To put it another way: If you believe in the separation of church and state, the only unions the government has any right to endorse are, by definition, *civil* unions.

Leave the definition of "marriage" to churches, couples, and families. The government can't tell churches who can and can't get married inside their doors, and churches have no right to tell anyone else (especially not the government) who can and can't get married *outside* their doors.

Get rid of the word "marriage" entirely in the law, and you don't have to worry about whether "gay marriage" is legal or not.

I get to marry my little sister, and take all that money!

Golden.

Y'know, I think of that time a few months ago when "Lupjl" and so many others here were certain that the State needed to step in and prevent an unmarried woman from giving her kid up for adoption, because the government has this pivotally important role to play... And then I think about the foamingly rabid urgency with which so many are eager to pander to the political sensitivities of a small and fully adult set of people who declare themselves to be brutally oppressed by govern, and I'm all like... Do you guys really, REALLY think this is Selma '65? Do you really think you're Rosa Parks?

Why did supposedly freedom loving Americans ever decide that it would be a good idea to have the government license their relationships?

So let me get this straight... you want to change the law so everyone wanting to marry will have to pay thousands to lawyers to negotiate custom-made legal contracts?

Have fun getting that passed.

@NicoleK - Just because a couple can spend big bucks on negotiating a custom contract doesn't mean anyone has to do so. There will be a default standard contract, boilerplate if you will, that can be modified at slight cost for the vast majority of those seeking such union.

Besides, in re"getting that passed," a bunch of lawyers in the country's legislative bodies would balk at passing laws that added to their bottom line? Even if the electorate was opposed, I think they'd pass it anyway.

> Why did supposedly freedom loving Americans ever
> decide that it would be a good idea to have the
> government license their relationships?

Because they weren't smug postmodern fuckheads: they were the most evolved human beings who ever lived, with keen insights about the relationships between individuals, families, and their surround cultures. Because genuine self-reliance was so important to survival in their time that they couldn't afford idiotic poses of Independence, man! just to look cool in front of their dickless, blasé peers.

...As can so many fools today.

____________________


And now, modern art.

A traditional Jewish wedding involves a written contract.

"Besides, in re"getting that passed," a bunch of lawyers in the country's legislative bodies would balk at passing laws that added to their bottom line? Even if the electorate was opposed, I think they'd pass it anyway."

Nicole has a point, but the counterpoint is that there already is a big group of lawyers getting rich off of marriage... that's what family law is. This is a large group, and they pretty much have total control over what legislators think of marriage and family issues. They have a lot of money and can run ads portraying anyone who differs from their position as a dangerous libertine kook attacking the moral fabric of American society. Few politicians are willing to face that hurricane.

This opens the door to all forms of multi-party marriage. 3+ gays marrying..check. 3+ lesbians..check. Polygamy...check.

Nick, what's the matter with you? We're just talking about a different kind of love! How could that possibly be any interest of the government? DON'T YOU HAVE ANY COMPASSION?!??!?

You're nothing but primitive bigot.

I so look down on you. You're beneath contempt.

(Like that.)

(That was for Nick, who needs to learn to consider the feelings of others.)

But over the years, Amy's considerations of this matter have proven dynamic, covering all the hues 'twixt petulance and nihilism.

> I mean, really

!

"Why did supposedly freedom loving Americans ever decide that it would be a good idea to have the government license their relationships?"

Wow.

Step back and think for a minute.

The method of recognizing unions has been a concern of the tribe forever, and this is even true in animal society.

Care to show that government has no interest in heredity?

We've allowed every Tom, Dick, Harry and Habib to perform the ceremonies themselves - designed to show the social group the newlyweds' allegiance - for decades provided they show the State a marriage license. This license simplifies probate proceedings. If you think "family law" is onerous today, just try to figure out who inherits what - or who is even responsible for what - in the absence of a marriage license.

Oh. When heredity can't be found, property goes to the State. That what you want?

If you're not having offspring or caring for them, why should there be a distinction recognizing your devotion? Because some law favors estranged family members over loved ones, and some people are victimized without being prepared to show that hostile family should be excluded from important decisions in life. While this "contract" talk can eliminate this, it's really just talking about civil unions in a new way.

-----

Consistency check: another topic addresses the disparate funding of "diversity" agencies at college, and a commenter points out that the diversity office never has a metric to point to as a measure of its effectiveness.

Where is the metric this time?

Per Balko tweet

Here is my Libertarian view: Every man (woman) should be allowed to have as many husbands and wives as he (she) wants so long as all parties are consenting, competent adults. The arrangements made should be nobody's business.

I think this makes me more tolerant than some of the other name-callers on this blog.

I'm looking for consistency. You either want the state to define and enforce marriage laws or you do not. And if you do not want the state to define marriage laws, then multi-party marriages should be legal.

I don't get the notion that death benefit laws, since they give benefits to only one person, then marriage must therefore be restricted to two people. If multi-party marriage is allowed, you change the law to allow for multiple beneficiaries upon the death of a spouse.

> The arrangements made should be nobody's
> business.

Including death benefits through SSI and adjudication of divorce and collection of alimony and on and on

Polygamy...check.
Posted by: Nick

As polygamy is the oldest and therefore the MOST traditional form of marrige I think it need o be encouraged

If multi-party marriage is allowed, you change the law to allow for multiple beneficiaries upon the death of a spouse.
Posted by: Nick

So, Nick . . . ever hear of a will?

So, "crap", uhh, "crypt", no that not right "cpri?" oh, yess, "crid"

First off the quotes dont bother me, they just make me a little curious as to why you use them.

Second, got a link to a blog post where I said that the government needed to prevent unmarried mothers from giving up their kids?

Cause as I recall what I was saying was the government needed to stop taking away mens parental rights at the whims of women, no questions asked.

See how they are completely different statements when somthing called CONTEXT is applied?

Third, as a guy (I'm assuming your a guy becuase woman are a little more sublte and underhanded when it comes to being assholes) who has on many occasions bitched about people putting words in others mouths, I find it a little douchy and hypocritical what you just did there.

Fourth, I know, I know, you dont want me reading your posts (then dont write them), or commenting on you posts (then dont quote me out of context or write something stupid in general).

Fifth, please dont bother telling me how unloved I am (I already know this - people, suprisingly, dont like it when I advoacte the extermination of mankind) or how nobody cares what or even if I write (if this were true you wouldnt go out of your way to misquote me intentionally or childishly misspell my name), and for the love of god please dont start asking about my sex life again (its creepy as fuck)

We have another family living with us right now. I've gotta say, I like having another wife around. I have no real issue with polyamory-except that to my knowledge everywhere it's been practiced it's led to a second-class status for women. In theory I think it could be great.

> I have no real issue with polyamory-except that
> to my knowledge everywhere it's been practiced
> it's led to a second-class status for women.

Yeah, that.

In theory I have nothing against Cabernet with breakfast, head on the highway, and handguns for toddlers....

A friend of the family stayed in India for a few months for an academic thing, in a neighborhood of Osama-like compounds (without the midnight copters.) She said that the sound of the wives next door fighting every night had to be heard to be believed.

I have no idea why some man would want to subject himself to the potential living hell of having two or more actual "wives"

If three or more people want to live together than fine, anyone can move out when it becomes too unbearable without all the legal ramifications of dissolving the "contract"

Any government benefits to marriage are probably going to come to a screeching halt here soon. There simply isn't money in the treasury to pay for it all.

Either these benefits will be eliminated/ greatly reduced, or the value of them will be inflated away through running the US Treasury printing presses on overtime.

Izzy gits it.

But still... Y'know... This is not a backhanded instance of civilization's advance. The people who OUGHT to understand that they have no business demanding governmental supervision of their lives will continue to expect to be coddled in all those loving ways, financial and otherwise.

Amy:

> it's really none of my damn business -- or yours

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"I mean, really", she says.

Never ever happen until the gov goes bankrupt. Lawyers benefit too much from the current system they helped write.

I've been married over 25 years, no license. After standing up for an hour listening to Old Church Slavonic, I didn't need to license.

Just because a couple can spend big bucks on negotiating a custom contract doesn't mean anyone has to do so. There will be a default standard contract, boilerplate if you will, that can be modified at slight cost for the vast majority of those seeking such union.

***

Um... there already IS that. It's called marriage.

I'm not quite sure what you want... you want marriage that isn't called marriage?

"Right now, state certification of marriage allows one to get state benefits."

Google marriage penalty. I pay for those benefits.

I am a traditional sort of person, and I'd have gotten married regardless. Since my wife was an alien, less traditional arrangements were never an option for me.

> you want marriage that isn't called marriage?

Nic gits it.

> I pay for those benefits.

MarkD gits it.

I've said this before, but I see marriage as being a lot like adoption, a legal way of gaining a new family member. You don't see people going around asking for adoption that isn't called adoption, encompassing everything adoption does but calling it "civil family growing" or something.

I've got friends who hired lawyers to do everything that marriage does... make their partner next of kin, make them responsible in case of brain damage, etc. And I'm like, "Guys, you do realize there's a package deal that costs like $60 (or whatever the filing fee was, I think it was about that), right?"

Is what you are effectively advocating for is to keep marriage, but to revoke the right of clergy or other non-bureaucrats to perform them?

I like that in MA clergy can perform marriages, or anyone can if they get permission from the city in advance.

I had two ceremonies myself, a Protestant one in Switzerland that was not legally binding, and a legally (and manually) binding handfasting in Massachusetts (where we were Spouse A and Spouse B rather than Husband and Wife on the form). We split the wedding up so that our guests wouldn't have to travel too far, they could just pick a half. Some traveled anyways. In Switzerland usually you go to the town hall and get married, then if you want a religious thing you do it after.

Is that the sort of thing you're advocating for? Separating the two?

Because its not the same as Civil Unions, which also exist in Switzerland. Gay people can be civilly united, but not married.

> You don't see people going around asking for
> adoption that isn't called adoption

Neat point. I love that kind of thinking.

People arguing for a boilerplate contract to replace marriage are ignoring the intensity of the emotions involved.

Marriage is more than an agreement of "let's sell widgets together."

Dissolving a business partnership is one thing, dissovling a marriage is altogether something else.

Dissovling a business partnership involves possession of assets, often with little emotional value attached to them.

Dissolving a marriage often involves custody of children, possession of cherished heirlooms, and possession of articles purchased together with a promise of lifetime utility. "Who gets the house?" is more than simply a question of determining possession of an asset.

And how do you determine breach of contract? People change in life. Their goals and desires change. Marriage is about accommodating change. Business contracts are about negating change.

Marriage is not simply a contractual arrangement - and cannot be reduced to it.

I have no real issue with polyamory-except that to my knowledge everywhere it's been practiced it's led to a second-class status for women.

In most of those places, women already had second-class status and would continue to be second-class citizens with the elimination of polygamy.

In theory I think [polyamory] could be great.

Really? Thought it out?

Who gets what when Spouse #3 wants a divorce?

What if Husband #2 wants to take a wife, but Wife #1 doesn't want him to?

What about Husband #1 in this scenario? What are his rights and responsiblities?

If Husband #2 later divorces his Wife #2, what are Husband #1's legal protections against having his part of the joined assets divided in the divorce settlement?

A larger point from Conan is that when these questions are raised, they will be asked in courts of law. It's silly to pretend the State has no interest in these matters.

Because if you really, really mean it, who the fuck cares? Just don't come cryin', OK, Big Boy?

People arguing for a boilerplate contract to replace marriage are ignoring the intensity of the emotions involved.
Marriage is more than an agreement of "let's sell widgets together."

Well, "traditionally" marrige was about selling your daughters pussy the the familly most likey to benift you as the father in the long run. Until quite recently emotion had little or nothing to do with who got married to whom

is that when these questions are raised, they will be asked in courts of law. It's silly to pretend the State has no interest in these matters.

Noone said the state has "no interest." The argument is they have no business discriminating agianst people who want the benifits of a civil contract based solely on which particular kinds of genitals they enjoy putting their tounges on.

As for Conans examples - that why we have contracts to begin with, to lay out who gets what, and wht goes where in the event things dont work out

Well, "traditionally" marrige was about selling your daughter...[to] the the family most likey to benefit you as the father in the long run. Until quite recently emotion had little or nothing to do with who got married to whom. -- lujlp

Even arranged marriages involved emotions.

There were three traditions associated with ancient marriage customs. Most of them were originally intended to protect the bride rather than treat her like cattle.

The Dowry - this was money or other valuables either presented to the groom or brought with the bride to enable her to set up housekeeping (it often included linens, silver, etc.).

If the families were nobility, the dowry was often negotiated between the families prior to the marriage and included inheritance, lands, and other considerations. A dowry provided the bride an independent means of support in the event of divorce (where allowed) or her husband's death.

In most societies, the dowry was inherited by the bride's children and if she died without children, the dowry was returned to her family.

One of the legends of Saint Nicholas was that he threw gold into the drying stockings of three young poor sisters, thus providing them with dowries ... and us with Christmas stockings.

The Dower - this consisted of money and valuables bestowed upon the bride by the groom. A dower ensured the bride would be taken care of in the event of divorce (where allowed) or her husband's death.

The Jewish marriage contract, the ketubah, was a legal innovation that allowed the dower to be paid to the bride upon divorce or the death of the groom, thus allowing young men without resources to marry and pay the dower later when they were more financially able to afford it.

The Bride Price - this is what you're referring to. The bride price consisted of money and valuables bestowed upon the father of the bride by the groom's family.

The bride price was often used to offset the expense of the dowry, enabling women from less-than-rich families to marry.

Islamic law commands the bride price, the Mahr, be given directly to the bride (like a dower) and forbids her family from taking it without her consent. However, in many parts of the Islamic world, this law is overlooked in favor of older bride price traditions.

Some combination of the dowry, dower, and bride price were customary in most societies. The origins of all of these had less to do with "selling your daughter" and more to do with protecting her.

"The argument is they have no business discriminating agianst people who want the benifits of a civil contract based solely on which particular kinds of genitals they enjoy putting their tounges on."

This is a false dilemma, straw man or something.

Because the State HAS an interest in the behavior of its citizens. Conventional marriage, more often than not, produces new citizens with new obligations to a bunch of communities.

Thus, the "discrimination" is to determine who these people are - not those who are NOT producing offspring.

Now, before you get excited, I'm not suggesting that those beyond childbearing age be denied their marriage. Instead, look at the ROI.

A marriage license, which is actually independent of the ceremony used to announce the new couple, is just a shortcut - a "marker" accepted across state lines, even national lines.

Why should the State back other partnerships, and how?

Amy, so basically you want to take away the ability of non-government parties to perform legally binding marriages, but otherwise it stays the same? What about ship captains at sea?

One thing I don't get is civil unions for straight people. You don't want to commit fully to each other, and yet you expect the rest of us to commit to supporting your relationship?

Yeah, lots of marriages end in divorce, but they don't go into the marriage intending to divorce. Lots of schools fail to educate children, but would you throw your support behind a school who said "We might educate some children, we might not, we'll start out educating them and see how we feel after a few years", just because some schools fail?

Would you support a business that said, "We might want to make some money, but we want the option of not doing so if we don't feel like it any more"?

Now, before you get excited, I'm not suggesting that those beyond childbearing age be denied their marriage

Why not? If your basis for denying gay people marrige is their lack of ability to bare children (kind of ignoring the lesbians who can get inseminated there FYI) then why arent you equaly demnading the lack of marrige to staight people who cant have kids?

so basically you want to take away the ability of non-government parties to perform legally binding marriages, but otherwise it stays the same? What about ship captains at sea?

Waht about them? It isnt that ship captains or clergy have the power to leagaly wed people its the fact that those wed by clergy or ship captains went down and signed a marrige licence from the government which makes their marriges legal

"Why not?"

Luj, you're still backwards. This isn't about denial, but the extension of the obligations as well as the services of the State.

That's why I asked HOW.

What does the State get for endorsing Elton John & David Furnish - or a non-celebrity couple?

Government is a business. When it is run as if it were not, you see waste and failure.

By the way - I know "how". I'm just trying to get others to think about this, other than in terms of somebody getting something for varying degrees of "free", etc.

Getting something for free? Yes, I know, those uppity assfuckers how dare they want to visit their spouse as they lay dying, or dare to want the power of attorny to make life and death decision in a moment of crisis which we had out quite readily to dead drunk strangers getting hitched in Vegas.

How dare they expect that in the event of their spouses death the family that disowned their lover as a teenager shows up and claims what shreds of their shared life remain