I've been tempted to post two bits on this, but couldn't decide between them.
So I won't.
| . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . | | . |
Marriage is a Contract
Marriage (as determined by the government) is entirely a civil matter, having only coincidental relationship to any religous or emotional relationship.
And, in fact, it can't be.
So hang-ups about "they can't tell me what marriage is" are entirely misplaced when dealing with the judicial or legislative question of
marriage -- that's right, they can't. In fact, in terms of what -you- consider a valid maritial (or otherwise) relationship, you're on your own.
But by the law, "married" people don't have to do anything people associate with marriage -- all they have to do is be willing to combine their economic and familial means in the way that marriage allows them to do.
And this has nothing to do with sex. Of either type.
|
| | | | | | | |
(Civil) Marriage is a dead horse [which should be cut into parts so its useful bits can be salvaged]
"Marriage" should not be a matter for government at all -- it's just too much a religious issue. What should be a government matter is allowing people to declare one another as (closest, or not) kin, and to combine resources to make a firm financial partnership, get collective medical insurance, etc -- anything else is just not the government's buisness.
No, the government of Massachusets, and certainly not the court, should not be telling us what marriage is. Nor should any government; it's just not their job.
So kill civil marraige -- it's long outlived its usefulness, and it's got way too much baggage tied up in the concept; at this point, it's just a source for strife. Instead, handle the legal issues currently dealt with by marriage (those that don't equate to prostitution, that is) by making specific provisons that people can use in contractual agreements, creating the -financial-, and -legal- instution that's currently handled by the civil instution of marriage.
Beyond that? You call a marriage what you want to, and I'll call a marriage what I want to -- the government has no business in our bedrooms, our places of worship, -or- in our dictionaries!
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
1. I never said you shouldn't be able to get the advantages of marriage legally. Just that it shouldn't be (legally) called marriage, which is a loaded word, and that not all rights should necessarily always be bundled with other rights.
2. I never said that, unbundled or no, said rights should be unconstrained. Clearly, our current system for dealing with pair bonds would probably work just fine for triad bonds, and break down disasterously if, say, 1000 person "marriages" were allowable. But "The System" can be adapted to give benefits decreasing as the number of people in the "marriage" increase, or alternatively, things can be limited in other ways.
no subject
" "Marriage" should not be a matter for government at all So kill civil marriage Instead, handle the legal issues currently dealt with by marriage (those that don't equate to prostitution, that is) by making specific provisons that people can use in contractual agreements
Beyond that? You call a marriage what you want to, and I'll call a marriage what I want to."
I don't think I took these phrases out of context. The difference between our actual views, now that you've clarified yours, seems to be that you think it's worth it to unbundle a considerable number of the rights now associated w/ marriage, in exchange for equity and analytical neatness (i.e., getting rid of a "loaded" term) and I don't.
Equity can be substantially achieved by widening the meaning of the term somewhat, the bundle seems to work very well as is, and it is not analytically neat to make up euphemisms. It's a useful word: universally understood and conflating many related concepts. To the extent that it needs to have less baggage, I think that the distinction between "civil marriage" and "religious marriage" unloads the bare term.
I agree that triad bonds can be treated just like dyad bonds. But logically (and equitably), why stop there once you admit the possibility of non-dyadic marriage? And I don't see how you can give incrementally less privilege to members of a larger "marriage," since virtually all the bundled rights are non-incremental. I don't yet see any specific feasible adaptation for poly arrangements that doesn't make abuse of the institution far too easy, do you? Possibly this need not be solved today, perhaps we need to let some customs evolve.
My best current understanding of what you seem to have in mind when you suggest partial, optional unbundling is the kind of option choice available to the founders of a corporation or partnership. So, we would have notmarriage1 (all the current bundled rights) notmarriage2 (all the rights except childcare), notmarriage3 (all the rights except childcare and insurance benefits), notmarriage4 (all the rights except insurance benefits), etc. I think I have suggested why this won't work -- third parties cannot reasonably be expected to keep track of all the variants, and therefore the participants cannot get the benefits they wish to. In fact, incorporation and partnerships don't work that way either as far as third-party interaction goes: the stockholders or partners may spell out their _mutual_ obligations as they please, but third parties have the right to assume that members have authority, are obliged to certain debts of the institution, etc., no matter what the members may wish. Am I still missing your point?
By the way, what is wrong with saying that most useful laws of general application codify custom? You sneer without explanation at "it has always been that way." The Girondists believed that it would be much more rational to rearrange the calendar to provide salutary lessons, but it turned out that it was easier to use "April" than "Germinal." Overhauling custom is sometimes necessary, but it is always worth remembering that the custom serves a purpose as it is.