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.
What about property rights? For example, in California and other community property states, married couples have equal rights to all property gained during the marriage. Would there be similar rights under your system?
In either case, what happens when people who register decide to end it? Would a system of "ending it" at will be good for children? For non-working spouses?
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 have no objection to multiple partner relationships, but who pays for the child? How is it enforced? Is it really healthy for "parents" to be able to come and go with complete freedom?
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.
Actually, if the government is even involved that minimally it gives rise to inequality. It would seem that there should be, in your system, only a single kind of registry. Else government will be involved in what inevitably is a discriminatory system.
Or does the next sentence of yours deal with this (i.e., when you say "register marriage" are you just saying they can register the exact same form?
(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.
I don't think this is true. Can you explain how armed forces members, widows and widowers would benefit?
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.)
What you propose is of course a much more drastic revamping of our laws than merely granting gays the right to marriage, which I gather you understand. But if the religious element has a problem with gay marriage, you are feeding them raw meet with taking away really every aspect of favoring stable relationships.
Now don't get me wrong, there is much about what you wrote that I support. I am, if it needs restating, not a fan of marriage at all. But I have practiced law in this area for too many years to have as much faith in people to self regulate when it comes to such matters as children, property and stability.
I could forsee this battle lasting many decades and am not at all clear who would wage it. Thank you, but while you battle it out give me my rights, please.
