the more Michael Kinsley's proposal makes sense. In order to "resolve" the gay marriage debate he has said why not have the government get out of the marriage business as in completely? no hetero or homo kind of deals. Now the conservative argument has always been government needs to recognize and foster the institution of marriage in order to promote positive social goods like social stability and procreation (the National Review argument) but while I'm not against the government officially recognizing this in some way is there really THAT compelling a reason for government to get involved at all? Full Disclosure - At work today I was minding my own business when a co-worker while working alongside the older lady manager (a curious sort) said "we're waiting for your wedding day" and a couple of other pertinent questions. However this would involve a whole sideblog about the DGTZ (or Don't Go There Zone) and the ever curious mofos daily buzzing around its perimeter, social conformist cops, folks who procreate somehow feeling more important than people like you, the desire to work in Peace, are they really talking behind your back when they should be working? & a Host of Other Related Issues. Suffice to say gays would make a far stronger case if they simply adopted the Kinsley Proposal. If the government should get out of My Sex Life then by the same token why should they officially sanction my arrangements? You could still get "married" if you wish but that'd be your business......social gnats......and divorce would cease to exist because its predeccesor, marriage, would cease to exist. You'd think conservatives would be making these arguments. With our track record of hetero marriage it's like gays serving in the military, WHY?
Stranded
Why that almost sounds Libertarian. And of course it is. I've been saying as much for sometime. I even said this to a number of folks at this year's pride festival. Marriage...a contract simple as that. Government's role is to uphold contract law not set the terms of it.
ReplyDeleteBut soap Kinsley's point is that the government's role is not even to uphold contract law vis-a-vis marriage but not to get involved in the marriage business at all. If I get married in my church why does the government need to know if I'm single or married? Well we all know the answer to that one but what gays are doing here is not making the case for smaller government but for Bigger Government.
ReplyDeleteWell how does Kinsley propose to resolve the distribution of assets when things go sour? What happens when things go awry in the marriage and you have property to distribute between the parties? There's going to need to be an impartial entity to resolve those issues.
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about Kinsley, but the Idea Sounds Ok to me. I don't Really see any Reason why the Government Needs to get Involved unless a Divorce Hearing for some Reason gets Taken all the way to the Supreme Court. Why can't this all be Settled in Courts According to the Law of Contracts? All we would Need is a Standard Marriage Contract similar to what the Government already States, yet it could be Altered According to the Will of the Participants.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can see, the only thing that the Government Keeps Doing in relation to this is Continually Imposing this Stupid Marriage Penalty, that Obama wants to put back into Effect again.
I have always felt that civil unions (for ALL couples) should be mandatory, and then if people want a 'wedding' they can go to the church of their choice and have one.
ReplyDeleteThe civil union part is recognized by the government, the 'marriage' part isn't.
The problem with the whole 'marriage' thing is that it becomes a whole religious thing; "God made marriage to be a man and a woman" et al. And then it becomes a huge fracas in which people are accusing other people of wanting to "destroy the institution of marriage" and "implode American Family Values" and all that such.
If we could just make civil unions, which don't take religious beliefs into consideration, mandatory for any two people who are eligible to be united, and make the 'marriage' (ie, church wedding) part strictly optional, everything would be entirely simplified.
Soap I don't think Kinsley is being all that serious in terms of he knows this ain't gonna happen but theorizing what would have happened if government had never gotten in the marriage business to begin with? Once you recognize straights then the gays demand to be recognized. It all reminds me of the computer situation at the library. Conflicts, everybody wants to get online, nobody wants to get off, some have a problem with your reservation etc. etc. Now if libraries were to say you know something? there are too many problems with this and so we're not gonna have computers from now on I'd be cool with that.
ReplyDeleteThat's a real interesting thought Saty. My whole thing is why does the government have to recognize the institution of marriage, any institution of marriage (straight or gay) at all? Seems to me both sides are making the case for Bigger Gov't.
ReplyDeleteI Agree with Salyavati.
ReplyDeleteYes Salya has a good point.
ReplyDelete"folks who procreate somehow feeling more important" I threw that in for you soapie. It's become an issue at times at work and I think some people use it to their advantage.
Discussing yesterday with my friend why the personal questions at work. They want to know what makes you tick. (impersonating an older Italian gentleman): "What's the matter, you don't like girls or something? That's ok, we understand." Add to that what some other older woman said to me during the same day. I was saying it was gonna rain on my day off and she goes "take your girlfriend out." You have a girlfriend no? well you could be between 'em or no great hurry but this is how rumors start. Ya got percolations here, an undertow and they don't care that it makes you slightly uncomfortable. OMG then if one of 'em sees you with your friend in Barnes & Noble it's over!
ReplyDeleteMy whole thing is why does the government have to recognize the institution of marriage, any institution of marriage (straight or gay) at all?
ReplyDeleteSo many things hinge on marital status; things as different as tax laws to auto insurance rates to who you can put on your health insurance. There has to be some kind of 'official' recognized criteria as to who's officially/legally 'together' and who's not, if only for these things.
As long as things like dependent benefits, survivorship, 'next of kin' for making life/death decisions... there has to be some kind of recognized standard.
It would be easier in my opinion to just make the official civil union the required deal. Then you can go have whatever kind of church wedding that rocks your world. Or not, if you aren't the churchy type.
It would just take all the argument out of it and all that hyperbole about wrecking the American Family Value of Marriage. When you look at divorce statistics it's many times the folks who are preaching about it who have the highest divorce rates. That's really irrelevant to this but still, it would just eliminate so much of the problem to take the 'legal' end of it away from any/all church bodies.
I Agree with you, Satyavati. Preach it Girl!!
ReplyDeleteMandate civil unions? Screw that. I've been with the same woman for 14 years. I don't need a government sanction on my relationship.
ReplyDeleteOver 7 years in some states is a common law marriage soapie. Hey eliminate the IRS and there really is no need to state whether you're single or married. Re Kinsley's proposal it really is too late to go back but it's an interesting theory just the same. The more I think about it the more sense it makes at least on some level.
ReplyDeleteNot recognized in MN. Fine by me.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, WTF is up with New York?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/66395.html
There's alot of things f'd up with NY. Mayor Bloomberg probably fantasizes about making Manhattan into one giant pedestrian mall one day where you can't smoke. I've said for years it's the water supply.
ReplyDeleteHey Soap,
ReplyDeleteEven if you have decided not to have a Civil Union, it is not a bad idea to get Registered. I just learned about this recently. A friend of ours who had been living for years with her boyfriend, had one heck of a time when her boyfriend died unexpectedly. Because they were an Unregistered Couple, her boyfriend's kids came and laid claim to all that she and her boyfriend had together. They even want to kick her out and sell the house.
I guess there was a Will, but the Will got conveniently lost. I guess they left the wrong person in charge of it.
Anyway, this lady is having one heck of a time fighting this in court and hopes that she doesn't loose everything. She says if only she had known, she could have prevented a lot of this by just being Registered, because Unregistered Couples are not Recognized in the case of one's Death.
Apparently there are lots of Options short of Civil Unions. As Z mentioned, in some States there is the "Common Law Marriage" and in California, you can be Registered. I'm not sure what that means, but it is less involved than a Civil Union.
ReplyDeleteRegistered? Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough. I don't need to show any statist my papers or my "registration" validating my personal relationship(s).
ReplyDeleteAll the more reason soap for government to get out of the marriage business entirely.
ReplyDeleteIt was only a Suggestion, Soap, for the sake of Protection. The other Option, of course, is the Will. You are free to do what ever.
ReplyDeleteLet me put this in other terms. There's a new civilization just starting out, no laws, no government yet. The people realize they need some structure, laws, gov't, a defense etc. So the new gov't is set up, WHY should that new gov't recognize as an institution the fact that some people like to pair up for life? what's the compelling reason?
ReplyDeleteI guess it is so that we can Write Off our Dependents as Tax Write Offs. Remember, Prior to the Woman's Movement, Families used to Only have one Income and a Wife was a Dependent. In this Context, a Man would want the Government to Acknowledge that he has a Dependent. To Understand the Original Intent of things, we Need to Think of it in Terms of History, not in Terms of Modern Thought.
ReplyDeleteAh but let's say we never had the Income Tax,
ReplyDeleteI have to speak honestly here. I don't think people are getting Kinsley's original point, now my original point.
ReplyDeleteI was just Answering the Question that you had Made in your Previous Comment Z. I've already Stated that I agree with the Ideas in the Original Post and I Think most of the Others do as Well. When there is Agreement, there is not as much to say.
ReplyDeleteBasically I was throwing it at soapie and am rather surprised that being such a strong libertarian he still feels the government needs to recognize and officially validate the institution of marriage. Seems like a rare exception to his usual anarcho/libertarian Train of Thought.
ReplyDeleteI Wonder if you have Misunderstood him, but I'll let him give his Own Response.
ReplyDeleteMy point is Kinsley's approach should be the libertarian position and so in effect the whole gay marriage debate would be rendered null and void, pointless. In short WHY does the government have to recognize and officially validate hetero marriage? Soap says the government exists partly to enforce contracts but if marriage were never made a contract in the first place by government recognizing it...
ReplyDeleteContracts are Needed because of the Possibility of a Divorce. There are also other Factors such as who can Visit a Person at the Hospital when the Situation Calls for "Just Family" and, as Satyavati mentioned, who can we put on our Health Insurance Policy?
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Governmental Part of it is Concerned, who is the Employer Required to Insure? Who Can we Write Off as a Dependent? If we Don't, at the Very Least, Acknowledge Civil Unions, then these Questions would have to some how be Answered.
You may not get an answer from Soap, he hasn't written on this Post since the 30th.
"Contracts are Needed because of the Possibility of Divorce."
ReplyDeleteBut it's only a contract because the government recognizes it as such. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Think of how nice it would be to not have the great Gay Marriage Debate.
Contracts are Necessary, Z, yet they do not have to be Called Marriage. I Like Satyavati's Solution. That is that the Legal Part of the Arrangement be Called a Civil Union, rather than a Marriage and the Marriage Remain a Spiritual Thing that is Recognized only by the Church and not the Government.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thought. I've always felt marriage should be more spiritual than civil anyway.
ReplyDelete