Skip to main content

Thinking about what marriage is not. . . .

. . . and that's something the government should be able to regulate.

A scenario: a woman is married in the Catholic Church, abused by her spouse, and later seeks a civil divorce. She does not go through the church for an annulment. Later, she meets another man and is married to him by a Methodist minister.

Are they married? The Catholic Church, which does not recognize divorce and has not granted an annulment, would say, "No."

The State in which the Methodist minister performs the ceremony, however, says, "Yes." These two individuals are recognized by the State as legally joined in economic, social, and legal terms. They are collectively responsible for debts/taxes they incur. They own property together. They qualify automatically as next-of-kin in health-related situations. They are co-guardians of any children they have or adopt. They qualify for spousal benefits on health insurance.

The Catholic Church still says they aren't married--and in a religious sense, they may not be. But what they do have is a recognized civil union that the government and not the church can bestow and regulate.

Here's the truth that is so unpalatable for many American citizens: the government does not perform marriages; it only sanctions civil unions. Civil unions performed by clergy (or even justices of the peace) are usually called "marriages," but the irony is that it matters not whether a Priest, a Rabbi, or a Wiccan officiates as long as he/she possesses a government license to join people into civil unions--the advantages and disadvantages are the same.

Marriage is a traditional religious, cultural, and social term that governments have hijacked over the years to give a better smell to the civil unions it can create. All marriages in the USA are, in a legal sense, only civil unions.

So let's just get the government out of the marriage business, and admit that it only does civil unions.

And then let's get the hell out of the way of any two consenting adults who want to enter a civil union, whether they call it marriage or not.

Or any three, four, or seven consenting adults for that matter. I'm not precisely sure how your family arrangements--who sleeps with who, who does the dishes, and who wears what kind of underwear--are any of my business as long as you don't abuse your kids and don't mow your lawn before I get up on the weekends.

I would prefer a Constitutional Amendment to get this done; something like the following:

1. All legal references to "marriage" in law or policy shall henceforth and retroactively be considered equivalent to "civil union." The characterization of a civil union as a marriage shall be at the discretion of the parties involved.

2. No consenting adult shall be denied the right to enter a civil union with any other consenting adult on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.


Yeah, I know it's not that simple.

But it should be.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Great Article....Almost Harry Browne like....keep it up

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...