly” doesn’t have potential positive points too, but the US tax code is already so hideously designed the thought of turning more lawyers, accountants, and politicians loose in it as part of a wholesale reworking (which is what would be required to eliminate “married, filing jointly”) is not very appetizing…
(If you were going to get rid of married, filing jointly, it would have to be in conjunction with some serious support for child care — something the US has always shied away from.)
But this already is precisely the case. It’s all a question of gay marriage. From a legal standpoint, marriage already is naught but a civil contract, it’s just that it’s restricted to man/woman. Isn’t anybody here married? Or been to the wedding of hippie friends were married by some guy with a ZZ Top Beard calling himself Chief Blackhawk? (Okay, I skipped several posts at the end, so maybe this has already been pointed out.)I am totally baffled that Coontz’ editorial has gained any traction. At all. It’s barely coherent.
Sara, her argument is that the state ought to recognize civil marriage as the basket of rights and responsibilities that any couple can access, and get the religion out of it.
This is both the (long-haul) traditional way to do marriage law AND a solution to an actual challenge faced by our legal system, which is that some couples can’t access the state’s enforcement of marriage through some churches. Since the only remaining argument against marriage being opened to any couple that wants in is ‘my church says that’s wrong’, it’s a pretty compelling reply.
What I think is (not entirely related but) very interesting is just how many people of a range of political views think that marriage is a racket that oughta be stopped. We’ve heard from the anti-couple, the feminist and someone whose underpinnings are utterly glibertarian. And surprisingly, there are some common points of reference among them.
No one is trying to take away ANYONE’S right to call someone your husband or wife, or to have family rights. We’re just saying that “marriage” is a concept that has probably passed for a secular society, and needs to be replaced with civil unions….for everyone.
Since when?
Look, all of this “you have to separate out civil marriage and religious marriage” is nonsense. You don’t. The religious ceremony is not legally binding, anywhere in the US, unless the person conducting the ceremony is civilly registered to make it a civil ceremony. Any couple can stand up in the church of their choice and have a religious ceremony and call it marriage: they won’t be legally married until they go through the civil ceremony.
Civil marriage gives a neat package of rights, obligations, privileges, and benefits, tied up in one package. It has nothing to do with religion. Plenty of couples want to get married and should be able to do so. The notion that civil marriage is “outdated”, a concept that has “passed”, is belied, Amanda, by every LGBT person who is campaigning to be able to get married.
Sure, you can set up a civil union as well. The civil union can be whatever you like - France and the Netherlands have some useful models.
But trying to campaign to remove the right to marry from everyone is a freakishly stupid idea. The right to marry is a necessary civil right, that it’s wrong to deny to LGBT people: that’s a platform to campaign from.
“Marriage is outdated! No one should be allowed to marry!” is just a spluttering campaign slogan that will get no one at all on your side.
Phoenix: Sara, her argument is that the state ought to recognize civil marriage as the basket of rights and responsibilities that any couple can access, and get the religion out of it.
You mean like… er, the current situation in the US?
It’s kind of stupid to write an editorial saying “We should change the situation to be what it already is!” don’t you think?
What Jesurgislac said.
Also, for those of you who don’t know the entirety of the basket of rights, duties, and obligations, this is a link to the GAO’s report detailing the instances where they are mentioned in the federal code.
From the report’s home page: “The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” that are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor. In 1997, we issued a report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. In preparing the 1997 report, we limited our search to laws enacted prior to September 21, 1996, the date DOMA was signed into law. Recently, Congress asked us to update our 1997 compilation. We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.”
These are the items to examine for unpacking from civil marriage. Quite daunting IMHO.
Also, note that nothing in the law requires, much less mentions, a sexual relationship between the parties.
I was going to disagree with Jesurgislac by saying that even though there is a separation between the state and religion in marriage, that separation isn’t as clear as it could be…BUT as I’m thinking about it, I think Jesurgislac is right. I think, long term, changes in “marriage” as a social institution have to precede changes in marriage as a legal institution.
In terms of gay marriage, I think heavily emphasizing that the distinction between civil and religious already exists…
The first point of Jesurgislac #90 is right most of the time but not always. The Connecticut Supreme Court decided a case saying that a couple that had had a religious ceremony but never got a license were indeed officially married. (The husband tried to deny the marriage.) I can’t do links but you can google the word Carabetta. As somebody upthread mentioned, we also have common law marriage in a few states.
You mean like… er, the current situation in the US?
It’s kind of stupid to write an editorial saying “We should change the situation to be what it already is!” don’t you think?
Perhaps that’s what the situation is for you, but it’s not what it is for me. I’m married in some states and unrelated to my wife in others.
Anyone who wants to use her expertise on the history of marriage law to point out that particular stupidity is welcome to do so.
unree, common law marriage is disappearing in the US, though. With modern transportation the earlier (nay, “traditional”?) reasons it existed have disappeared - most people have access to those who can officiate a marriage. Connecticut seems like a legal outlier in the case you mention.
PhoenixRising,
Please pardon my ignorance, I seem not to have picked up on your situation.
Are you in a common law opposite-sex relationship, or in a same-sex DP / CU / marriage?
Unree: The Connecticut Supreme Court decided a case saying that a couple that had had a religious ceremony but never got a license were indeed officially married. (The husband tried to deny the marriage.)
In the UK, too, a couple can be deemed to be legally married if (and it’s an important if) they believed they were and had behaved in all ways and been treated as if they were. It’s a safety-net for cases where (for example) the civil ceremony is technically invalid but the couple weren’t aware of this.
Phoenix: What teac asked.
The notion that civil marriage is “outdated”, a concept that has “passed”, is belied, Amanda, by every LGBT person who is campaigning to be able to get married.
And I guess those of us who aren’t clamoring for the right, or who are even fighting for it though we have issues and will ourselves never marry, just need to shut the hell up and stop criticizing a flawed institution.
Look, all of this “you have to separate out civil marriage and religious marriage” is nonsense. You don’t. The religious ceremony is not legally binding, anywhere in the US, unless the person conducting the ceremony is civilly registered to make it a civil ceremony. Any couple can stand up in the church of their choice and have a religious ceremony and call it marriage: they won’t be legally married until they go through the civil ceremony.
Remove the ability of religious figures to sign civil contracts. Period. Not their job.
I’d support that, Jeff. Cut ‘em out completely.
I think the easiest thing to do is for each state to have to pay its own bills, and hire the people to perform marriages, instead of outsourcing to religious contractors. All the priest, rabbi, minister, whatever, is doing, is standing in as a state contractor and legalizing a marriage. Remove that ability, and the distinction between an civil marriage and a religious marriage is made absolutely clear.
For all of you who thought that sanity was possible, I have some sad news. A Google news scorecard:
— Giuliani’s scandal involving use of NYPD and agency dollars to facilitate his affair and provide services to his mistress: 337 articles.
— Disappearance and murder of 18 year old girl who worked as a porn actress: 1,657 articles.
I think turning marriage into a private contract is overall a good idea. I’m not sure you lot should think that though. Feminists have been trying to turn marriage away from a contractual basis for some time. A contractual system would include things like fault and compensation for breach of contract. No fault divorce is very anti-contractual, marriage and divorce are more about other things like partnership and equity than a contractual relationship now. In a divorce you can’t say “I should get more money because he/she did X/Y/Z”, under a contract you would.
Take something like lying about child’s father. At the moment something like that wouldn’t be relevant in no fault divorce proceedings, under a contractual system it would be a very serious type of fraud.
james,
Are you an attorney, or are you in law school, or do you know several law professors and / or attorneys well?
MAJeff: And I guess those of us who aren’t clamoring for the right
Because you feel LGBT people shouldn’t have the same civil rights as straights?
, or who are even fighting for it though we have issues and will ourselves never marry
Because as a point of principle LGBT people should be able to marry. Which is what I said. Got a problem with that?
just need to shut the hell up and stop criticizing a flawed institution.
Criticize marriage all you like, Jeff. But don’t tell me to shut the hell up, or whine because I’m pointing out that levelling up so that everyone has the same access to marriage is a strategy that works, whereas levelling down so that straights can’t get married either is a strategy that’s never going to fly.
Remove the ability of religious figures to sign civil contracts. Period. Not their job.
Yeah, because LGBT people shouldn’t want to get married in church. Huh, Look, I am an atheist: if I ever get married, it’s going to be by a civil ceremony. But I believe in the freedom of my Christian LGBT friends to get married in a church if that’s what they want to do, and I resent the fact that a bunch of idiotic bigots put the fear of God into the government to rule that out: and I think it’s appallingly stupid that LGBT people join in with the bigots just because they themselves don’t care if they can marry in church or not.
Always campaign to level up, Jeff. Never campaign to have rights removed from others just because they’re not rights you ever plan to exercise.
I think turning marriage into a private contract is overall a good idea.
Very good. Full employment act for lawyers, and plenty of opportunity for people to get screwed over because they didn’t understand the fine print. Very libertarian of you!
There is a benefit to linking religious and civil marriage. This will probably shock a lot of blog readers, but some married people do not get marriage licenses (particularly lower income people, etc.). Now, at least in some states, getting married without a marriage license is a civil offense (i.e., you have to pay a fine), but if you would have qualified for the license and met the other requirements (which the vast majority of marriage ceremonies meet), you still count as married despite the lack of license.
Now, we could still have civil marriages consistent with this approach, and just recognize that married couples entered the standard form civil marriage contract if they get ceremonially married without signing the contract. But, I would argue that it would be bad to risk having people get married, think they’re married, and then have one partner be able to abandon the other without legal consequence for failure to get the license.
Very good. Full employment act for lawyers, and plenty of opportunity for people to get screwed over because they didn’t understand the fine print. Very libertarian of you!
Is this supposed to be in contrast to the current system, which provides no employment opportunies for lawyers and where no-one has ever been screwed over because of a failure to make their rights and obligations clear and put them in print.
james,
Are you an attorney, or are you in law school, or do you know several law professors and / or attorneys well?
Jes,
If they want to get married in a church, they still can. It should remain separate ceremonies. Period. You want civil you get civil. You want religious, get religious. Not the same thing-no one-stop shopping.
and I defy you to read what I’ve written here and elsewhere and note where i’ve talked about leveling downward, making fewer rights. Fuckwit.
This will probably shock a lot of blog readers, but some married people do not get marriage licenses
See discussion of common law marriage above.
This will probably shock a lot of blog readers, but some married people do not get marriage licenses
We call them not married.
I’m really not following Jesurgislac’s objections about separating civil marriage registration ceremonies from religious marriage sacramental ceremonies. There is no suggestion that requiring everyone to undergo civil registration ceremonies prevents anyone from having a church blessing of their marriage as a sacrament as well, it’s just that having the church sacrament alone won’t make a couple legally married in the eyes of the State.
I’m in Australia, which does empower religious figures to act for the State in marriage registrations, but I would prefer we were closer to the UK system. In the UK, people who want the church sacrament have that as the big ceremony after quietly performing the civil obligations at some prior time.
The civil ceremony merely requires that the couple attend the registry office with two witnesses, while the church sacrament tends to be all the bells and whistles. (If you’re really posh, you hire a State registrant to attend your church wedding and do the civil registration as a simultaneous event, like the Royals generally do up until Charles and Camilla’s recent nuptials where they publicly attended the registry office prior to their church marriage blessing.) Lots of UK pagans these days also have a big blessing ceremony outdoors somewhere after quietly completing the marriage formalities at the registry office.
The UK system is not necessarily perfect, but it works well enough and extending it to cover same-sex couples is legally uncomplicated (although it hasn’t happened yet). Those who want a religious sacrament will add that on to the registry office wedding ceremony just the same way as the het couples do now, and everyone except the few religious extremists who still resent the old marriage system being taken away from them will be happy.
Jeff: If they want to get married in a church, they still can. It should remain separate ceremonies. Period.
Why? Any positive reason, or just that you don’t like the idea?
and I defy you to read what I’ve written here and elsewhere and note where i’ve talked about leveling downward, making fewer rights. Fuckwit.
Wow, you really do have a reading comprehension problem, don’t you? Right now, mixed-sex couples have the right to get married in church if they want to - legally valid marriages. You want to remove this right from them - level downwards. You argued that in the first half of the sentence in which you then went on to claim you didn’t want to “remove” rights. Fuckwitted of you.
Further, you have been arguing all down this thread that marriage as a civil right ought to be taken away, and no one ought to be allowed to have better than “civil unions”. Fuckwitted of you, yes?
tigtog: I’m really not following Jesurgislac’s objections about separating civil marriage registration ceremonies from religious marriage sacramental ceremonies.
I’m really not following why so many people think it’s a good idea to take a right away from people. Level up, not down.
In the UK, people who want the church sacrament have that as the big ceremony after quietly performing the civil obligations at some prior time.
I’m from the UK, and you have that exactly wrong. In the UK, mixed-sex couples who want to combine the civil and religious ceremony can do it. Any couple who wants to separate the religious and civil ceremonies can do that, too. People who want a civil ceremony only can do that. People who want only a religious blessing on their relationship and no civil ceremony can do that, if they want to, though they’ll remain legally unmarried.
Now, I fail to see why anyone would react to the list by saying “So rather than levelling up - give same-sex couples the same right as mixed-sex couples - we should level down, and remove a popular right from mixed-sex couples.”
The UK system is not necessarily perfect, but it works well enough and extending it to cover same-sex couples is legally uncomplicated (although it hasn’t happened yet).
You missed out on the Civil Partnership Act 2005, then.
Because i believe in the separation of church and state. Might fuckwitted of you to be opposed to it. The church should not be acting as an agent of the state. Period. Get over other people’s fetishization of fairy tales. Their delusions aren’t that special.
That’s not taking away a right. Civil recognition of a religious ceremony isn’t a right, it’s an administrative issue.
You’re just not that bright. You want in, but you don’t want to do any critical analysis.
Where? I’ve argued it should be re-evaluated, and social benefits made social (gasp…broadening the scope of benefits availble to all).
Going back go my first comment:
Yup, sure sounds like I’ve been arguing for getting rid of it. Mighty fuckwitted of you to ignore my explicit argument in the opposite direction .
Ah, maybe socializing the privatized aspects, removing the religious aspect from a civil contract, and taking state regulation of sexual activity out of the contract I’m advocating getting rid of it, but it seems to me that you have the reading comprehension problem. Oh, it has to remain special and privileged above all other relationship forms…that’s probably the issue.
Nope, it’s a refusal to critique. We can critique patriarchy all we want, but once queers want a part of the patriarchy, it becomes off limits. “We want in, don’t criticize our motives, despite the fact that they might also be shaped by heteronormative institutions and forces.”
Okay. As you have redefined “taking away a right” to be “not taking away a right if it’s a right I disapprove of” I see there is no further point in arguing with you, fuckwit.
You’re right, there is no point arguing if you’re willing to flat out lie….should have seen that coming, though.
OK then, Jesurgislac, my British friends who told me that the laws had changed since I lived there in the mid-90s were obviously far more confused than perfect you could ever possibly be.
And a Civil Partnership is not the same as a Civil Marriage, which is what I was talking about. They could have just changed the language of the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples, retaining the right which religious organisations already own of refusing to perform ceremonies on anyone they don’t wish to (my local Anglican pastor for years refused to marry any couple where the bride was unwilling to vow to obey the groom, and no legal sky fell in).
I’m with Jeff - total separation of church and state - all marriages (opposite sex and same sex) should be civil registrations and the pious may choose to have a religiously sacramental blessing afterwards. If it’s the sacrament that matters to the religious more than the state’s recognition, then that should not be a problem.
tigtog: And a Civil Partnership is not the same as a Civil Marriage, which is what I was talking about.
No, it’s not, but it is legally identical - to 99.99%. The Civil Partnership Act is a tome an inch thick which consists entirely of references to other legislation to say “And where it says “married couple” include “…and couple in a civil partnership”. The only areas of legal inequality left are: you cannot celebrate a civil partnership with a religious ceremony or in church: you cannot require a private pension company to treat civil partners the same as married couples in pension agreements made before 2005 (they can, and more and more of them are, but they can’t be made to except by customer pressure) and it’s not (yet) the law that a civil-partnered couple automatically become the joint parents of a child conceived by AID (but it will be soon). Other than that, a couple in a civil partnership are in all ways in the same legal relationship to each other, and must be treated the same, as a couple who are married.
They could have just changed the language of the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples, retaining the right which religious organisations already own of refusing to perform ceremonies on anyone they don’t wish to
Of course they could. And I think, a few years down the line, they probably will - and amend the text of the Civil Partnership Act so that mixed-sex couples can register a civil partnership if they want to, at the same time. Tony Blair was pandering to the religious homophobes he’s so fond of, and it failed: civil partnership is made so identical to civil marriage that the religious homophobes foamed and had a fit and said “this is just gay marriage without the name!” They were right of course: it is.
I’m with Jeff - total separation of church and state - all marriages (opposite sex and same sex) should be civil registrations and the pious may choose to have a religiously sacramental blessing afterwards.
Eh. I don’t think that the view of someone to whom a right doesn’t matter because they never intend to use it, is that important in deciding whether to remove a right from others. If church and state are separated, it doesn’t matter that any pastor can get registered to perform a civil marriage at the same time as a religious marriage: or that any registrar empowered to conduct marriage and partnership ceremonies can, at the couple’s request, include religious texts or music in the ceremony. Separation of church and state means that everyone is free to choose any religion or none, and no one can have any religion imposed on them. It doesn’t mean that the irreligious can tell the religious “You want a religious wedding? Too bad, I don’t want that and I don’t want you to want it either!”
In any case, as I repeatedly pointed out to Jeff: the right strategy is always to level up, not down.
Oh, and for the sake of completeness, the other 2 legal differences between civil partnership and civil marriage: a civil partner can’t get the partnership annulled for not “consummating” the partnership (because consummating in law is defined as penis-in-vagina, and the legislators had no interest in developing another definition: they wanted to eliminate that one, but the “religious interests” were against it): and a civil partner can’t get a divorce for adultery (because adultery in law is defined as penetrative sex between a man and a woman, and again, the legislators wanted to eliminate that rather than add to it and again the “religious interests” were against elimination).
If you’re in a civil partnership and your partner is unfaithful and you’re upset about it, that can constitute “unreasonable behavior”, for which you can get a divorce, so legally there’s no real difference. Rather than getting all worked up about the right of couples to get married in church if they want to, the real issues of separation of church from state come from: preventing the “religious interest” from stopping same-sex couples getting married in church; ending the “religious interest” in having a legal definition of consummation and of adultery.
Oh, and for the sake of completeness, the other 2 legal differences between civil partnership and civil marriage: a civil partner can’t get the partnership annulled for not “consummating” the partnership (because consummating in law is defined as penis-in-vagina, and the legislators had no interest in developing another definition: they wanted to eliminate that one, but the “religious interests” were against it): and a civil partner can’t get a divorce for adultery (because adultery in law is defined as penetrative sex between a man and a woman, and again, the legislators wanted to eliminate that rather than add to it and again the “religious interests” were against elimination).
If you’re in a civil partnership and your partner is unfaithful and you’re upset about it, that can constitute “unreasonable behavior”, for which you can get a divorce, so legally there’s no real difference. Rather than getting all worked up about the right of couples to get married in church if they want to, the real issues of separation of church from state come from: preventing the “religious interest” from stopping same-sex couples getting married in church; ending the “religious interest” in having a legal definition of consummation and of adultery.
Only if the privilege you want to level up to is justifiable in and of itself. Would it have been OK to simply amend the laws of slavery so that free blacks could own white slaves?
I do see your point that ordained religious should not necessarily be barred from qualifying as a civil religious celebrant, but in that case I want them to have to fulfil all the secular qualifications that an unordained person has to fulfil.
In my state of New South Wales in Australia, all marriage celebrants who aren’t religiously ordained (or the non-Christian equivalent) have to be Justices of the Peace and undergo a special training course. I’m quite happy for any religiously ordained persons who qualify as JP’s in Australia to also be registered marriage celebrants, but I think it’s wrong for any religiously ordained person who hasn’t qualifed to be a JP to be recognised as a marriage celebrant. (I’m up to speed on this because my husband is a JP who is considering becoming a marriage celebrant.)
Only if the privilege you want to level up to is justifiable in and of itself. Would it have been OK to simply amend the laws of slavery so that free blacks could own white slaves?
Is the right to get married in church in any way at all equivalent to slavery? Or are you just waving that in my face in a stupid kind of way because “slavery is bad! Ergo, anything I can compare to slavery is bad too!”
I do see your point that ordained religious should not necessarily be barred from qualifying as a civil religious celebrant, but in that case I want them to have to fulfil all the secular qualifications that an unordained person has to fulfil.
Sounds like a good plan to me. Given how easy it can be to become a religious celebrant, I definitely agree that someone who wants to conduct religious marriages that will be legally binding in civil law ought not only to be registered, but to undergo the same basic training as a registrar would - or a JP, or a notary, whatever.
honoring religions isn’t leveling up…it’s playing to the lowest in us.
then again, we’re dealing with someone who thinks everything you can do is a right and who will lie about what other say.
with someone who thinks everything you can do is a right
Damn right! Anything I can do that’s not legally forbidden and harms no one, is my right to do, if I want to. That principle is what distinguishes free countries from totalitarian states, and free people from slaves.
The idea that the government should have the right to tell a couple they can’t get married in church because they’re gay, while allowing another couple to get married because they’re straight? I oppose that even though I never want to get married in church, because if a straight couple have the right to do that, so should a gay couple. And the idea that this should be “fixed” by removing the right to marry in church from the straight couple? Level up, not down!
I haven’t lied about anything you said, FWJeff.
jes:
Me:
Now, you said I should take marriage as civil right away. I said the opposite.
You lied.
and. a right is a claim the state is obligated to recognize. It’s not whatever the fuck you can and choose to do.
And the only way it’s a demotion and removal of a civil right is if you believe:
a) marriage should be the only relationship form recognized.
b) marriage should be privileged above all other forms of relationships.
c) it’s the religious nonsense that makes a marriage.
None of those are central to civil marriage and the right to obtain one.
Jeff, you’re right about one thing, and I apologize: while your first comment seemed to side (at wordy length) with the people who argue that marriage should be abolished and civil unions installed, your comment here clearly argues on the side I was taking. I think I was confusing your comments with Amanda’s, initially, and then when you got so hostile I assumed you were actually arguing against me. In fact, you seem to agree with me on every point other than your siding with the homophobic Christians who think gays shouldn’t be able to celebrate a religious marriage either.
and. a right is a claim the state is obligated to recognize.
Also you seem to think you live in a totalitarian state. Hell, I haven’t been back to the US in years: maybe you do.
And the only way it’s a demotion and removal of a civil right is if you believe
That a couple who want to be able to get married in church, or have a religious blessing as they wed in front of a civil registrar, should be able to do so. I guess that’s your “c”, somewhat more politely phrased.
(a) and (b) are what the homophobic Christians believe, and you seem to be violently agreeing with them, so I’m not surprised you bring them up.
Yes, I do think the right to have a religious and legally valid wedding if you want one (given the usual “and this harms no one” caveats) is a civil right: it falls under the umbrella of the right to practice your religion freely without goverment interference.
“Also you seem to think you live in a totalitarian state. Hell, I haven’t been back to the US in years: maybe you do.”
I don’t know about Jeff, but my love for Big Brother grows stronger every day. And don’t forget: 2+2=5…
And always remember: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear…
I don’t know about Jeff, but my love for Big Brother grows stronger every day. And don’t forget: 2+2=5…
Also, Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
O_0
Yes, I do think the right to have a religious and legally valid wedding if you want one (given the usual “and this harms no one” caveats) is a civil right: it falls under the umbrella of the right to practice your religion freely without goverment interference
Why should the state give any credence to religious claims. That’s establishment, not free exercise.
And my approach to rights as legal things has to do with actually analyzing them through a sociological and legal lens, not the bankrupt lens of wishy-washy multi-culti and anti-critical gay and lesbian integrationist identarian politics. Some of us care about reality and justice, not superstition and getting all the gooodies for ourselves.
Go fuck yourself. Your “apology” is meaningless. You’re obviously a complete fool incapable of analysis. Go to hell and hang out with your superstitous friends.
FWJeff: Why should the state give any credence to religious claims. That’s establishment, not free exercise.
Establishment is when the government specifies which religious marriages it will recognize. The state gives credence to the civil marriage: the state has no business barring people from having a religious ceremony at the same time as they are legally wed.
Free exercise of religion is when anyone is free to choose any variation of civil or religious ceremony, conducted by anyone who is qualified as a marriage registrar by the state; and a pastor should not be banned from qualifying as a marriage registrar, nor required to conduct religious ceremonies of couples barred by that religion from marrying.
Some of us care about reality and justice, not superstition and getting all the gooodies for ourselves.
Uh-huh. Reality is that many same-sex couples want to be married in church, or with a religious blessing; justice is that, as mixed-sex couples are allowed that, so should same-sex couples be. Superstition is getting all worked up about reality and insisting that the solution you want is the “just” solution.
You’re obviously a complete fool incapable of analysis.
As this comes from someone whose idea of reasoned debate is to shout abuse at those who disagree with him, I’ll give that judgement all the respect you’ve earned.
there is nothing barring people who receive civil marriages from also holding a religious ceremony. The religious blessings have no place in a civil marriage. None. If you think your big sky daddy needs to bless it for it to be real, you have delusions.
Reality is that many same-sex couples want to be married in church, or with a religious blessing;
The problem is that those churches don’t deal in reality, and the blessing from their sky buddy isn’t reality, it’s imaginary.
Idiotic ideas don’t deserve respect. A supernatural being “blessing” a couple’s relationship is an idiotic idea, whether held by gays or straights.
FWJeff: If you think your big sky daddy needs to bless it for it to be real, you have delusions.
People do think that, though, FWJeff. And because of freedom of religion, they are as entitled to think that as you are to call them delusional.
Idiotic ideas don’t deserve respect. A supernatural being “blessing” a couple’s relationship is an idiotic idea, whether held by gays or straights.
That’s nice, FWJeff. And that and $1.40 will get you a cup of coffee. Freedom of religion, remember? Your notion that it’s “idiotic” need cut no ice with someone who believes: their belief need cut no ice with yours.
The problem is that those churches don’t deal in reality, and the blessing from their sky buddy isn’t reality, it’s imaginary.
What does that have to do with anything? As I said: Reality is that many same-sex couples want to be married in church, or with a religious blessing; justice is that, as mixed-sex couples are allowed that, so should same-sex couples be.
I am an atheist: of course I support the right of everyone to adhere to any religion or none. What are you?
I’m an atheist, and I hope the religious will come to see the error of their ways. It’s not just another way of knowing the world. It’s delusional. I feel pity for my religious friends. It’s too bad you care so little about them as to allow them to cling to ridiculous fairy tales and silly ideas.
You may be an atheist, but you’re a religious apologist.
We need less religion in the world, not more.
FWJeff: You may be an atheist, but you’re a religious apologist.
Don’t use long words when you obviously have no idea what they mean.
I am an atheist who believes in the right of freedom of belief and practice for any religion or none.
and I hope the religious will come to see the error of their ways.
As I said: Reality is that many same-sex couples want to be married in church, or with a religious blessing; justice is that, as mixed-sex couples are allowed that, so should same-sex couples be. Do you have any response to that other than your repeated protests that people shouldn’t want to be legally wed with a religious service?
Why should the state recognize religious service. It should not. I am working for a world in which we move past the nonsense of religion. You apparently value it, all the sadder for you.
Religion is a problem. We do not solve that problem by making treating it as something special and with kid gloves.
You have yet to tell me why the state should recognize a religious ceremony. Just because delusional people want it to? Not a good enough reason. I want a secular, non-religious state, and eventually a non-religious world. That’s what I’m working for.
People are free to believe what the hell they want. Just don’t expect me to welcome it or respect it, and we certainly shouldn’t have the state respecting its practices.
Civil marriages should be performed by civil authorities. There’s no reason for the state to recognize religious nonsense in any way.
has nothing to do with “justice” since the religious shouldn’t be involved with the state to begin with. It’s an error that needs to be corrected.
Just because gay people want something doesn’t make it inherently right. Same with straight folks. Religious privileging is wrong and needs to be opposed–even when queers fall for it.
And I consider working against religion to be similar to doing work against Patriarchy and Heteronormativity (hell it’s often the exact same work)…all negative forces on the planet that we need to work to be rid of.
FWJeff: Why should the state recognize religious service. It should not.
Of course not. Therefore, it should not ban religious service or ban religious officiants from carrying out civil marriages. To regard religious marriage as so dangerous to the common weal that people must be prevented by law from having a religious ceremony at the same time as their civil marriage is recognising religious service in a big way.
You have yet to tell me why the state should recognize a religious ceremony.
You have yet to point out where I argued that the state should do so.
People are free to believe what the hell they want. Just don’t expect me to welcome it or respect it
Who asked you to?
Civil marriages should be performed by civil authorities.
See the point that tigtog made that I agreed with: religious celebrants who want to perform legal marriages ought to have to be qualified and registered in the same way as anyone else who performs a legal marriage.
And I consider working against religion to be similar to doing work against Patriarchy and Heteronormativity
People are free to believe what the hell they want. Just don’t expect me to welcome it or respect it.
Religion is special because people believe it’s special, and therefore we must respect and value it. What a load of shit–and a brand of atheist apologetics for religion.
Religion ain’t a positive. No reason to respect it, even if queers believe the silliness, it’s still silliness the world would be better off without.
Keep supporting oppressive institutions and insidious ideas though.
FWJeff: Religion is special because people believe it’s special, and therefore we must respect and value it.
Religion is not special. Some people believe in God or other religious things. While not required to respect what they believe, common politeness and humanity requires us to respect them.
It does me no harm if two believers want to have a church wedding. It does the believers no harm if I want to have a humanist ceremony in a registry office, or just sign the papers. Your argument appears to rest entirely on the notion that what’s offensive to you should be banned. That’s precisely the same argument that homophobic Christians use about gay marriage.
Keep supporting oppressive institutions and insidious ideas though.
The irony, it makes me weep. Your insistence that you should get to ban what you find offensive is far more supportive of oppressive institutions than my insistence that freedom of belief or disbelief, and the right to practice any religion or none, is a basic civil right.
A secular state is important to me. A secular society is important to me. Too bad you reject those things.
FWJeff: secular state is important to me. A secular society is important to me.
A free state and a free society is important to me. Equality under the law is important to me. In a free state, no one has the right to impose religion on anyone else, and no one has the right to prevent anyone from practicing any religion or none - given, of course, the basic restrictions of harming no one.
Too bad you reject freedom in favor of totalitarianism. Scary that you want everyone to believe what you believe, no allowance for freedom of thought.
too bad you love ignorance and superstition. such a shame.
and you support your friends’ pursuit of idiocy, stupidity and ignorance. How loving of you.
*raises eyebrow*
*drinks tea*