(no subject)

[urocyon]

Marriage is not a legitimate concern of the state.

I have changed the text, believing that it is based on more than one faulty premise. anejo makes a good point; the original sounds fluffily nice, but doesn't really address the problem. erectheus offers a good explanation for his choice of revision, from a Christian religious standpoint.

My main objection, however, stems from a conviction that the entire issue should be moot, were the government behaving in any proper manner. The usual model of civil marriage is clearly based on a particular religious and cultural concept of what marriage should be, and no government which claims not to overtly promote any specific religious belief should set it forth as the one true standard. The state should not decide what one type of romantic relationship is acceptable, and strongly encourage its citizens to follow that pattern by bribing them with perks which are otherwise difficult--or impossible--to obtain. To then insist that it is proper to interfere with the aim of "preserving" these relationships is a truly amazing demonstration of gall.

I'm trying not to get started on some of the half-baked, supposedly nonreligious arguments I've heard. Perhaps the most frustrating is the "basic social unit" one. If it's such a universal and fundamental social unit, I'd really think it could do a fine job of promoting and preserving itself.

Take away the religious underpinnings--frequently unconscious, but still obvious enough--and what is left is a simple enough set of contracts. Enforcing contracts through civil proceedings, no matter the parties to said contracts, is a perfectly reasonable concern of the state. Were the special tidbits currently reserved for people who sign up for (ostensibly) heterosexual, monogamous, lifetime partnerships made available to others, all the legalities covered under the civil marriage umbrella could easily be handled by a contract or two, even under the current system. Ideally, this wouldn't be necessary, but we do live in a world of contracts.

None of this has any bearing on what a person might like to do in terms of religious marriage--in fact, "marriage" really ought to be considered a religious term. There has been far too much confusion on this point. Contracts providing economic benefit and security are one thing; feeling like you're properly married, whatever your definition may be, is another.

I have found myself going a bit ranty in a couple of people's comments about similar points, over the past few months, and this looked like a good opportunity to summarize my thoughts. It does strike me as rather amusing that, having been opposed to the idea for some time, I do find myself currently planning to get legally married, largely because it's the most expedient thing to do. They really can manage to suck you in with those incentives. *wry grin*

Comments

[ivy]

I agree with you almost entirely, and nearly changed the text when posting it in my journal for similar reasons. [grin] I ended up going for an explanation preceding the banner and unchanged text, simply because I thought that it flowed better as is. It doesn't offend my truthful sensibilities; I take it at "marriage is love (plus more)", where more == legal benefits.

Again, I hear you with a "not a big fan of marriage, but did it/doing it for importation purposes". Heh. That said, if I had a serious girlfriend of years standing right now, I would really be considering proposing to her. The incentive in that case would not be importation, but adding our voices to the "yes, there are many of us, we have votes, we matter, we want equal rights and will take them" roar. I don't care so much about who's on whose insurance; I do care about letting politicians know that I feel very strongly on this issue.

Absolutely, the entire issue should be moot, in a proper government. However, I think it unlikely that your/my ideal model is going to manifest any time soon, so this is a far better second choice than "straight people can, everyone else cannot".

Re:

[urocyon-c.livejournal.com]

Agreed, my hastily-changed version doesn't flow particularly well. :)

The incentive in that case would not be importation, but adding our voices to the "yes, there are many of us, we have votes, we matter, we want equal rights and will take them" roar.

I feel the same way about that, and would likely feel a strong urge to propose, as well. Though I have a tendency to take off on rather idealistic rants, I recognise that we're stuck in a far from ideal system at the moment, and have to work for what we can.

[caitriona-nnc.livejournal.com]

This is the closest version to what I believe. I haven't wanted to post any of these, largely for the reasons you cite. But I may just do this one... even if I tinker with it slightly :-)

Re:

[urocyon-c.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'd resisted up to this point, but felt an urge this time 'round. I'd imagine you could manage some less ungainly tinkering than I did, though. *g*

[saigh-allaidh.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I nearly didn't post it because of the text...but I'm uncertain how comfortable I am with just changing the text if I'm using the rest of the code as is. This is how it's offered, unless I speak with the creator then I'm not sure I will change it.

I agree with what you are saying. I don't feel the government has any business in the bedrooms of consenting adults. And I was married months before we got the piece of paper from the state, which we did only because of insurance issues. But I am also pessimistic that anything major will change soon...while I have the choice to get the legal paper that's called a marriage license so that I can get insurance (or other next-of-kin rights) then I believe it should be open to all. But really, the Right is correct in their fears...I really DO want to see the institution of CIVIL marriage done away with completely. ~;)

Re:

[urocyon-c.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was less than comfortable for that reason, but did leave a note that I had done so in the requested comment in the creator's journal; though after the fact, it still struck me as better than doing so with no notice at all.

*nod* Unfortunately, I don't see things changing greatly anytime soon, either--the current pattern is just too ingrained. I'm the first to admit that I can get a little quixotic about political issues, but it's so easy to do. *g* Getting less-popular ideas into wider circulation rarely hurts. Living in the current system is a different matter, of course, so the present legal benefits really should be open to everyone; it still amazes me that anyone manages to paint that as anything other than basic fairness. But I'm amazed a lot. *sigh*

Re:

[saigh-allaidh.livejournal.com]

I ended up changing it...and I put a note in about it. Although at this point if it gets read it would be amazing. LOL

I still have a quixotic streak myself, but am also cynical and pessimistic...which may actually confirm that I am actually just psychotic. LOL

I will be ranting later on the whole marriage thing, based on this thread as well as another someone brought up on poly stuff. That is if I wake up enough. If not it might be a few days. Or never. Ugh...I need to get outdoors and see if the cold will wake me up.