Let's abolish "marriage"..

Here’s the problem.  The government uses inherently religious terminology to describe a civil contract.  That terminology is "marriage".  Through all of the discussion, controversy, and acrimony swirling about the concept of same-sex unions, the fundamental problem with the idea has rarely been addressed.  In trying to force or persuade states to recognize gay marriage, we are inadvertently bringing an entrenched church/state union to the fore.

Religious institutions perform marriages.  Two people pledge their love and commitment to each other in the sight of their God of choice.  This union is blessed by the church and entails various spiritual and ritual commitments unique to their denomination and beliefs.  It is a sanctified and beautiful thing.  What it is not, however, is a guarantee of property rights, legal contracts, or dependency.  These are manifestations of the government.

The government does not care to which God you made your promises.  The government cares that you paid your fee, met the legal requirements, and obtained a license.  That is as it should be.  In return for that, the government affords both parties certain legal rights and responsibilities, too numerous to detail here.  That also is a good thing and has been a cornerstone of modern society.

The problem is that the government calls this civil contract "marriage".  While it may have been convenient in the past for both the church and state to use the same word to describe two entirely different things, the government’s use of "marriage" to describe this particular civil contract is now obsolete and inaccurate.  By its continuance, it is perpetuating the notion that it is the state’s responsibility to legislate morality and protect the beliefs of the church.

So it’s time to abolish "marriage" as a government institution.  States should perform and/or recognize civil unions, period.  The same civil unions it now performs and recognizes.  Nothing needs to change except the terminology.  Couples may still be "married" in the religious edifice of their choosing; and that can still be a marriage; but that’s no business of the state’s.  If a church wishes to recognize and perform ceremonies involving same-sex couples, good for them; but that’s still outside the state’s purview.

What changes after that is more simple.  No person should be denied the right to enter into a contract with another person because of their gender.  This clearly extends to contracts involving assignment of next-of-kin, insurance rights, home ownership, child custody, or the myriad other benefits and responsibilities of "marriage".  Same-sex couples should be entitled to every civil right available to any other member of this society; but that’s far less likely as long as the government embraces religious marriage as synonymous with civil unions.

•  Tip jar

  They tell me I need to post one of these.

  by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 08:50:20 AM PDT

•  Good job.

  I've felt this way for a while now.  Just never got around to diarying the point.  

  Very well said.

  by GTPinNJ on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 08:54:16 AM PDT

•  It will be a great day when we legalize PACS...

  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  They're all the rage overseas - much like universal healthcare. Of course, much like universal healthcare, the powers that be would rather keep us bound to the status quo, and relentlessly demonize the alternatives.

  by Diaries on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 08:55:36 AM PDT

  •  I think PACS are ridiculous if

    there is also an option of marriage.  The idea of "marriage light" seems pretty absurd to me.  If you want to abolish marriage and just do PACS, that would be one thing.  But to have essentially multiple levels of marriage is just bizarre.

    by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 08:57:28 AM PDT

    •  It seems to work in just about every

      other country that has it. Marriages still occur. PACS occur. Sort of the way nations manage to have both universal health care and privatized options available. Sort of how cash bookstores and public libraries coexist.

      Both are feasible. There's very little evidence to the contrary.

      by Diaries on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

      •  What is it precisely that "works?"

        If you mean in a sense that people do not take to the streets to riot, sure, it "works."  But I fail to see the point.

        You either want to take on legal and moral obligations of marriage or you do not.  What precisely is a point of PACS?  To allow to avoid using the term "divorced" if you break up?

        by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:02:12 AM PDT

        •  See the wikipedia article...

          ...it offers rights to people who wouldn't have such rights otherwise.

          Same-sex marriages aren't legal in France, for example.

          PACS are. Which enable same-sex couples to afford some of the benefits afforded to "married" couples within France.

          It's a human rights thing.

          by Diaries on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:05:58 AM PDT

          •  I was assuming a situation where

            marriage is available to both hetero- and homo-sexual couples.  To the extent that you suggest that PACS are needed for gay people who have no access to marriage -- fine.  But if everyone does have access to marriage, I fail to see the point or benefit of PACs.

            by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:08:28 AM PDT

            •  It comes down to rights again.

              In the same way people should (and do) have the option in the US to marry in religious or secular fashion (church v. city hall, for example), people there have the option to enter unions via the traditional "marriage" route, or via the Civil Solidarity Union route. It's about giving people choices and a freedom to live their lives together, without denying them wholesale of all the financial and legal rights and representations afforded to people who marry the "traditional" way.

              That's my take on it.

              by Diaries on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:16:58 AM PDT

              •  Huh?

                In France, as in most of Europe marriage has to be secular.  You can have your church ceremony if yo wish, but you must, must go to the City Hall to be married.  Church ceremony is just for your benefit and does in no way alter your legal status.

                That being so, I do not see the reason for the existence of PACs.  If people want access to the benefits of marriage, let them get married.  If they just want to live together because they are not ready or don't believe in marriage, that's fine too.  But the state should not create multi-tiered marriage.

                by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:46:06 AM PDT

•  This is not the first time I have heard

  that argument, and I must admit it has a lot of intellectual heft and allure.

  However, it is politically unfeasable.  This is, for better or worse, a term that has achieved a world-wide meaning and status.  And we have to live with that.

  by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 08:55:56 AM PDT

  •  This is similar to the argument I always wait for

    during debates about "gay marriage".  Inevitably the opponent says something like "Marriage is a sacred institution".  Fine, I agree.  The problem is that our government has in effect abandoned any pretense toward being the gatekeeper of that "sacredness".  To wit:

    1. The govt. lets you get married and divorced as many times as you want.

    2. The govt. doesn't care if you and your potential spouse share a religious faith, have different faiths, or are completely irreligious - and cannot refuse to allow you to marry even if your marriage violates the tenets of your own religion.

    3. The govt. allows a "marriage ceremony" to be performed by (depending on the state) not only clerics, but mayors, judges, and other minor officials.

    4. The govt. doesn't care if you marry someone 3 generations removed from you or if you have only known one another for 24 hours.

    The current system allows the Muslim mayor of Anytown to perform a 5-minute marriage ceremony for an 18 year old evangelical Christian marrying an 85 year-old athiest on his 6th wife after a 1-day courtship, and the government currently allows them to get divorced in a year then go back and do it all again.  Once you've allowed that, the idea that the government is setting any standards for "sacredness" or "traditional marriage" is pretty absurd.

    by Marinesquire on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:25:25 AM PDT

    •  I do not follow you at all

      I was not arguing for "holiness" or "unholiness" of marriage.  I was simply pointing out that we are not likely to change the nomenclature due to its world-wise use and acceptance.

      by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:20:21 AM PDT

  •  I agree with the common use

    part of your comment.  I do not foresee the day when "civil unioned" people are referred to by any term other than married.  At the same time, I think it possible to revise the terminology on state documents to something more religiously neutral than "Marriage License".

    by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:16:20 AM PDT

    •  At the outset I disagree that

      "marriage" is a necessarily religious term.  It is no more religious than the word "communion" or the word "confirmation."  Simply put it is a word that identifies two separate institutions, that of civil marriage and of a religious ceremony.

      by Drgrishka1 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:19:04 AM PDT

      •  Undeniably true

        but I approached the diary initially from the perspective that we have no power over the church to revise their rites; but we do have (theoretically) the power to insist on religiously neutral language in our laws.  

        Inasmuch as the state use has grown to be sometimes synonymous with the religious use of the word, I postulated it might be time for the state to find another way to describe its recognition of the union.

        by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:19:19 AM PDT

•  I have no idea

  whether or not my husband and I are married.  When we went to get our marriage license, the jaded lady behind the counter explained it so fast, I couldn't understand what she was talking about.  Something about somebody had to sign it after the ceremony and bring it back, I don't remember.  So, I don't know whatever happened to it.  That was eleven years ago. I like the term "partner" better--it makes it seem more equal, but I have the option of both, so my opinion doesn't matter much.

  by theark on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 08:59:07 AM PDT

•  No basis in fact

  That religions recognized 'marriage' before governments did.

  So if religions have such a big issue with it, they are welcome to coin another word for it or just not recognize 'marriages' done by governments (which they already can).

  Stop playing to the religious extremists' agenda.

  by metalgrid on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:00:17 AM PDT

•  This is playing exactly into the hands...

  ...of the right-wingers who say that GLBT people want to destroy marriage.  Hence it advances hatred of gay people.  You do understand that, right?

  One shouldn't try to advance the goal of equal right by removing a right from some people that others do not have.  Ymmv.

  by rserven on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:02:26 AM PDT

  •  You missed the point

    You want a tax break? Go to the government.

    You want a marriage? Go to a church, or a synagogue, or a fire temple, or a sacred grove, etc...

    by eshafto on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:13:55 AM PDT

    •  I got a marriage without

      going to a church, synagogue or fire temple.  I got mine through a courthouse and a judge. They threw in the tax break at no extra charge.

      by dannyinla on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:21:26 AM PDT

      •  Or a catering hall

        You make a good point. But the real issue is that you shouldn't require an authority you don't recognize to grant you the status of married. You don't want the tax break? Call yourselves married, mark it by any ceremony you wish, or none at all. You want the tax break? Go register at City Hall. If that's all the ceremony you need, good for you. If you want the Pope's personal blessing, have at it.

        You want to refuse to recognize my marriage because it was performed by my friend Dave, who isn't actually a clergyman of any sort? That's fine. You want to refuse to recognize my marriage because I married someone of the same gender? That's your right.

        But you don't get to refuse to recognize my civil union. That's a legal document.

        by eshafto on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:29:04 AM PDT

        •  dannyinla's marriage

          is a legal document as well.  What's this about an "authority you don't recognize?" In this case, the authority is the city and state government, and legal marriage is all about having the law recognize that a couple is legally a unit rather than a pair of isolated individuals. If you don't recognize the authority of the law, then you don't need legal marriage.

          In the US, there is zero, zip, nada requirement that a member of the clergy or any religious institution be involved in the process of recognizing a couple as married. The only connection is that ordained clergy are automatically given the power to solemnize marriages rather than having to apply for it. But they aren't the only ones who can do it. I'd rather see more people granted the ability to solemnize marriages; anyone (well, any adult citizen) could apply to become a "marriage registrar"; it would be a status akin to notary public. Clergy could, and would be expected to, apply for it, but they'd be treated no differently than anyone else.

          by ebohlman on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:55:42 PM PDT

    •  I didn't miss any point.

      I'm telling you the reality of what will happen if this is the road pursued.  I really don't want to see an increase in gay-bashing.  We have enough of that already.

      by rserven on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:31:59 AM PDT

  •  I don't think so

    In fact, I don't think the LGBT issue even needs to enter into it, though that is undeniably the catalyst for the discussion.  My personal issue is church/state separation; and this is IMO a clear case where the state is sanctioning a religious point of view.  If the state cannot make the legal distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage, something needs to change.  

    Yeah, I do realize that simply changing the word isn't  the answer, but the word is the confluence of the spiritual and the political.  Some distinction needs to be made.

    by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:38:33 AM PDT

    •  Any discussion of marriage at this time...

      ...is going to involve GLBT issues.  To think otherwise is not realistic.

      by rserven on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:49:21 AM PDT

      •  I agree with that

        but I don't think the GLBT efforts will have significant success nationwide until religion is removed from the statehouses.  I surely don't wish to hurt the GLBT cause in this arena; to the contrary, I think the First Amendment could be a formidable weapon in the fight.

        Most, if not all of the objections to same-sex marriage I've heard are based on religious morality.  If we do indeed have to "destroy the institution of marriage" to get equal rights for GLBT, I say that's a good day's work.  I think this, like other civil rights fights, must take the comfortable out of their comfort zones and show them who the other side truly is - other human beings just like themselves.

        by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:02:26 AM PDT

    •  But in the US

      the state already does make the legal distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage. A purely religious ceremony without state involvement does not create any kind of legal status, and the legal status can be obtained without any religious involvement. I think you're confusing custom with law.

      by ebohlman on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:57:53 PM PDT

•  You don't have to get rid of the word "marriage"

  The way it's done in most of Europe and Latin America is that couples have two weddings--a civil matrimony and a religious one following. If you do not get a civil marriage before going to church, your church marriage carries no meaning in the eyes of the law.

  But you don't have to get a religious marriage if you don't want it, and a priest cannot marry you with state power. There is no "by the power vested in me..." in this system.

  It is the system that is used everywhere and it is the system we should have. Everyone gets a civil marriage, and if you want a religious one, you go to church have your ceremony. No need to remove the word marriage.  

  by michael1104 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:09:01 AM PDT

  •  Remove the power...

    ...maybe that is the way to go.  Make it so clergy members have no authority to confer civil marriage,  Not sure about the politics of this, but it makes the US more like the rest of the world.

    by carlton858 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:21:07 AM PDT

  •  That adds nothing.

    If gays can't get the civil (call it whatever you want), all it does is add a trip to City Hall.  What good does it do?

    by Inland on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:26:39 AM PDT

    •  well if your goal

      is to condition people to accept that marriage is not solely a religious institution that is the way to go. You're right it doesn't give gay people the right to marry by default, but neither does this idea of getting "government out of the marriage business"--they can still decide which marriages to recognize and not.

      Marriage is inherently a government business, more so than religious. If the world itself can lose some of the religious connotations by requiring that everyone go through a civil ceremony you would help the gay marriage cause, and in addition you would take away this bullshit talking point that churches will be forced to marry people they don't want.

      by michael1104 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:40:31 AM PDT

      •  An excellent first step is to get

        people to understand that civil marraige can exist without religious marriage. Once that is firmly entranched into the collective psyche, then doors will open wider to all non-religious marriages.

        by dannyinla on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:43:24 AM PDT

      •  Solves nothing.

        addition you would take away this bullshit talking point that churches will be forced to marry people they don't want.

        To be replaced by the talking point that what the left wants is churches can't really marry anyone.

        Hm.  I'd rather deal with the talking point that is demonstrably not true and as far as I know, nobody really believes, namely, that churches can be forced to marry anyone they don't want to marry, with or without gay rights legislation.

        by Inland on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:56:10 AM PDT

•  I agree

  This discussion gets tripped up on the fuzzy area between the legal/civil contract and the religious definitions of marriage. And the best answer is to more clearly define the distinction, not to keep escalating the battle about which gets to impose on the other.

  If the Catholic church doesn't want to sanctify same-sex marriage within their religion, that's their business as a religion. It's not for the rest of us to dictate how a religion works on the inside.

  It's our civil/legal unions that define what legal rights and responsibilities a couple has to eachother, and that's as far as the state needs to go. It shouldn't matter what they're called, just that the legal definition of a union is kept distinct from the religious definition.

  by Brix on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:18:22 AM PDT

•  The constitutional problem with state "marriage"

  is that the state ends up not only legislating morality, but legislating religion.

  The state has to decide who is a real religion and who isn't (to determine who gets to say "by the power vested in me..."). That's not the business of the state.

  Then the state has to decide whether a particular religion's definition of marriage is legitimate. My clergyman says it's okay with God for me to marry someone of the same gender. Who is Arkansas to disagree? It's not the business of the state.

  by eshafto on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:19:25 AM PDT

  •  Hardly.

    The state has to decide who is a real religion and who isn't (to determine who gets to say "by the power vested in me...").

     If you've ever find anyone turned down, let me know.

    by Inland on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:28:07 AM PDT

    •  I myself am an ordained clergy.

      who is legally authorized to perform marriages.  It wasn't tough.

      by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:42:14 AM PDT

•  Already diaried. Plus, it's wrong.

  The problem is that the government calls this civil contract "marriage".  

  No, it isn't.  There is no "civil contract". A "contract" is a private arrangment based on mutual agreement to terms and an understanding they are legally binding.

  "Marriage" is a legal status that imposes rights and responsibilities on the marriage regardless of what the parties intend.

  All one can do is change the name of the legal status, which would irritate all to hell the people who are currently married.  Then you would have to invent a new word and the issues of gay coupls haveing the legal status is still around.

  by Inland on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:23:54 AM PDT

  •  But that's exactly the point

    Let's argue about the legal status of gays, as opposed to arguing about whether God wants people to have sex with members of the same gender. Separating the sacred from the profane is an excellent way to do that.

    New Jersey has no business telling me what is and is not "holy matrimony", any more than the local Santeria priest has telling New Jersey who gets a driver's license, or, in this case, a tax break, child custody, inheritance rights, etc., etc., etc.

    by eshafto on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:36:08 AM PDT

    •  It doesn't separate the issue.

      If the issue is, should gays be having sex, then it's not changed by saying there's (Legal arrangement X) for gays having sex.

      If the issue is, should gays have the same arrangement I personally have, it's not changed by changing the legal name for my personal arrangement.

      All you do is take away "marriage" for everyone else, which was rserven's point that gays will be blamed for destroying marriage.  It'll be true for the term.

      New Jersey has no business telling me what is and is not "holy matrimony",

      Which is why it doesn't.  It calls it "marriage".  Whether it's holy isn't a state concern.

      by Inland on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:51:34 AM PDT

  •  I'm no lawyer

    and I see the distinction you are trying to draw, but

    A "contract" is a private arrangment based on mutual agreement to terms and an understanding they are legally binding.

    seems a fairly accurate description of marriage to me.

    As I said in another response, I don't expect a wholesale change in how people view or label each other; but revising the state procedures and paperwork to be more religiously neutral would go a long way toward equal rights for all who wish the legal benefits marriage allows.

    by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:47:51 AM PDT

    •  That's not a description of marriage.

      A "contract" is a private arrangment based on mutual agreement to terms and an understanding they are legally binding.

      There's nothing private about marriage, nor are there terms.  It's a status.  You no more agree to "terms" of marriage than you agree to "terms" of being an American citizen if you are born here, or agree to "terms" of being a parent.  

      The law imposes rights and duties without your consent, indeed, sometimes contrary to your wishes.  The only thing you consent to is the entry into the status of marriage.

      As I said in another response, I don't expect a wholesale change in how people view or label each other

      I expect a wholesale change to accept that gay people can be married.  Indeed, it's already coming.  Adding another wholesale change on the misperception that the state is getting involved in something religious is at best irrelevant to that issue and probably an enormous mistake.

      by Inland on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:58:59 AM PDT

      •  Is that not a contradiction?

        The law imposes rights and duties without your consent, indeed, sometimes contrary to your wishes.  The only thing you consent to is the entry into the status of marriage.

        The law imposes rights and duties when you consent by saying "I do."  You do consent.  I might accept an argument that one getting married isn't fully informed as to the terms; but not that there's no consent.

        To execute a legally binding marriage, you must sign an application, obtain a license, and verbally agree to the terms in front of witnesses.  Married may be your "status" afterward, but it's surely a contract at the time you enter it.

        by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:11:20 AM PDT

        •  You consent to the status.

          You don't agree to the terms.  A contract is agreement on terms, and all terms set by the individual.

          IOW, you get married, but the government fills in the blanks.  It doesn't matter if you are informed, or not informed, of the blanks being filled in.  There are no terms negotiated that are legally binding.

          It's more like becoming a citizen, or a parent.  I become a parent by impregnating a woman, and whether I agree to support the child or not or otherwise be legally responsible, the law imposes the obligation.

          Same with marriage.  I've yet to see a person who ever consented to divorce laws.  Yet they apply nonetheless.

          by Inland on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:16:58 AM PDT

          •  I don't think I agree

            with the concept that marriage is not a contract, but I don't want to beat it to death either.  As I say, I'm no lawyer, so I'm only commenting on my perceptions, not necessarily on the legalese.

            by rb608 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:29:27 AM PDT

            •  The essence of a contract

              is that the parties to it are able to negotiate the nature of the consideration that they exchange ("consideration" means "you're getting some valuable things from me and I'm getting some valuable things from you"). An agreement with terms that can't be negotiated is a considered a "contract of adhesion" and normally isn't enforceable under contract law.

              In a way (I'm not a lawyer and I'm not claiming the analogy is exact), legal marriage is much like title to property. When you obtain title to a piece of land, you get government recognition of the fact that the land is yours, and in return you become obligated to follow all the rules that apply to landowners. The title can be (and almost always is) part of the consideration in a contract, but it's not a contract in and of itself (note that a promise to marry someone can also be consideration in a contract; that's where the ability to sue for "breach of promise" comes from).

              by ebohlman on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:14:55 PM PDT

            •  Well, that's the sea you're swimming in.

              You've got a proposal that's nothing BUT legalese for the purpose of making a point that nobody really contests.

              by Inland on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:02:30 PM PDT

•  Arguing over words

  is a tricky business, and often unprofitable, but I'm glad the diarist brought it up for discussion.

  Civil unions are the only issue in which the state has any standing, and shold be available to all adults. If couples want a religious ceremony that's up to them (and their Church), just like a baptism would be. I favor changing the name of the legal entity to "civil union" (for everybody, not just same-sex couples) for legal purposes, but everyone will call it "marriage" anyway.

  Most states issue licences to people which qualifies them to sign the "marriage" license, making it official. Commonly, many are clergy, but there are also judges, mayors, etc. I suppose a notary public could do it too. As long as these unions are legally identical for everybody, I'd be satisfied. It will be up to each couple whether to choose a clergyperson or a civil official to sign the document.

  Once civil unions are in effect for everyone, people will call it "marriage", even though, I suppose, the word could be reserved for religious ceremonies without the world coming to an end.

  In the meantime, we have to be vigilant to keep relious beliefs out of the debate on civil policy.

  by MyBrainWorks on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:00:41 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    The fact is, the government has no more business recognizing a marriage than it has in recognizing a bar mitzvah. Just because we've been making this mistake for 200+ years doesn't mean it's not a mistake.

    by RickMassimo on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:54:24 AM PDT

•  Terrible frame!

  "Abolish marriage"? Disgusting frame, doomed to failure!

  Return marriage to the religious institutions and get government out of it!

  Even Ron Paul could sign on to that.

  by MakeChessNotWar on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:48:51 AM PDT