Here's an idea, and I'm surprised I haven't posted it before now:
Take gay rights out of the argument.
Take civil rights out of the argument.
The problem is unequal treatment of married and single adults.
If, as I understand it, registering a marriage with the state is desirable because it bestows certain legal and/or financial rights -- then it's not the marriage that's the problem, it's the legal and financial benefits. If we are talking about discrimination, then legal benefits granted by the state to married people are legal benefits unfairly withheld from me as a single person.
Right now, I have to prepare legal forms, get witnesses, and distribute the completed forms to appropriate people so that if I'm hospitalized and can't make decisions, others can get medical information about me, and make decisions on my behalf. I shouldn't have to do that. I should make similar arrangemens about what happens to my body when I die. But if I was married, my spouse would have those rights without any paperwork. Estate rights could be handled the same way (all this in absence of other arrangements, wills, etc.)
I should be able to specify someone as a spouse, next-of-kin, whatever we want to call it, when I register to vote, or get a drivers' license, or pay taxes, to deal with these and other matters. Marriage doesn't need to be involved there.
My understanding (and I don't have a reference for this, sorry) is that some of these benefits came into play as a way to strengthen the nuclear family and thereby strengthen our society. But the nuclear family is no longer the norm (if it ever was.) It's time to re-think this whole idea.
The parentage of children should be identified through birth certificates or adoption papers. Marriage isn't required for this either. (For that matter, if I have a child, and two other people are willing to raise that child with me, why can't I list all three of us as parents?)
I see two main benefits here.
First, marriage can continue to be registered by the government. If no government benefits are attached, there's no discrimination. The onus of equal treatment lands back with the churches, who are the ones making decisions about who can marry. If a church performs a marriage, the government can record it if requested. No benefits attached. (There should be a governmental equivalent - like British registry offices. The records made by the government should be exactly the same for state and religious unions.)
Second, instead of fighting for change for a small portion of the citizenry, and having to deal with questions of so-called morality, the change would benefit all unmarried adults. Armed forces members who have estranged or deceased parents would certainly benefit. People who are over 21 but have not built families of their own would benefit. Widows and widowers. Suddenly you have a lot more people involved, and the question becomes one of fairness, rather than one of morality.
There is a strategic order in which each change would have to be made - but when they're all in, it would be fair.
Wild hairs before bedtime. Still, it's an interesting thought.
(This is not a response to Rick; it just got tagged that way.)
Last edited by Mellowicious; 01/23/09 03:09 AM.
