(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

[(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!