A New Approach To Marriage

[Hugo]

I have recently been doing some thinking on the marriage issue, and so allow me to present my own Harebrained Scheme™ on this issue.

As I see it, the problem with marriage is state involvement. Marriage is actually a social/religious institution, not a political one, and in my view the state has no role to play in marriage. However, this has not been the case. The state has produced it's own marriages (civil unions and common-law marriage) and demanded that social-religious marriages comply with their own marriage laws.

My proposal is to end state involvement in marriage. The state will not produce laws regarding marriages, the state will not conduct marriages or allow its officers to do so, and the state will not produce competing institutions such as common-law marriage.

What will this mean? Basically, marriage will be returned to its original status as a social institution. People can be married in the ceremony of their choosing by the authority of their choosing. Catholics can be married as they always have, but now their marriage is exclusively before God and Church and not before State. Homosexuals who wish to marry can do so, all they need to do is find a permissive church, some other cultural institution or whatever other authority they want and perform the ceremony. Everybody can be happy with this, even Mormons and Muslims who want multiple wives and so forth. Marriage is equitable and no type of marriage is judged to be better or worse than another, save subjectively, which is unavoidable and the substance of a free society and public discourse.

Laws affecting tax status and so forth should be struck down. Personally, I feel that the state should not see "married, single, divorced, widowed" for tax purposes, it should just see "citizen" and making marriage a difference is discriminatory. Therefore, it should not make any difference to the state in any way whether or not one is married.

Regarding inheritance, one should be able to name one's heir as one has always done and this should be respected by everyone. Just name your new spouse as heir and there is no problem. Regarding title (Miss/Mrs), the marrying institution can convey this title change legally, as social-religious institutions confer titles such as "Cardinal", "Dean" or "Archbishop" that are universally respected.

Regarding divorce, I feel that the present situation of the involvement of divorce lawyers whose primary motive is to spread animosity to line their own pockets is unsatisfactory anyway. Divorces can be mediated by a professional mediator or a cultural/religious leader, such as a priest, imam or whomever. In the event that one party feels that they have been unfairly dealt with they may bring suit and have the matter settled much as corporate liquidations are settled: a matter of mutually held possessions now to be divvied up.

Common-law marriage should also be struck down. If two people wish to commit to each other in such a way, they can. If they do not, there is a reason for that, so creating an institution whereupon they are forcibly considered "married" after a year is not fair. Once again, the issue of mutually owned property can be settled without state involvement.

Regarding benefits given to children, simply award those benefits in trust to the caregiver or caregivers. In the case of more than one, divide them. It makes no difference if a married couple with children receives one child-tax-credit cheque for $1000 or two for $500.

For those who don't agree with gay marriage, I will say this: Firstly, without state involvement the issue is much downplayed. If it becomes an entirely cultural issue, the actions of perhaps 0.5% of the population are not going to have much of an impact on anything. What homosexuals are campaigning for right now is state recognition. If we decide that it is not a state matter for anyone, that is an end to the problem. I do believe that homosexuality is a disorder (no comments, please, other threads on that are open), but so is alcoholism, and one does not outlaw the sale of liquor to alcoholics.

I think this solution would be just. It would be far more in keeping with our ideals of separation of church and state, and the pluralist system of polity/economy/society without encroachment or large involvement of one field in others, thus being contributory to the liberty and prosperity of all, a limit on state power and a blow struck for the idea that government should not be able to dictate social values to the people.

Your comments welcomed.

[Black Dog]

My proposal is to end state involvement in marriage. The state will not produce laws regarding marriages, the state will not conduct marriages or allow its officers to do so, and the state will not produce competing institutions such as common-law marriage.

While iIagree with some elements, such as eliminating special rights for married couples, my big question is: why bother?

[Hugo]

I believe I made that clear, BD. Read the last paragraph again.

[Black Dog]

I think this solution would be just. It would be far more in keeping with our ideals of separation of church and state, and the pluralist system of polity/economy/society without encroachment or large involvement of one field in others, thus being contributory to the liberty and prosperity of all, a limit on state power and a blow struck for the idea that government should not be able to dictate social values to the people.

But as things stand now, the church plays a largely ceremonial role in marriage. You can get married outside of a church, but you can't get married in a church without a liscence. Your idea would upend the existing structure more than any move to make state-sponsored marriage more inclusive could.

Under your scheme, would the state still legally recognize marriages? State-sanctioned marriage is a contract that sets down the rights an obligations of its parties as well as legal entitlements. Take the state out and what recourse does one have if a marriage goes awry. I don't think "mediation" would be sufficient without legal muscle to enforce it.

No, the whole scheme sounds like a way to weasel out of recognizing homosexual relationships. I say take the churches out of marriage.

[Hugo]

Under your scheme, would the state still legally recognize marriages?

No, because it has no place doing so. Marriage is not a legal matter, it is a social matter. Maybe you see marriage as political, but I don't, I see it as cultural. I don't think it's a good idea for the state to be involved in cultural and religious matters anymore than I think it is a good idea for churches to be involved in politics.

If you agree with the concept of a big state and believe that government will always do the right thing, I would remind you that secular government has been the biggest murderer and rights abuser of all time (religious wars, persecutions and hatreds are utterly insignificant beside it) and that 176,000,000 people have been murdered this century by some government with too much power - and that's a fairly conservative estimate. To my mind, if there isn't a clear need for government to be in something, it shouldn't be in it.

I say take the churches out of marriage.

State involvement in family and cultural institutions has a very bad track record, for instance, the Marxist ideals of denial of women's sexual freedom, decriminalisation of rape and abolition of parenting and family.

Take the state out and what recourse does one have if a marriage goes awry.

Whatever recourse is allowed to you under the cultural institution that you were married by and, of course, existing property law. There isn't really a need for divorce law as it exists currently.

[Black Dog]

No, because it has no place doing so. Marriage is not a legal matter, it is a social matter. Maybe you see marriage as political, but I don't, I see it as cultural. I don't think it's a good idea for the state to be involved in cultural and religious matters anymore than I think it is a good idea for churches to be involved in politics.

But marriage is a legal matter. It is also a social matter and, obviously, a political matter. So it doesn't fit in just one of your boxes.

State involvement in family and cultural institutions has a very bad track record,

Religion's track record in family and cultural matters ain't so hot either. But this isn't a pissing contest.

Whatever recourse is allowed to you under the cultural institution that you were married by and, of course, existing property law.

So you'd be okay with, say, Musilm sharia law being used to settle divorce cases? How about the Mormon sects that practice polygamy? Are you okay with that too, then?

[August1991]

No, because it has no place doing so. Marriage is not a legal matter, it is a social matter.

I agree with BD (for once). Marriage is essentially a long term contract - very much like a long term employment contract - designed to reduce opportunistic behaviour. Why would anyone voluntarily enter into such a contract? Cost of renegotiating every year is one reason but more likely to avoid the risks inherent in the renegotiation (i.e. think hockey players...)

But Hugo, I get your point. Why does the State have to be involved in these contracts?

Well, in Quebec with the Civil Code, that is inevitable. But even elsewhere, it makes sense to have a standard, one-size fits all marriage contract, subject to special clauses. Once agian though, need it be the State that does this?

Indeed, the recognition of spousal benefits (CPP and so on) or of reponsibilities (taxes, welfare) is quite different from the marriage contract as such. A private insurer may choose to impose these and the State could too.

My own call? If people want to contract, and their actions harm no one else, then why stop them? The State could let individuals to do this on their own. Call it the McDonaldization of marriage®.

It seems to me the ongoing issue of marriage is mostly semantic. Many people, traditionalist, don't want the word to be adopted except for a contractbetween a woman and a man. In addition, many people are still uncomfortable with all of the implications of "individual freedom".

[August1991]

So you'd be okay with, say, Musilm sharia law being used to settle divorce cases? How about the Mormon sects that practice polygamy? Are you okay with that too, then?

It happens now. As long as there is no infringement of the Criminal Code, who cares. Commercial arbitration is largely private and takes place under the laws chosen by the signing parties. What's the problem?

[Black Dog]

The whole scheme just seems like an awful lot of trouble, and for what?

If people want to contract, and their actions harm no one else, then why stop them?

Change the word contract to "gay marriage" and I'm with you 100 per cent.

[August1991]

How about calling it just "marriage"? Is that fair and square, straightforward and, er, well, you know.

Separate question: Is Harper's problem that he's a social conservative? (ie. against gay long term contracting)

Heck, even The Economist is in favour.

[willy]

Aw, I see open tolerant views all around. If you are for gay marriage you are open minded, and if you are a member of any organized religion not.

Give your head a shake and realize marriage is a meaningful institution for a number of people.

[KrustyKidd]

Give your head a shake and realize marriage is a meaningful institution for a number of people.

I agree, I take it very seriously too. I want to marry you Willy. I am married to a few other people, do we need to know each other or can we do it like this. Just say I do. I am straight but don't think that sex is importent in a marrige, matter of fact, is there a reason why I even have to know you? Matter of fact, isn't our right to be able to marry even if neither one of us wants it? I mean, if you don't and I do, what the hell is your problem? You not knowing me and never having to have anything to do with me , should that stand in my way of being happy? I want to marry you Willy, and one by one, all the members of this forum.

I also want to marry Cretien, and my Grandfather, my nieghbors daughter, the fire hydrant down the street.

Come with me Willy, there is no bounds to our love!!!!!.

[Hugo]

But marriage is a legal matter. It is also a social matter and, obviously, a political matter. So it doesn't fit in just one of your boxes.

I just don't see how. Marriage has become a political issue, but it did not start that way. Marriage is about as political as senate reform is cultural, and the institution of marriage has nothing to do with the duties and obligations of the state.

So you'd be okay with, say, Musilm sharia law being used to settle divorce cases?

As August said, as long as it conformed with the Criminal Code, fine. In this way, we aren't going to see adulterous Muslim wives stoned or Hindu wives thrown on funeral pyres because it is a breach of criminal law. As long as we are within the boundaries of criminal law, what place does the state have meddling in social and cultural customs?

The State could let individuals to do this on their own. Call it the McDonaldization of marriage®.

I would prefer to call it democratization of marriage. Basically, what we would be doing is taking a cultural institution away from the state that had hijacked it and returning it to the people.

The whole scheme just seems like an awful lot of trouble, and for what?

To arrest encroaching Canadian statism.

[Elder]

Hugo, I definitely like this idea. While I do like the tax benefits that marriages enjoy today, this would be fair, just, and in my oppinion, right. This is a social issue. Only recently (relatively speaking of course) has it become a political one, and IMHO, that was not a positive development.

There is one thing I wonder about. As soon as marriages stop becoming a political issue, will homosexuals still want to enter into a marriage (they still won't be getting the legal benefits, but this will be fair as no one else will either), or will they just drop the issue and live together out of wedlock, or will they perhaps start pushing for religious institutions to start performing marriages for them, despite that there are very few (if any) religions that support homosexuality? Just a thought........

[KrustyKidd]

One at a time, everybody, I will win your hearts. Even if I don't, I will find a way to overturn the court system. Nowhere does it say that I have to know you to marry you.

I'm comming!

[August1991]

I would prefer to call it democratization of marriage. Basically, what we would be doing is taking a cultural institution away from the state that had hijacked it and returning it to the people.

Here's an interesting idea, Hugo. Wedding rings. No law requires them, and no regulatory body verifies them. And yet I suspect many people look at fingers. And I suspect too that many people would say that a ring says more about a person's true situation than any government document.

This intervention of the State in personal affairs is in fact new. Since Bismarck primarily. As Chou En-Lai said, "History has yet to decide whether the French Revolution was successful."

[August1991]

I also want to marry Cretien, and my Grandfather, my nieghbors daughter, the fire hydrant down the street.

Come with me Willy, there is no bounds to our love!!!!!.

Listen KK, you and I know Chretien and Pappy are useless and I have no reason to be jealous. Even Willy is an obvious loser. But if you look at that fire hydrant again, you're going to be sleeping on the couch for the next week. Divorce? I'll take it so fast you won't know what happened to you...

[Elder]

Ok, you guys are officially freakin' me out, but that's ok. Any answers for my question? What would the gay community do if marriage wasn't so much a legal matter? I also like the idea of a wedding ring. Question, why is marriage a legal matter now in the first place. It's not like people are often prosecuted for adultry by the government unless it's in a divorce case, and that is a dispute between the husband and wife. Marriage is always between husband and wife.

[Black Dog]

Marriage is always between husband and wife.

people, people....make up your minds.

On the one hand, many of the same folks arguing for the state to get out of marriage are also arguing elsewhere that same sex marriages pose a grave threat to society.

But if a marriage is only a matter that concerns the individuals involved, then the gender of the participants shouldn't matter to anyone else or have an impact on society at large.

So: is marriage simply a "contract: between two people or is it, as many same-sex marriage opponents say, an institution that is vital to the function of society.

If the former, then gay marriage shouldn't be a problem. If the latter, then state involvment is not only justifiable, it is vital.

[Hugo]

So: is marriage simply a "contract: between two people or is it, as many same-sex marriage opponents say, an institution that is vital to the function of society.

Both, and the best way to safeguard it is to take it out of the political arena. Gay marriage would not be a problem if it was not such a hot ticket right now. About 3% of Canadians are gay, and of those, let's say 10% want to marry right now (it's probably a lot less). So, do we really feel that the actions of 0.3% of the population are going to have a massive impact on our society as a whole? I don't, and if we comply by the terms laid out above I would not oppose gay marriages. However, when the issues of this 0.3% are massively inflated so that they hit the headlines every day; while politicans and judges are busy rewriting and striking down laws left and right to satisfy that 0.3%, this is going to be a problem. In a democracy, a tiny minority shouldn't get to dictate terms to the rest of the country.

If the latter, then state involvment is not only justifiable, it is vital.

You, Blackdog, spend many, many posts telling us how the US government is so full of cronyism and corruption, and then you expect us to believe that government involvement is a good, nay, vital thing? Given the track record of the Canadian government and all the corruption and cronyism that has gone on, why would government involvement work any better here?

I'm sure you'll dodge this question, but I would like you to tell us all which of your two mutually contradictory opinions you actually hold.

[August1991]

There is one thing I wonder about. As soon as marriages stop becoming a political issue, will homosexuals still want to enter into a marriage (they still won't be getting the legal benefits, but this will be fair as no one else will either), or will they just drop the issue and live together out of wedlock, or will they perhaps start pushing for religious institutions to start performing marriages for them, despite that there are very few (if any) religions that support homosexuality? Just a thought........

Elder, your good questions seem to have been ignored. I hope I understood them well.

There's an idea about that "marriage" confers "benefits" and that's why gays want marriage. For example, I've heard that if gays understood that marriage meant "responsibilities" too, then fewer gays may want marriage. (The right wing has a tendency to be a strict nanny; the left wing a fun one.)

IMV, both left/right are wrong. Traditional marriage can only be seen as an agreement, publicly made, between a man and a woman to live together despite what happens. It's a contract - a long term one that says I give you all and you give me all. As in all contracts, there are benefits and costs. In this contract, the benefits and costs are unforeseen; one party breaches at peril.

Now, what if gays had the opportunity to sign such a contract? Well, they have always had this opportunity. Any two people can go to a notary (solicitor, lawyer) and draw up any agreement or contract. It will be enforceable according to the terms of the contract. In this, gays have been free to "marry" for ages.

Well, no. They couldn't use the word "marriage". They could only rewrite but not use the State or Religious contract. They were sometimes subject to criminal code violations.

Now, should the government get involved in such contracting? (That was Hugo's question.)

Should the government use such contracts, for example, in deciding immigration matters and paying out survivor benefits? What do private insurers do? What do you think? (BTW, both the State and private firms have been more or less doing this for about 20 years or so.)

"Pushing religious institutions?" IYV, is religious affiliation voluntary or involuntary? If it's voluntary, then the gays will just change their church and find an agreeable cleric. If it's involuntary, then the gays will not request forbidden marriage - how can they choose otherwise? IOW, a non-issue.

Should gays be able to say they're "married"? On this, I'll wait for a change in my dictionary, or a change in Globe & Mail usage. "The elderly woman, her spouse of 27 years, said that she had no reason to put her head in the oven..."

[Black Dog]

However, when the issues of this 0.3% are massively inflated so that they hit the headlines every day; while politicans and judges are busy rewriting and striking down laws left and right to satisfy that 0.3%, this is going to be a problem. In a democracy, a tiny minority shouldn't get to dictate terms to the rest of the country.

But no one's dictating terms to the rest of the country. The 3 per cent just want the same rights as the other 97 per cent. That's not special treatment, but basic equality.

You, Blackdog, spend many, many posts telling us how the US government is so full of cronyism and corruption, and then you expect us to believe that government involvement is a good, nay, vital thing? Given the track record of the Canadian government and all the corruption and cronyism that has gone on, why would government involvement work any better here?

Nice straw man.

Again: the government already oversees marriage and it works well enough. You're the one proposing the dramatic change to the nature of the institution from the current status quop. All I'm asking for is that it be tweaked to accomodate the 3 per cent (or whatever it is) of the population who can't marry now. Foreign policy has nothing to do with it.

[Hugo]

But no one's dictating terms to the rest of the country. The 3 per cent just want the same rights as the other 97 per cent. That's not special treatment, but basic equality.

Yes, and I have proposed a way to achieve that without statism and greater government power. What is wrong with that?

the government already oversees marriage and it works well enough.

Apparently not, given all the people who have a problem with it. Haven't you been reading the news?

Nice straw man.

Nice dodge (again). Do you want to answer that question now? Or is your answer that governments are corrupt and self-serving in foreign policy but saintlike in domestic policy? Because that's not what you said here.

Either way, there are some massive holes in your arguments that you should address.

[Black Dog]

Yes, and I have proposed a way to achieve that without statism and greater government power. What is wrong with that?

Your whole premise is flawed. Wher eis the call for greater government power in regards to marriage.

Nice dodge (again). Do you want to answer that question now? Or is your answer that governments are corrupt and self-serving in foreign policy but saintlike in domestic policy? Because that's not what you said here.

Either way, there are some massive holes in your arguments that you should address.

I'll take that as a compliment as it comes from the master of the dodge (your initail reply to my post stating

"So: is marriage simply a "contract: between two people or is it, as many same-sex marriage opponents say, an institution that is vital to the function of society.

If the former, then gay marriage shouldn't be a problem. If the latter, then state involvment is not only justifiable, it is vital.

was, in itself, a dodge.) But anyway...

Your attack is still a straw man.

Nowhere did I say that governments are "saintlike in domestic policy." You're a liar.

You, Blackdog, spend many, many posts telling us how the US government is so full of cronyism and corruption, and then you expect us to believe that government involvement is a good, nay, vital thing

Yes, I believe certain key areas, like health care, education and marriage, are best left to the state's devices. I also believe that the reality of governments today is they are are rife with corrption and greed. But they don't have to be.

So, rather than overhaul marriage, why not overhaul government?

[Hugo]

Yes, I believe certain key areas, like health care, education and marriage, are best left to the state's devices. I also believe that the reality of governments today is they are are rife with corrption and greed. But they don't have to be.

So, rather than overhaul marriage, why not overhaul government?

The problem is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts abolutely. As government expands, and comes to have jurisdiction over more and more facets of the nation, so they will become more corrupt. The only way to "overhaul" government to lessen corruption is to downsize it, and that includes booting it out of our social, religious and cultural lives. You cannot have a big and incorrupt government. It defies the nature of bureaucracies and of humans, and this is what is wrong with statism, as with most left-wing theories: it exists in defiance of reality and of all empirical evidence.

Nowhere did I say that governments are "saintlike in domestic policy." You're a liar.

In English, a question mark (?) transforms a sentence from a statement into a question. Therefore, according to the grammatical rules of English, I was not stating that you thought that, but I was asking you if you thought that.