(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

[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.