The State Shouldn’t Be in the Marriage Biz
I agree completely with liberal Bloomberg columnist Ann Woolner on the issue:
Let religions carry the burden of deciding who can marry whom. Some rabbis won’t marry Jew to Christian. Catholic and Episcopalian priests, in the main, say no to the previously married, or at least make it very difficult to try again.This is a proper role for religion, which you can take or leave. But the state has no business setting those boundaries…
Let religion marry people in whatever manner honors the faith. Let atheists and anyone else write their own vows, design their own ceremonies and deny marriage to whomever they wish.
The state’s only role is granting legal status to couples, making sure that both parties are of age and otherwise unmarried. Call it a civil union or a domestic partnership. But grant it to interfaith couples, the previously married, to same- sex couples, just as it is granted to first-timers of the opposite sex and same religion. Or no religion.
The State has been involved in marriage longer than the concept of “separation between church and state” has been in existence. In this case tradition does not make it right, and marriage needs to be recognized as a religious event – not a civil one. In its place should be an agreement based on corporate law – a legal partnership that determines asset ownership, division and responsibility. These legal entities already exist for businesses, so why not apply them to personal relationships?
mgroves:
Seems like a reasonable idea. It would be good if it was at the actual state level (not federal).
7 March 2008, 11:50 amKevin D.:
The state has a vested interest in supporting heterosexual marriages of any other form of marriage as well as encouraging lifelong heterosexual pair bonding. Only a heterosexual relationship can produce offspring and only a mother-father dynamic is best suited to raise that offspring into productive members of society. How many studies do we need to see that tells us what is already common sense? Children of motherless or fatherless home are at a measurable disadvantage than those that have both. A mother cannot be a father and a father cannot be a mother. Religion need not enter into this but common sense does.
And until homosexual couples can produce their own children (instead of parasitically leeching off heterosexual couples that can) and wean them in such a way as to make their children as balanced as children coming out of heterosexual homes, the government has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual.
In the end it’s simple mathematics. Heterosexuals produce offspring. Homosexuals do not. If homosexual pair bonding is as useful to population growth (and the continual existence of a society) then you must be willing to say that, being as both are equal, civilization can absorb a 50% cut to population growth and still thrive.
If you’re willing to say, “Let’s cut population growth worldwide by 50%,” I might begin to respect you because you’ve thought your position through logically to the very end. That you’re not, and I’ve never met a same-sex marriage advocate that has, tells me this is more about you wanting to do what you want, when you want, like a spoiled child, then any real desire to better the world.
7 March 2008, 1:29 pmKevin D.:
Better still: You must be willing to say that homosexual pair bonding can outnumber heterosexual pair bonding and it still would be beneficial to society.
I am perfectly willing to say that heterosexual pair bonding making up the supermajority of all pair bonding is beneficial over any other kinds of bonding and to the continuation of our species.
Try saying the same about heterosexual pair bonding and not address the fact that human extinction is all but assured in a few generations.
Let’s be intellectually honest here, okay? Let’s flip the heterosexual/homosexual pair bonding ratios and you tell me if a population growth rate is achieved that will ensure the continuation of any society. Then try to tell me that the government doesn’t have a vested interesting in making sure this never happens.
I never ceases to amaze what lengths people will go to put their genitalia inside or around whatever they want and think they have a human right to do so. Grow up.
7 March 2008, 1:39 pmJack Snyder:
Kevin,
Homosexuals make up about 3-5% of our population, so I think it would follow that gay marriages would make up about 3-5% of U.S. marriages, tops. I don’t know where you get the 50%.
Also, you state: “Children of motherless or fatherless home are at a measurable disadvantage than those that have both.” This is absolutely true, but this is more a comment about divorce (with children) than homosexual marriage.
Statistics show the highest divorce rate is amongst Born-Again Christians at 27%, followed by Evangelical Christians at 25%. Ironically, the lowest divorce rate is amongst Atheists/Agnostics at 21%. I can only suppose that when one is intolerant (as the fundamentalist-type Christian tends to be) that they ultimately become intolerant with each other.
You are quite right that homosexual marriages do not produce offspring. But if only about 3-5% of marriages would be homosexual and if 30% or less of those end in a childless divorce, I really don’t see why that would impact society in any real way.
Marriage, in this country anyway, is a disaster with its divorce rate and children ending up split between homes with biological parents and step-parents. In light of that I think gay marriage would be just a minor blip on the radar.
You write: “I never ceases to amaze what lengths people will go to put their genitalia inside or around whatever they want and think they have a human right to do so. Grow up.” I think that about sums up where you’re really coming from. Your posturing, with pseudo-statistics and intellectualizing the impact on society, is just a mask for moral outrage and intolerance.
I also find it interesting that, in my experience anyway, the same people who want government out of their lives want government all over things like gay marriage and abortion. I find that irrational and hypocritical. It seems to me that you’re the one that needs to grow up.
7 March 2008, 3:41 pmScott Kirwin:
Kevin
What is the purpose of marriage from the perspective of the government? It is to codify property rights shared between people and during inheritance. It has nothing to do with procreation; other aspects of law take care of that, the most important being tax deductions one receives for each child one has. But the deductions one receives defray only part of the cost of childrearing, and these deductions have been challenged by the child-less as being unfair – which they in fact are. Another important benefit received by parents is public education financed by local property taxes. These taxes are levied on everyone, yet only those with school-aged children receive the benefits. But people in our society have decided that it’s in Society’s best interest for parents to be supported.
The purpose of marriage from a religious perspective is solely procreation. It has nothing to do with property rights. Therefore we have the current state whereby the government and religion are both involved in marriage.
As a small businessman I have formed various types of public corporations over the past several years. The purpose of the corporation is in essence to codify property rights – to separate my personal assets from the corporation’s. Corporations can be formed having one shareholder or millions; from a legal perspective my little consulting company is subject to the same laws that Exxon-Mobile is.
My idea is to apply that same paradigm to personal relationships. The state already allows private contracts between people, but these are more costly to design and are not uniform – unlike corporate laws. By allowing people to “incorporate” instead of “marrying” we allow people the freedom to control and divide their property as they see fit. This gets the government out of the marriage business and puts it where it belongs: into the hands of the clerics.
But it would allow two men to marry! It would allow polygamy! No it wouldn’t because the state would not be in the marriage business. It would allow two men to share property – a right they already have: as business partners. If they wanted to get married they would have to find a religion that would allow them to do that – and if they were Catholic or Southern Baptist, they would be out of luck for the foreseeable future.
Separation of church and state works both ways, Kevin. From my perspective as an atheist it keeps your religion off of my affairs; at the same time it protects your religion from being forced to do something that goes against its teachings. As you will note in this thread on a Catholic hospital being sued by someone demanding a sex change, I argue that this separation protects the Catholic hospital from being forced to break its own teachings in order to accommodate California state law.
This is a practical solution, a compromise that protects everyone’s interests. Gay rights advocates would be forced to settle for “domestic partnership” in lieu of marriage, and those who wish to extend their religious belief onto secular government would have to concede the power that the state has wielded on their behalf. But the institution of marriage would be protected from state interference, and the rights of gays to own property in common would be upheld.
Everyone wins; everyone loses – but it strikes me as a fair solution.
8 March 2008, 11:06 amA Solution to the Marriage Dilemma — Dean’s World:
[...] I propose domestic incorporation; Jack Snyder backs me up but Kevin D. disagrees. Am I on to something or am I completely off base? Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
8 March 2008, 11:15 amzach.:
Kevin,
as has been argued else where more eloquently (particularly by dale carpenter at volokh some years ago), the state actually does have a vested interest in providing homosexuals with a marriage-like partnership agreement. The diatomic couple is the single greatest stabilizing force in society, and it is in society’s best interest to provide that avenue to everyone. It should be everyone’s default endgame. The things that (should) most outrage you about the “homosexual lifestyle” are actually more accurately described as being part of the “bathhouse lifestyle” which only some gays ascribe to. However, the lack of a more attractive avenue, or an expectation for them to engage in heteronormative relationships contributes to more people taking up this socially destructive lifestyle. If you’re so concerned about the health of society, why would you oppose something which could help improve the health of 3-5% of the population?
Further, while you are right that a two parent household is best for raising a child, I’m not aware of any studies which show large or even significant differences between children growing up in households with two parents of opposite sex vs. two parents of the same sex. Furthermore, how noxious a heart do you have to have to call adoption “parasitic leeching”?
8 March 2008, 12:39 pmlam21:
I largely agree with the seperation of church and state. The mingling of the 2 since Constatine has been by most counts disastrous for both. Not only is government tainted by religion and it’s motives, but religion is rendered powerless.
As a Christian I don’t agree with homosexuality. I believe marriage was instituted by God for a man and woman. BUT I also believe homosexuals are people and have the freedom of rights to make their own choices and such, and for me to lord power over their decision to do so can’t be right. So my own conflict begins there, where do I draw the line between what I believe is wrong with my respect for my fellow human beings, whom I must accept and treat as Jesus loved.
I dont’ even know what to think about homosexuals getting married and stuff anymore. What I just don’t understand (or want) is for homosexuals to get angry when churches don’t officiate their weddings. If you read the book the church believes in (the bible), you’d know pastors and priests can’t officiate a gay marriage with a clear conscience to God, so for someone to demand so is discriminatory and disrespectful.
So I agree with the seperation of church and state, especially in North America, where Christianity has ruled for so long. Maybe if the government actually started persecuting and killing the Christians here like they do in China, then we’d take our faith more seriously and get off our God-give-me-a-BMW church pew and actually live like Jesus.
9 March 2008, 9:00 pmKevin:
I think that it is actually a good idea, and doubly so as a single person who resents having to pay extra taxes so married people can get a break. The prospect of expanding the number of couples getting a tax reduction is not one I look forward to.
Also, as for the idea of society simply being more stable when made up of adult diades plus children, we don’t really know the sociological implications of gay families as yet, and I am wary of saying that they are exactly like hetero couple-led families except one partner is the same sex. The rate of relationships breaking up may be substantially higher or lower, as might cohabitation prior to marriage, seperation during marriage, and the attention given to children within marriages.
I am concerned about the state giving its stamp of approval to a relationship that has little to do with historical models of the family – in any culture.
I am an atheist, btw.
10 March 2008, 5:00 pmtehag:
I, too, am in favor of separating state and marriage. If I own a business, say a hotel, and I don’t favor someone’s marriage (Elizabeth Taylor’s sixth, Brittney Spear’s second or tenth, Muslim polygamous marriages, or homosexual marriage), then no state can force me to treat them as married!
23 March 2008, 9:27 am