(no subject)

[jfb]

Michael Kinsley:

So, we have two options here. We can add gay marriage to the short list of controversies—abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty—that are so frozen and ritualistic that debates about them are more like Kabuki performances than intellectual exercises. Or we can think outside the box. There is a solution that ought to satisfy both camps and may not be a bad idea even apart from the gay-marriage controversy.

That solution is to end the institution of marriage. Or rather (he hastens to clarify, Dear) the solution is to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage. Or, framed to appeal to conservatives: End the government monopoly on marriage. Wait, I've got it: Privatize marriage.

He glosses over pretty much all the problems with this idea, but it's still an interesting read.

Comments

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I read somewhere else today of someone suggesting that marriage be simply defined much looser and not exclusively sex-based at all, but simply a long term commitment sort of sense, which is an interesting concept.

[pobig.livejournal.com]

One of the breadth courses I failed in university was the social and economic history of 17th century England, i.e. what happened besides the civil war and the other stuff conventionally covered in history books. Among the case studies was the town of Gough (just because the records were unusually complete, and survived, etc.) where, just looking at what people did, marriage was a predominantly economic institution, if only because people were observed to marry late because they couldn't afford to marry earlier.

[wrog]

He glosses over pretty much all the problems with this idea

it's worse than that; he manages to utterly miss the point.

E.g., for something like inheritance rights, government recognition is essential given that probate is done by the courts (i.e., government) and the default is for immediate family members to get precedence --- if you want to leave your estate to someone who's not deemed to be in your immediate family and you don't dot every last i and cross every last t in your will (and sometimes even then the judge will still toss out the will anyway), you (i.e., your intended heir) will probably just lose.

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Nope, I'd call that "glossed over" by his penultimate "more than sleeping arrangements" paragraph. I think we can assume he understands there'd be more work involved than just blotting out all the marriage laws.

My take on it is: The problem is that we have two things--a government-declared shorthand for a bewildering complex of contractual and legal obligations and benefits, and a sacred covenant between, for the sake of argument, a man and a woman--and we call them both the same thing.

My variant on Kinsley's (deliberately simplified for the sake of provocation, I suspect) idea would be to keep at least some of the shorthand, but distinguish it absolutely from marriage. (Vermont's trick of legislating gay marriages but calling them "civil unions" would just about do it, if they called straight marriages the same thing.)

But what do I know--I'm nowhere within shooting range of marriage, civil union, or, to the best of my knowledge, a date for Friday night, so I can't say I've given it considered thought. Mostly I just think Kinsley is fun to read.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I am in a long-term, committed, complex "legally unmarried" relationship. And I don't see any problem at all with using piece-by-piece legal mechanisms such as life insurance, joint tenancy, powers of attorney, advance health care directives, beneficiary designations for 401Ks, etc.--as well as wills and trusts, which are easy to protect from attack by blood beneficiaries if you employ simplicity, sensitivity, and common sense. All of these things are easy to set up, and in many situations can be done yourself using excellent books and software by Nolo Press and others who are making day-to-day law accessible for nonlawyers. This way, my partner and I can decide together what we want one-detail-at-a-time, with clarity and deliberation. It poses extra challenges for us as a couple but only serves to deepen the relationship, strengthen the foundation. Compared to legal marriage, which would make the State a party to our sacred relationship! No thanks!