Abolish government-sponsored marriage

[shanek]

The article pretty much speaks for itself:

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. These slogans all mean the same thing. Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?

If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying that its concern is not what people do in private, but government endorsement of a gay "lifestyle" or "agenda," that problem goes away, too.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127

[Gem]

Shanek, you might want to change your name to "the libertarian champion of jref."

I have some doubts the conservatives would agree to it, because if privitation of marriage contracts is made, gay marriages are made possible, and I think they don't want that. That means they could oppose it on those grounds.

Of course, I think I agree that marriage is private business. There's already a big industry on marriage organization, why not marriage contracts?

Gem

[corplinx]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Marriage is just a form of heirship. Anyone should be able to walk into a government office and fill out a certificate of heirship establishingtheir religious wife, religious husband, best friend, lover, etc, as an heir. Its really none of the governments business whose name is on the form.

Nowadays it is increasingly harder to get a justice of the peace to legally marry someone anyway. I say a certificate and a notary stamp should suffice.

[Regnad Kcin]

Such an idea is so brilliant and simple that ... it'll never work!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Such an idea is so brilliant and simple that ... it'll never work!

True. :(

[Samus]

Of course, the problem you run into is that marriage affects more than just one's last name. Insurance, employer benefits, and death benefits are all impacted by someone being considered legally married or single.

By abolishing the federal government's definition of marriage, you're leaving all those companies (and lower echelons of government) to come up with their own acceptable definition. Which means that companies and state governments can choose not to recognize gay marriages.

One of the biggest reasons gay advocacy groups are pushing for government-endorsed gay marriage are for those very benefits that can be denied by "privatizing" marriage.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by dwb
Of course, the problem you run into is that marriage affects more than just one's last name. Insurance, employer benefits, and death benefits are all impacted by someone being considered legally married or single.

By abolishing the federal government's definition of marriage, you're leaving all those companies (and lower echelons of government) to come up with their own acceptable definition. Which means that companies and state governments can choose not to recognize gay marriages.

One of the biggest reasons gay advocacy groups are pushing for government-endorsed gay marriage are for those very benefits that can be denied by "privatizing" marriage.


So? Boycott the discrimnators. Shame them. Stage sitins. When you expect the government to do any single thing for you, you open the door for thr government to do more than you planned and sometimes at your own expense.

[Roadtoad]

This is the point where we get into why government got into this business in the first place in the U.S.:

Years ago, the business included the blood test and everything else to help stem the tide of syphillus and gonorhrea. (I hope I'm spelling this right.) Since then, however, both diseases are now curable, (relatively), and those diseases which aren't leave little hope for anyone linked to them.

Many states, Nevada included, have dispensed with the blood test at all. Frankly, keeping Government out of marriage is the ideal solution to all of this. It is, primarily, a religious exercise, so why involve the government in it at all?

Consider it this way, though, (and I think Kittynh might have something to say about this): Consider the views of marriage that most churches have. If you're a wife in an abusive situation, would you want to trust the church to release you from your vows? Particularly in some evangelical circles?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Shanek, you might want to change your name to "the libertarian champion of jref."

:D

The ironic thing is, to my knowledge Kinsley (the author of the article) isn't a libertarian.

I have some doubts the conservatives would agree to it, because if privitation of marriage contracts is made, gay marriages are made possible, and I think they don't want that. That means they could oppose it on those grounds.

That's true, but they would lose their excuse. The government wouldn't be promoting any kind of lifestyle and gays wouldn't be getting any special rights. They'd have to resort to something else to justify their bigotry.

[DragonLady]

Consider the views of marriage that most churches have. If you're a wife in an abusive situation, would you want to trust the church to release you from your vows? Particularly in some evangelical circles?

That's a good point. I've heard real horror stories about devout believers who didn't feel they could leave terrible marriages because the church wouldn't agree with divorce.

I see marriage as primarily a way to keep families intact -at least until children are grown. It doesn't work very well these days, but I think if we abolish state-sponsered marriages we'll see a whole lot more 'single' parents. They may technically be married by some standard, but that won't help if the partner is nowhere to be found.

Another potential problem is stalkers and the like. If a person can declare himself "married" to another, then he might be able to gain access to that person's home, medical information, bank accounts...who knows.

While I would like to get the government out of marriages on one hand, there would have to be some contractual obligations that would need to apply.

[tamiO]

I like this idea; thanks for bringing it to my attention, shanek.

There is already some provision for commonlaw marriage after living with someone x amount of years. I am supposing that this someone must be of the opposite sex.

[Walter Wayne]

Marriage has many more affects than heirship. Don't forget

1. Spousal immunity
2. Tax breaks
3. I believe getting a new spouse affects financial payments to an x-spouse

I am sure there are others I haven't thought of. Other things would need to be restructured, and some people believe their should be benefits to marriage beyond a warm fuzzy.

Walt

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Marriage has many more affects than heirship. Don't forget

1. Spousal immunity
2. Tax breaks
3. I believe getting a new spouse affects financial payments to an x-spouse

I am sure there are others I haven't thought of. Other things would need to be restructured, and some people believe their should be benefits to marriage beyond a warm fuzzy.

Walt

Tax breaks..... Unfortunately, marriage is so tied in to our government that breaking it out will be harder said then done.

Once again, it is none of the government's business if you are married, how much money you make, if you own a house, or how much you give to charity. Let's get that 15 percent flat tax in place and get rid of these silly privacy invading deductions.


However, much like privatizing marriage, this seems to be a pipe dream.

[Jedi Knight]

Men should never marry until no-fault divorce is abolished.

JK

[shanek]

Originally posted by DragonLady
That's a good point. I've heard real horror stories about devout believers who didn't feel they could leave terrible marriages because the church wouldn't agree with divorce.

But under this situation, they wouldn't have to go back to the same people who married them to get a divorce. They could get it anywhere. The church would have no means of enforcing it.

Another potential problem is stalkers and the like. If a person can declare himself "married" to another,

It takes a declaration from both individuals to be a marriage. So your argument falls down there.

While I would like to get the government out of marriages on one hand, there would have to be some contractual obligations that would need to apply.

Of course, and the government should enforce those as it does any other contract. But that is the only aspect of marriage that government should be involved in.

[Samus]

Originally posted by corplinx
Tax breaks..... Unfortunately, marriage is so tied in to our government that breaking it out will be harder said then done.

Once again, it is none of the government's business if you are married, how much money you make, if you own a house, or how much you give to charity. Let's get that 15 percent flat tax in place and get rid of these silly privacy invading deductions.

However, much like privatizing marriage, this seems to be a pipe dream. So, along with allowing gay marriage, you want to instill a fundamentally different taxation model? You're right, it is just a pipe dream. I doubt any politician could push that kind of change through.

Besides, some would consider the progressive income tax model to be "fair"; let the people who can afford it shoulder the burden for those that can't. How is it fair? I have no idea, but a college prof of mine always used to argue that.

The federal government recognizing gay marriage is a far more feasible near-term goal; abolishing a government-endorsed definition of marriage all together, considering the tax and insurance impacts, is a long and arduous journey.

[Suddenly]

About the "tax breaks" for marriage:

Forget that if both spouses work. Being married has cost my wife and I something like $2500 over the last two years.

[BillyTK]

I'd like to see marriage kept as a contract for raising children (but regardless of the gender of the parents) and a separate contract similar to corplinx's certificate of heirship. Of course it's never going to happen because the institution (or, if you will, government monopoly) of marriage is/was a powerful tool to influence public morality.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Men should never marry until no-fault divorce is abolished.

JK
I hope you're aware, JK, that no-fault divorce has proven to be a net advantage to men and a real disadvantage to women.

[ceo_esq]

Jana B. Smith, family law expert at the University of Maryland, has outlined her view of the potential perils associated with the privatization of the rules governing marriage and family relations. Unfortunately, I don't think the article is available on the Web, so I've quoted below some of the key points of her argument (this heavily edited excerpt represents only a tiny fraction of the article). The source is Jana B. Smith, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 Wis. L. Rev. 1443 (1992):1. EXACERBATION OF EXISTING GENDER INEQUALITIES

One of the most significant dangers of the privatization of family law is that it will exacerbate existing power inequalities. Because women, as a group, are less powerful than men in our society, and because family law is centrally involved both in shaping male-female relationships and resolving disputes between men and women, the effect of substituting private norms and private decisions for public ordering of family law should be of particular concern to women.
…
2. THE EFFECT OF PRIVATIZATION ON THIRD PARTIES

Another disadvantage of both private norm creation and private dispute resolution in family law is their potential to compromise the interests of third parties, particularly children. An increasing number of scholars have emphasized the detrimental effects of the private ordering of [family law] on children.… Insisting that legal rules affecting children include a significant public component at least allows us to focus directly and collectively on children's interests, rather than relying exclusively on disputing adults or on the invisible hand of the market to protect children's welfare.

3. THE EFFECT OF PRIVATIZATION ON FAMILY LAW REFORM

Another danger of privatization is its potential to dampen law reform efforts and to impede the growth of family law. This may be particularly disadvantageous to women, since feminists and other women's advocates have recently refocused their efforts on family law reform. ... The initial enthusiasm for private ordering that accompanied the no-fault divorce revolution may well have diverted attention away from the economic consequences of divorce and impeded efforts to reform the legal doctrines that governed post-divorce financial allocations.
…
Privatization may also stymie efforts to reform family law doctrine by removing from judicial consideration cases and issues crucial for the development of the parameters of the law.... [E]ntrusting entirely to private parties the authority to create and enforce norms of family behavior reduces both the opportunity and the perceived need for continuing public scrutiny of those norms.
…
[T]he legal doctrines that govern family relations can send … positive messages[.] For example, the common law doctrine of necessaries and the husband's more general duty to support his wife and children may have been one (albeit flawed) way of expressing society's view that those with access to material wealth have obligations to share that wealth with financially more vulnerable family members. ... More generally, the law's advocacy of partnership and sharing principles at divorce, through such devices as the equitable distribution of marital property, sends a powerful signal about what we, as a society, consider desirable behavior in marriage.

Privatizing these matters implies, at best, that we are neutral about what sort of behavior goes on within families. At worst, when combined with the self-maximizing ideology of law and economics -- an ideology that often accompanies private ordering -- it privileges self-interested behavior over other forms of family interaction.
…

4. PRIVATIZATION AND THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE SPLIT

A related danger of privatization in family law is that it will reinforce the dichotomy our legal system has traditionally drawn between the private, domestic sphere, and the public sphere of politics and the market. One of the most salient features of this dichotomy is the view that family issues reside "naturally" in the private realm and, for that reason, are not appropriate subjects of state concern. Since the "naturally" private family realm encompasses many of the issues that centrally affect women's lives, the effect of the traditional public/private split has been to exclude from the public agenda many of women's most pressing concerns. The trend toward private ordering of family issues is likely to perpetuate this exclusion.
…
Moreover, characterizing family issues as matters to be resolved by private individuals in an isolated private realm reinforces the view that the public has little interest in, and little reason to value, the caregiving and homemaking work that goes on within families. Since women have traditionally performed the bulk of this work -- and, to a large extent, continue to do so -- the devaluation of the work that goes on within families is particularly disadvantageous to women. …

The notion of a natural demarcation between legitimate public issues and private domestic concerns -- which the privatization of family law reinforces -- also isolates the family from the workplace and obscures the connections between family and work.
...
The practical consequences of a legal ideology that isolates the family from the public sphere and that devalues the work that goes on within families are also obvious at the national level. The United States is the only developed Western nation without an explicit national family policy. ... We are also set apart from other Western democracies by our "relative lack of concern with assuring either public or, until very recently, private responsibility for the problems of dependency associated with changing patterns of family behavior."... The privatization of family law legitimates this continued failure of public will and helps to ensure that both the family and the workplace will retain their traditional, gendered structures, to the detriment of both women and men.
…
5. PRIVATIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED VALUES

A number of scholars have criticized law-and-economics analysis on the grounds that it inappropriately fosters the market-like aspects of human behavior and stunts the growth of other, nonmarket values. Privatization is vulnerable to a related criticism. By keeping family off the public agenda and by encouraging reliance on decentralized private choices, the private ordering of family law may stunt the development, and indeed the discussion, of shared public values with respect to family behavior. …To the extent that privatization encourages us to think and talk about family relationships in terms traditionally associated with private exchanges -- terms like self-interested and wealth maximizing -- our behavior may take on these characteristics. … Surely, we should be at least cautious about endorsing a family law regime that would reduce activities as sensitive and as central to human existence as sexuality, parenting and being cared for, to matters of private exchange and efficient distribution.