I am supposed to argue that the U.S. government should not abolish state issued marriage, and instead, it should keep the legal sanctioned marriage. However, I don’t feel like either of these actions are viable solutions, to the problem of marriage excluding any relationship that does not fit into the traditional marriage. By traditional marriage, I mean mostly one man and one woman deciding to only have sex with one another and live under the same roof, while also sharing finances.
I don’t actually know what would be the best solution to the discrimination caused by legal definitions and social connotations of marriage. But I do have many questions on what others have said and how abolishing marriage could have negative effects. All change can positively and negatively influence people, so often the best solution is what works best for all while making sure the solution seems moral. (Granted, all of these words, like solution and morality, can have different definitions, but that hasn’t stopped the U.S. government from changing its laws from accepting, like slavery, and then condemning it.
Without marriage, how would we define who receives benefits?
If companies did not have concrete ways to distinguish between a worker’s family members and other relationships, then how could the companies determine who should be covered in an insurance plan? How would they measure the commitment in a relationship? For example, should a lover of one month receive his/her lover’s benefits if they claim they are deeply in love?
Leah Howard says, “Since we’ve agreed that there is crap in marriage as well as outside of marriage, why not get rid of the institution and honor the idea that a family is a family (whoever is involved) and provide the benefits and rights that married heterosexual couples enjoy today.”
If we abolish state sanctioned marriage, then what categories do we use to define relationships? Who is included in the family? What can serve as a measurement for recipients of insurance rights? Should the government provide benefits to couples or treat them differently than people who are single? How does the government start to define (and should it have the power to define) who is a couple or who is single?
If the government does start to treat people as only individuals, is it right to treat a women with a child differently than a women, living with another person, with a child? Could we assume a household with two adults (who aren’t married) would be able to give more financial support to the child, so the single household should receive more government help?
Should we reclaim marriage and/or create more labels?
What should we do now that we realize we’ve created the definition of marriage and it no longer can describe everyone? Is just creating new categories a good idea, since that was/is done with ethnicity, and now there are almost endless choices? (I’m not saying we should ignore ethnicity or that it was bad to include new options on the census.)
A part of Third Wave Feminism is reclaiming words that have negative connotations, like bitch, slut, cunt, and girl. According to Tamara Straus, Third Wave feminists would rather use words to describe themselves than have people apply the label to them. Straus quotes Amy Richards, an author and self-defined lipstick feminist: “Yes, I am difficult. I am a bitch. Call me a bitch. I’m going to reclaim bitch and make it my own word, because the word has more hostility when it’s being used against me than when it’s being used by me.” In regards to the question of government issued marriage, people for keeping marriage can argue in the same method as the lipstick feminists. We can reclaim the term marriage to include those left out of the current governmental definition.
Should the state take a more active role in definition and upholding marriages?
Kaitie O’Bryan says, “The contractual method of unions between people is a much more active and intentional way to get married than the traditional ‘sign-here’ document that a man and woman must sign to get legally married now. What if the government took a more active role in preserving marriages?”
Kaitie mentions Mary Lyndon Shanley’s solution of contractual marriage and that it could allow participants to know their own duties and the duties of their co-signers, and thus, participants would be happier. However, this solution assumes the participants’ duties are static. If the contractual marriage does allow changes in duties, then how does it do that? Do couples have to resign their marriage contracts every year? In the contracts, which duties are covered? Aren’t there even different meanings of taking care of someone while they are sick? (Does that mean picking up soup for them or keeping the TV’s volume below a certain number, so the sick partner can sleep?)
Kaitie says, “I would propose state-sponsored marriage counseling.”
(I think marriage counseling is often a good idea for couples, and I whole-heartedly agree people can learn useful things from counseling.) However, would people be willing to pay for it? What about people who claim they don’t need it or refuse it? Will the government force married couples to have counseling, and if so, how could they enforce and regulate the marriage counseling? Is state-sponsored marriage counseling a viable option? And how would people respond, especially considering many people’s responses to the current debate about state-sponsored health care? How much money are U.S. citizens willing to provide?
I think that “now what” is a relevant question to ask now; considering we’ve identified the “what” (marriage), and the “so what” (why it should continue to exist). Now, in my opinion, it’s time to look at the laws and policies at the roots of what causes so much ‘crap’ to when it comes to defining and traditions associated with the topic of marriage. I believe that when we are asking questions such as “what can serve as a measurement for recipients of insurance rights?” we should be questioning why the insurance rights favor one group of individuals (those who are married) in the first place. Leaving children out of this argument, I agree that the government should treat people only as individuals. Allowing the same rights of insurance to those who are not married as to those who are will create less conflict, in my opinion, and will not add the sketchy incentive there is to tie the knot so that you can reap government and or insurance benefits.
If we are to seriously consider ‘reclaiming’ the term marriage, we must realize that it will require not just us to accept a new definition, but for the system that is creating and carrying out the policies that impact our daily lives to accept the new definition as well. Unfortunately, I believe that while some states are catching on and broadening the stipulations and definitions of marriage, Congress has a ways to go. Last March, the House of Representatives introduced a resolution (H.J.RES. 37) that would amend the constitution ‘to prohibit any federal or state court from having jurisdiction to determine whether the Constitution or any state constitution requires the legal incidents of marriage to be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman” (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-37.) I believe that this is counterproductive in the sense that this would move our government backwards in trying to adopt a more expansive definition of marriage. Also, in order for any real progress to be made, a change to the Constitution that would bolster the tradition and ‘crap’ we are trying to get away from, would be a mistake.
Marlene, you raise a few important details that must be addressed in regards to eliminating marriage. Just as a recap, it seems logical that the state ought to eliminate marriage entirely and rely upon civil unions solely in regards to financial and political matters. With this in mind, some of the primary benefits of marriage will still be acceptable through civil unions, but the religious aspect will not be recognized. The Church and state should be separate under nearly every circumstance. With such a diverse background of religions in the United States, this seems to be the optimum solution. In reference to the questions you have raised, creating civil unions has clear, logical answers.
Without marriage, how would we define who receives benefits?
Like marriage, a civil union does have a legal aspect to it. Both partners would be required to sign verification documents to ensure the solidity of the partnership. While in a civil union, the partners do not have to be in love necessarily. If they choose to create a family, it must be either naturally or through adoption method. The legal benefits of a civil union open up a wide range of new types of partnerships. Life time friends could join as partners under a civil union. This provides the option for an individual to feel the protection and comfort of marriage without the necessary love and religious aspect to the partnership. At the same time, it still allows those who would like to join with another whom they have romantic feelings for without any legal issues.
Should we reclaim marriage and/or create more labels?
By creating civil unions, there will be no need for an abundance of labels. Civil unions are non restrictive and nonbiased. Many people have issues relating to marriage, whether it be domestic abuse from an intimate partner, issues with children, or religious denominations to connect ones marriage to. With civil unions, many of these issues can be resolved. I am not insinuating that a civil union will stop domestic abuse. But choosing a partner whom you do not have romantic feelings may loosen the grip partners can at times hold on each other, or allow a victim to escape an abusive partnership with more ease. With these issues in mind, there are different expectations with marriage depending on your religion. By eliminating the role religion plays in marriage, you won’t need multiple labels; just one, a civil union.
I like the title “So We Notice the Crap, Now What?” because before anyone even starts to actually read the article they are thinking. Marlene suggests in her opening statements that the “U.S. government should not abolish state issued marriage, and instead, it should keep the legal sanctioned marriage” but does not feel as though this is really an acceptable solution, because it excludes all “nontraditional” marriages. This is a valid point, perhaps civil union, as I stated in my last comment, would be a better alternative as there would not be any of the centuries old stigmas or stereotypes attached to it that are attached to marriage.
In terms of differentiating who should get health care and benefits from companies there really would be no need for marriage to define that. There are, as I previously suggested, the possibility of civil unions for recognizing who gets benefits, or perhaps the law could have something to do with the amount of time a couple has resided together in a monogamous relationship. Civil union would apply to people of all sexual orientations, and therefore could be an excellent solution which many people could agree upon. (For more on this topic see: http://pol285.blog.gustavus.edu/files/2009/08/Beyond_Marriage.pdf).
I find this statement of Marlene’s very interesting: “If we abolish state sanctioned marriage, then what categories do we use to define relationships?” It is true that without state sanctioned marriage categorization of relationships could be a bit sticky at first; however I think that with time we would come to find that titles of status don’t really matter. If you were in an intimate relationship with another and had children, what difference does it make what you call your relationship, your emotions and commitment will be the same. With time, no one will even remember why the term “marriage” was so important, when any other union and commitment could be just as strong.
Perhaps a better option than “reclaiming the term marriage to include those left out of the current governmental definition” would be to eliminate it all together, and focus on civil unions in the legalities of relationships while leaving the other aspects of it to the individuals.
Marlene raises the question of how one would define who is to receive benefits in a society without marriage. This is a valid point; however I feel that Mary Lyndon Shanley’s proposition of a contractual system addresses this problem. When defining a contract marriage Shanley states that “contracts are useful devices for facilitating communication about each partner’s expectations and aspirations” (Just Marriage 6). She goes on to say that by implementing the contract system, a fundamental reform of the workplace, welfare, and social services would be needed in order to ensure equality in all aspects of an individual’s life (Just Marriage 9). By so doing, the couple adhering to a contract marriage would be able to specify for themselves such things as who is to be included in their family and what sort of benefits these members should receive, as well as how to deal with shared aspects of their life; thus, all of these dimensions could be discussed, agreed upon, and laid out in their individual contract. While this is a rather idealistic situation, I feel that Shanley’s argument for a new definition of marriage as a contract and a broader definition of what constitutes a family would enable more individuals to participate equally in state-recognized relationships.
As for the issue of changes in one’s perceived duties within a contract marriage, it seems important to point out the fact that our traditional institution of marriage already, in a way, provides a remedy for this. Kaitlyn points out that a contract marriage would allow “changes in duty”; Marlene states that this would require a resigning of the contract each year. I feel that this is somewhat equivalent to our tradition of a married couple renewing their wedding vows – if those under the contract were to re-evaluate their marriage (how well it is working, perceptions of equality, any changes needed, etc.) from time to time, they would be able to make the changes necessary in order to keep a happy lifestyle for everyone involved. In relation, as Kaitlyn suggests, marriage counseling would be a good option to keep available to those involved in relationships. It is my view that counseling should remain solely an option, not a requirement, available to those who so choose to use it.
I agree with many of Marlene’s points; abolishing marriage would be very tricky. But why is that? Why do the people covered under an insurance plan need to be a married man and woman, and kids? In my opinion, the important piece here is not whether to marry or not. The issue we need to redefine the idea of a family.
My family is not a nuclear one. My sister and I have different fathers; my mom never married her father. She was married once before marrying (and divorcing) my dad. Twelve years later, she is happily single. Does this make us less of a family? If my mom married a woman, would that make us less of a family? Or what if she decided just to move in with someone, without getting married? Why is marriage a prerequisite to the typical idea of family? Marlene asks: “How does the government start to define (and should it have the power to define) who is a couple or who is single?” My question is this: Why does the government need to decide which category my family fits in? Why do we need to justify these very personal decisions?
Marlene also cited Katie O’Bryan’s idea of mandated marriage counseling. And even aside from the logistical errors in logic that Marlene addresses, counseling will not fix every marriage. It can’t erase an affair; can’t make two people fall back in love. Plus, I again will point out, why should the government have the power to tell me to stay married?
My main point is this: Love is never an easy, straightforward thing. If we can’t explain it, why should the government feel the need to try?
“All change can positively and negatively influence people, so often the best solution is what works best for all while making sure the solution seems moral.” Perfect! Let’s just make everyone happy. We may think that taking the middle ground, just asking questions and never answering them, is the solution to the problem of whether marriage should be abolished. This type of thinking is not progressive at all. The solution is to answer the questions, make decisions, and try to benefit the greatest number of people.
If we abolish marriage, how do we define who receives benefits? This isn’t a difficult question to answer. Benefits for married couples aren’t necessary. We only give married couples tax breaks, for example, because our society values heterosexuality. Our stress on the importance of male-female relationships leads lawmakers to reward people who engage in heterosexual relationships.
Should we reclaim marriage and/or create more labels? No. People are capable of defining themselves. We don’t always have to have menus of choices; we could just provide a line where people write in their own “label.”
Should the state take a more active role in defining and upholding marriages? Not if it is going to follow recent trends. In general, the state acts on the opinions of the majority, which usually oppresses the minority. The U.S. government was founded in part on the idea that minority groups should be protected from the majority. James Madison wrote in Federalist #51, “If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm) Madison was arguing that if the government allowed decisions to be made by a simple majority vote of the people, the minorities would never have a voice and could easily be wronged by the majority’s decisions. So no. The state can’t define or uphold marriage because it will inevitably do it in a way that harms the minority.
Right now marriage is a big part of society, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Our society thrives because of individuals. If we abolish marriage, everything will be the same – minus the oppression today’s institution of heterosexual marriage causes “non-traditional” relationships.
“If we abolish marriage, how do we define who receives benefits? This isn’t a difficult question to answer. Benefits for married couples aren’t necessary. We only give married couples tax breaks, for example, because our society values heterosexuality. Our stress on the importance of male-female relationships leads lawmakers to reward people who engage in heterosexual relationships.” I feel as though this quote is not entirely correct. For example, I feel that the reason most married couples get tax breaks is because often times there are certain financial burden’s which effect more married people than non-married people, such as weddings, children, or a couple living off of one persons salary. Yes, our society does tend to value heterosexual relationships more highly, but I feel that that is mostly because that has always been the norm in our culture and many people just haven’t accepted committed, homosexual relationships yet. If civil unions were legal and everyone had equal rights to the same benefits then there would be no issue in terms of benefits.
Another idea presented by Karin is that rather than creating new and different labels and terms for marriage we could “just provide a line where people write in their own ‘label.'” But there in lies the issue of having to discern what is the difference between a “committed relationship,” a “marriage,” an “open relationship,” a “union,” and other terms? It would be hard to understand how people classified themselves and if they were in such a relationship where their partner might, for example, receive health insurance from the relationship. Now, one could argue that a persons partner shouldn’t be entitled to health insurance just because they are “in a relationship” but then there come a whole other set of issues, such as what if that person is a stay at home parent?
Overall, I feel as though allowing people to define their relationships in anyway in a “fill in the blank” method would be inefficient and more confusing that it is worth, because while you are not officially creating a new host of terms you are allowing people to make up their own, infinite list of definitions.
“Right now marriage is a big part of society, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Our society thrives because of individuals. If we abolish marriage, everything will be the same – minus the oppression today’s institution of heterosexual marriage causes “non-traditional” relationships.” Again, I find this concept a bit troubling and difficult to accept. If marriage were abolished I find it hard to believe that “everything will be the same.” Getting married is a way in which people declare their love and commitment to one another. Without it, people might be less inclined to stay in stable, committed relationships. And in a few of the states homosexual marriages are legal, therefore I would say that there is hope for a futre where even “non-traditional” relationships could be validated through marriage and not oppressed in the least.
Let us take another look at Marleen’s definition of “traditional marriage” as “mostly one man and one woman deciding to only have sex with one another and live under the same roof, while also sharing finances.” If this is the definition of traditional marriage, then I could feasibly be traditionally married to almost any heterosexual man in the nation. Marriage is much more than that – it is a spiritual, emotional and, most importantly, life-long dedication to another person.
When reading this debate, it seems like marriage is a completely crippled institution which does not have anything positive to offer society, but I would like to acknowledge all of the positive things about marriage, which have been completely overlooked and stomped on by this debate. The most influential of these is the long-term nature of marriage.
Marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment to another person – we must not loose sight of this fact. If all marriage is reduced to monogamy, living under the same roof and sharing finances, this commitment becomes meaningless. However, when it is predicated on the understanding that marriage is intended to be a life-long emotional and spiritual commitment marriage produces benefits that have yet to materialize in any other social institution. The article “Why marriage matters” points out a few of the more tangible benefits of marriage. For one, women who are “from disadvantaged backgrounds who marry and say married are much less likely to suffer poverty or other material hardship compared to their peers who do not marry.” Perhaps, what we need is not government funds to hand money over to the disadvantaged portions of our society, but instead have a society which fosters and nurtures the ambition to find that right person whom you can commit the rest of your life to. Also, “Married husbands and fathers are significantly more involved and affectionate with their wives and children than men in cohabiting relationships” suggesting that having the mindset of this being a “forever” situation makes men take their responsibilities as fathers and husbands more seriously than if they were simply in a “roommate” situation with their supposedly “significant other.” Sure government or non-profit programs can have daddy training sessions, but do these programs really produces as effective results as believing that you will be a present father forever?
Marriage has been around for thousands of years, which does not make it necessarily “right” but it should be a reason to pause and ask why this is? It is an institution that developed in a parallel fashion from society to society. It was so innate in each distant civilization that one man and one woman commit to each other. It was beneficial to society and today this is still the case. The article points out that “African Americans and Latinos benefit from marriage in much the same way that Anglos benefit from marriage.” Marriage is an equalizer across racial lines – it is rare for any other social institution to accomplish such a task. If we abolish marriage we will be doing a disservice to these ethnic groups, one could even go as far as saying that to abolish marriage is unjust since you would be doing a disservice to African Americans and Latinos. Undoubtedly, Anglos would probably still benefit from whatever institution would “take the place” of marriage since (as we have discussed in class) we tend to write laws and rules which benefit those in power, which at this point is still primarily the Anglo community. Furthermore, abolishing marriage would in many ways keep the disadvantaged poor since, as mentioned above, women come from a disadvantaged background, get married, and then stay married are less likely to suffer from poverty. It is unjust to take away an institution which has been an equalizer in our society.
In reading the commentary and debate that have been going on regarding marriage, I find myself more confused but yet open to the many opinions of what marriage is and should be. I think Katie brings up a good point of marriage as a “spiritual, emotional and, most importantly, life long dedication to another person.” It is not just a man and a woman making a commitment to live together, have sex and share finances. There is something deeper and more meaningful to a marriage. Although I wonder how, when it comes to upholding marriage laws, how this definition would work? Maybe I am inferring Katie wrong, which could very well be at 1:30 in the morning – the brain is pretty much fried. Could what Katie brought up be what we have been missing in the debate. An example of not just what marriage is politically but what it is emotionally and what I would like to call its “humanity.”
Recently in the debacle of marriage – has it lost its meaning of what it may have originally be intended for – Not to receive certain rights or privileges, could marriage have been instituted as just a commitment between two people? A third party, the government , maybe has no right to be involved in a marriage.
Thus again I bring up the institution of civil union. Would this new type of union – dealing only with what was political/governmental in a relationship – paired with a marriage (acknowledged by whomever the couple wanted it to – church, higher power, family) be the best fit. Combining the political and spiritual/emotional/lifelong commitment where you could choose one or the other, both or none.
Just a few thoughts!
I Meghan is on to something here. Perhaps marriage and the benefits the government grant married couples need to be separated from each other. Why does government even give couples these benefits in the first place? I believe it is to promote the stability that marriage (in days of old) provided for society. Do we believe marriage to be a stabilizing institution anymore? As a I suggested before, it is an equalizing institution which promotes the well-being of minority, poor, female, and youthful populace of our nation. Getting rid of marriage would deny access to all of the gains. We cannot afford to abolish marriage – it would set our country back thousands of years.
I think that Marlene brought up many relevant questions that need to be addressed on the topic of what to do with marriage now.
Without marriage, how would we define who receives benefits?
Once marriage is abolished, relationships don’t simply disappear. People are still going to have meaningful and long term relationships, and eventually they may want to include children in these relationships. Marriage – customarily defined as “one man and one woman deciding to only have sex with one another and live under the same roof, while also sharing finance” – is a very limiting definition. People have much more complex relationships than just having sex, cohabitating and sharing finances. We are lucky to be able to have a much deeper connection. I think it would only be right for the government (and not the church – as with marriage) to honor a civil union. A civil union will allow a relationship beyond just a man and a woman; it will allow the two (hey – maybe even three!) people to be bound to each other and to receive benefits. This also allows these people to choose to spend a life with each other no matter who they are (man and man, man and woman, woman and woman, business buddies, elderly knitting and book club friends, etc…). It is important to remember that even with a civil union, there is still going to be “crap,” there is no way to avoid disagreements in relationships. However, hopefully as civil unions allow for more choice and freedom, domestic abuse may be slightly more avoidable.
People depend on each other for things they need in life, and for a lot of people this isn’t always a man and a woman in a romantic relationship kind of dependence, but something else. The civil union will allow for all of this (as marriage doesn’t).
Should we reclaim marriage and/or create more labels?
Since we have realized that we have a definition that doesn’t work, I think the smart thing would be to come up with something new. Reclaiming the term marriage seems like a difficult task. First, marriage been extremely prominent in billions of people’s lives for centuries; making it mean something different is a difficult task (as you can presently see with trying to include homosexual relationships in the institution of marriage). Second, if you just give marriage a new definition – eventually someone else will be left out of the equation down the road (perhaps the great apes!). Society has a compelling need to fit everyone into a box, and sometimes we have to realize that not everyone will fit in the “box” of marriage.
Relationships are static, and the meanings are always changing. However, the thing that shouldn’t change is that the government will recognize any form of a civil union, and provide benefits to them.
In response to what may still be lacking in this debate about marriage, I feel that the religious aspect of marriage is one that has not yet been discussed very much. Haylie makes the statement that “the Church and State should be separate under nearly every circumstance…with such a diverse background of religions in the United States, this seems to be the optimum solution”. If there is to be a true separation of Church and State within our country, it seems to be the case that upholding the institution of marriage should fall to one or the other, rather than somewhere under the control of both. As Haylie also pointed out, there is a very diverse religious population in the U.S.; I feel that this creates a conflict of interests when the State defines legal marriage according to the majority religion of Christianity and what has historically been the white, English marriage tradition. If the U.S. is truly interested in the equality of all individuals under the law, shouldn’t our system of “marriage”, however it may look, be as non-discriminatory as possible (in terms of race, gender, age, ethnicity, class, etc.)?
In addition, our traditional definition of marriage as defined by the State allows for the government to create policy concerning it. As Mary Lyndon Shanley states in “Just Marriage”, George W. Bush, during his presidency, created what was known as the “marriage initiative”, by offering a reward to those parents who were unwed and who then married according to the initiative (1). Marriage has also often been used as a sort of “anti-poverty program” (Just Marriage 9) by government advocates. By allowing for a new form of marriage such as civil union or contract marriage, with less government regulation and involvement, married, or for that matter, unmarried, individuals would be free from the degree of government regulation that comes with our traditional and modern marriage institution.
I think Meghan is on to something here. Perhaps marriage and the benefits the government grant married couples need to be separated from each other. But let us look at the bigger question: why does government even give couples these benefits in the first place? I believe it is to promote the stability that marriage (in days of old) provided for society. Do we believe marriage to be a stabilizing institution anymore? We often hear that 1 in two marriages end in divorce. But according to Dan Hurley of the New York Times, this statistic is much inflated. What is worse, Hurley suggests, is that this misevaluated statistic has become a self-fulfilling prophecy as more and more people believe it is common or acceptable for the commitment you make in marriage to disintegrate over time. We need to respect this institution for its valuable contribution to our society.
As I suggested before, it is an equalizing institution which promotes the well-being of minority, poor, female, and youthful populace of our nation. Getting rid of marriage would deny access to all of the gains it offers to some of society’s most neglected members. Our obligation to these members is to support this institution which so many of you are calling for the dismemberment of. We can not tear marriage apart on the basis that our government is offering its own benefits to married couples – doing so would disrespect the plethora of other benefits that marriage brings to some of the “disadvantaged” citizens. We cannot afford to abolish marriage – it would set our country back thousands of years.
(Article can be found at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2DE1F3EF93AA25757C0A9639C8B63)
I don’t feel that religion and marriage have to go together. Except for weddings taking place in a church, (which not all do) and a few words about God from the pastor, marriage can be completely separate from religion. Especially, as Jamie pointed out, there are so many types of religion. In my opinion, mixing religion and marriage is what has contributed to its downfall. It creates so much pressure when God is entered into a union. I think if we simplified the definition of marriage to just be people (whether that’s two or three… males, females, or one of each) in love, who want to celebrate and solidify their commitment, and leave both the government and religion out of it, it would be better.
I agree with a lot of what Meghan had to say in her last comment. Obviously this a very complex issue, with few clear-cut solutions; but I like the idea of civil unions. Not just for homosexuals; for everyone. If we attempt to level the playing field, I believe it could make life easier for everyone. Plus, if we take some of the pomp and circumstance out of these commitments, it may be more meaningful, and therefore, lower the divorce rate.
I think I have implied this before, but I feel it is worth repeating. I agree with what Katie O’Bryan stated: “Why does government even give couples these benefits in the first place?” Why does insurance have to be based upon marriage? I realize changing the institution of marriage would instigate other changes as well. But I think that would be a good thing. For example, if a man is critically injured and is in the intensive care unit, his girlfriend (or boyfriend) is not allowed to visit him, because they are not considered ‘family’ unless they are married. That is ridiculous to assume only married people can be a family.
Coincidentally, my friend who goes to the College of Eastern Utah sent me an article about defining marriage that just ran in his school’s newspaper. You can read the whole article here: http://eagle.ceu.edu/php-pages/article.php?article_id=1810. I am going to post an excerpt, though, because I think the writer, Joshua Behn, presents an interesting opinion.
“For most of recorded history, marriage was not a civil act but a religious one. It’s a very recent development in recorded history where governments began to “sanction” or give their approval for a marriage to take place. In our society, there are two parts to the marriage process: the application from the civil authorities for a marriage license, and the actual (civil or religious) ceremony itself,” he writes.
Behn goes on to discuss gay marriage and Maine’s new gay marriage bill. But I would like to discuss the idea of how marriage is both governmental and religious. In most cases, a marriage includes a religious ceremony and a marriage license issued by the state. This presents a problem to me. One of the values of our nation is the separation of church and state (even though the Constitution does not directly specify this). So if we continue the institution of marriage and keep it based in religion and government, we are violating one of our basic values. Perhaps this is one of the problems with marriage. As people move away from religion, they will not uphold our current definition of marriage, which is influenced by religious morals. I would propose that if we keep marriage, people should choose a type of marriage – either religious or governmental. I really think this is the solution. Don’t abolish marriage; just let people make the rules of their marriage.
I agree completely with Karin’s point that marriage conflicts with the idea of separation of church and state that our nation upholds. This value is upheld in many other institutions (such as in education). “Marriage is at once economic, religious and political,” so when these institutions (which all have different values and goals) are intermingled into one thing: marriage; it becomes extremely complicated. These conflicting values have made marriage extremely difficult; what seems acceptable to one institution (not allowing gay marriages through the religious institution, for example) is completely unacceptable in the other institutions (as the other two focus on allowing all humans equal rights and benefits).
Karin suggested that because of this confusion, we should keep marriage, but somehow change what marriage is – making it religious, governmental or economic. This becomes a problem though; if marriage was a purely religious institution – only heterosexual unions would be allowed, and then where do benefits and human rights come in for those who are not heterosexual? I think that there is a better answer: completely getting rid of the institution of marriage. This solution gets rid of the conflict of the church and the state, as well as opening up doors for civil unions. Civil unions, as I mentioned in a comment previously, allow anyone to join into a union with another, and give protection to the individuals involved in the union. Seems like a pretty happy ending to the fairytales with white gowns we all imagined at the beginning of the debate 🙂
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/oped/Seperation.shtml
I agree with everyone in their statements supporting the division between religion and government when it comes to marriage issues. And, while I have argued already that marriage must not be abolished (only the ‘crap’ must be abolished), there are groups fighting for a similar cause who have gone about a completely different, more exclusive and ‘traditional’ argument. The Institute for American Values released a “Statement of Principles” which actually promotes that idea that marriage serves “as the Incubator of Fathers…[that] Marriage seems to be particularly important in civilizing men, turning their attention away from dangerous, antisocial, or self-centered activities and towards the needs of a family” (The Marriage Movement, 9.) Personally, I have a hard time believing that responsibility is something that magically comes to a man only once he’s married. Yes, the commitment and honesty that is required for a married relationship oftentimes would develop skills that may seem to make one seem more responsible, but these same skills can be acquired from having other commitments such as school, a job, or even having pets. And this statement is based off of the assumption that men would otherwise engage in “dangerous, antisocial, or self-centered activities.” Not only is this a farfetched generalization about all men, it is also making the assumption that within a marriage there is never any danger, no chance of being anti-social, and that heaven forbids you from take time to engage in self-centered activities. We have to realize that there are non-profit, non partisan organizations out there that are aiming for the preservation of this stereotypical, full of crap definition of marriage. Thus, we must keep these clashing arguments and “American Values” in mind when we are establishing our own and presenting our ideas for how/if the issues surrounding marriage can be progressively remedied.
Intimately, the article is really the sweetest on this worthwhile topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your approaching updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the phenomenal clarity in your writing. I will immediately grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Fabulous work and much success in yourbusiness efforts!
Advantageously, the post is really the sweetest on this noteworthy topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your next updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the great lucidity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Genuine work and much success in yourbusiness dealings!