(no subject)
Jul. 3rd, 2003 11:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.He glosses over pretty much all the problems with this idea, but it's still an interesting read.
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.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-03 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-03 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-03 09:21 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2003-07-04 02:21 pm (UTC) - Expand