The Marriage Business
Check out Traveling Hypothesis, and R.J.’s suggestion that our government “get out of the marriage business” and start recognizing “partnerships” instead. My response to this was so involved that I decided to post it on my blog, instead of his. Here goes:
R.J.: What bothers me about this situation is that the definition of "marriage" as far as the State is concerned has been so thoroughly stretched out of shape that your proposed solution is simply renaming marriage "partnership" and continuing with it as it was originally intended. How progressive of you. Still, silly as it sounds, this little semantic change is what we need to solve the problem.
Let me explain: The religious right, and many other religious people, yell about "gay marriage" and belittle commonlaw marriage because they think that, if our officially secular government recognizes a "marriage"—even if it's just because a man and woman walked into a courthouse and signed a form, or even just filed their income taxes together (Yes, you can get legally married this way, at least in Colorado and some other states which recognize commonlaw marriages.)—it means that they are part of the holy union laid out by their particular religion. That's not what it means. The reason governments got into the "marriage" business is the same reason why you suggest they should be in the "partnership" business, instead.
In fact, that's originally why everybody got into the marriage business. The idea that love has anything to do with marriage is very new. Many cultures still don't think that, and many modern, intelligent, well-educated people still practice arranged marriages for purely social and financial reasons, in whichi love does or doesn't develop after the wedding day. (Yes, intelligent, modern people do this. Does anyone else reading this have a brilliant college buddy who is living happily in an arranged marriage? I have.) From the start, "marriages" have been partnerships set up to ensure that children would be well taken care of. Group marriages are not a new idea, either. From Hindus to Mormons to ancient Hebrews, many cultures have allowed groups (mostly one man and many women, but sometimes with many men, as well) to get "married." It's always for the stability of a family.
So why is marriage considered mainly a religious rite? Well, in the early stages of all cultures, religion and government were the same thing. The United States' separation of church and state was a ground-breaking new idea. When religious law and state law split up, we all got confused about which one "marriage" belonged to. And after the split, as we struggled to decide which of our beliefs belonged to religion, and which should belong to everybody.
We've also got all kinds of ideas about what "marriage" means, and this adds to the confusion. Some of us think that it means exactly whatever our particular religion says it does, which is far more than what it should ever mean to the state. Some of us also think it means that we've found our "soul mate," and are just celebrating that we are in deep, true love, and intend to be so forever. And then many folks still get married purely for financial and legal stability. All of these layers are admirable and valid reasons for making a commitment. Most folks who get married are going with many layers at once, and that's great, but no wonder we're confused!
So, as R.J. suggests, I think our governments should quit talking about "marriage," just because the word has become too heavily loaded, and get into the business of "partnerships." Or, heck, "recognized relationships" or "civil unions." Just pick a term that applies just to the government layer. Then it should recognize any legal adults (I really wish our states would quit recognizing "marriages" involving children too young to sign contracts, or to legally have sex outside of marriage. Try Googling "minimum marriage age." It's downright creepy.) who choose to enter into a contract to form a family unit. Any number of people, of any genders, should be eligible. It should be a pain in the neck to divorce one’s self from such a unit, but possible. The units should be given all the legal powers that married couples have now—especially powers like the ability to order medical care for children, and such.
Yes, I do have my own blog. Sorry to ramble so. As you can see, I feel very strongly about marriage. I really like the idea, in all of its layers. If I was really excited about the idea of raising children soon, I would be looking for a good candidate for the state-sanctioned layer—for a firm partnership to make the huge job of raising children easier. It’s such a tough and important job, that a partnership deal is a great idea. I’m not in a hurry to have kids, though, so I won’t settle for that any time soon. I’m not strongly religious, either, so the religious layer isn’t important to me, though I respect folks for whom it is. They should, and do, follow whatever rules their religion sets up, and they care about their faith’s sanction more than the State’s. As for me, I’m dreaming of the “soul mate” layer. I think it can be done, and that’s the kind of “marriage” that I most like to think about, the kind where it doesn’t really matter whether anyone besides you and your mate recognizes the union. You know who you are, you’re devoted to the union, and the only question is whether you want to have a party to celebrate. That’s what many people, gay and straight, have, and that’s the layer I personally like best. But, of course, that part is none of the government’s business.
R.J.: What bothers me about this situation is that the definition of "marriage" as far as the State is concerned has been so thoroughly stretched out of shape that your proposed solution is simply renaming marriage "partnership" and continuing with it as it was originally intended. How progressive of you. Still, silly as it sounds, this little semantic change is what we need to solve the problem.
Let me explain: The religious right, and many other religious people, yell about "gay marriage" and belittle commonlaw marriage because they think that, if our officially secular government recognizes a "marriage"—even if it's just because a man and woman walked into a courthouse and signed a form, or even just filed their income taxes together (Yes, you can get legally married this way, at least in Colorado and some other states which recognize commonlaw marriages.)—it means that they are part of the holy union laid out by their particular religion. That's not what it means. The reason governments got into the "marriage" business is the same reason why you suggest they should be in the "partnership" business, instead.
In fact, that's originally why everybody got into the marriage business. The idea that love has anything to do with marriage is very new. Many cultures still don't think that, and many modern, intelligent, well-educated people still practice arranged marriages for purely social and financial reasons, in whichi love does or doesn't develop after the wedding day. (Yes, intelligent, modern people do this. Does anyone else reading this have a brilliant college buddy who is living happily in an arranged marriage? I have.) From the start, "marriages" have been partnerships set up to ensure that children would be well taken care of. Group marriages are not a new idea, either. From Hindus to Mormons to ancient Hebrews, many cultures have allowed groups (mostly one man and many women, but sometimes with many men, as well) to get "married." It's always for the stability of a family.
So why is marriage considered mainly a religious rite? Well, in the early stages of all cultures, religion and government were the same thing. The United States' separation of church and state was a ground-breaking new idea. When religious law and state law split up, we all got confused about which one "marriage" belonged to. And after the split, as we struggled to decide which of our beliefs belonged to religion, and which should belong to everybody.
We've also got all kinds of ideas about what "marriage" means, and this adds to the confusion. Some of us think that it means exactly whatever our particular religion says it does, which is far more than what it should ever mean to the state. Some of us also think it means that we've found our "soul mate," and are just celebrating that we are in deep, true love, and intend to be so forever. And then many folks still get married purely for financial and legal stability. All of these layers are admirable and valid reasons for making a commitment. Most folks who get married are going with many layers at once, and that's great, but no wonder we're confused!
So, as R.J. suggests, I think our governments should quit talking about "marriage," just because the word has become too heavily loaded, and get into the business of "partnerships." Or, heck, "recognized relationships" or "civil unions." Just pick a term that applies just to the government layer. Then it should recognize any legal adults (I really wish our states would quit recognizing "marriages" involving children too young to sign contracts, or to legally have sex outside of marriage. Try Googling "minimum marriage age." It's downright creepy.) who choose to enter into a contract to form a family unit. Any number of people, of any genders, should be eligible. It should be a pain in the neck to divorce one’s self from such a unit, but possible. The units should be given all the legal powers that married couples have now—especially powers like the ability to order medical care for children, and such.
Yes, I do have my own blog. Sorry to ramble so. As you can see, I feel very strongly about marriage. I really like the idea, in all of its layers. If I was really excited about the idea of raising children soon, I would be looking for a good candidate for the state-sanctioned layer—for a firm partnership to make the huge job of raising children easier. It’s such a tough and important job, that a partnership deal is a great idea. I’m not in a hurry to have kids, though, so I won’t settle for that any time soon. I’m not strongly religious, either, so the religious layer isn’t important to me, though I respect folks for whom it is. They should, and do, follow whatever rules their religion sets up, and they care about their faith’s sanction more than the State’s. As for me, I’m dreaming of the “soul mate” layer. I think it can be done, and that’s the kind of “marriage” that I most like to think about, the kind where it doesn’t really matter whether anyone besides you and your mate recognizes the union. You know who you are, you’re devoted to the union, and the only question is whether you want to have a party to celebrate. That’s what many people, gay and straight, have, and that’s the layer I personally like best. But, of course, that part is none of the government’s business.
posted by Anita @ 8:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home