There is one simple solution to the whole Marriage debate in this country that would solve the problems for everyone involved. Get Government out of the Marriage business all together.
Marriage is a very personal and often sacred or religious type of an arrangement. There are people who marry one time and some who marry many different spouses over a lifetime. In other countries there are same sex couples and in yet other countries there are mulitiple spouses. In some places more than one wife or husband is a normal marriage arrangement. Different religions have different practices, and thus the multifarious directions a marriage has taken throughout history.
Who is to say what is the right marriage? To do so would be to sanction one particular religion over the others. This is not what America is about. America is about Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. This is what makes America America and not Saudi Arabia.
So why is America even involved in a religious custom? Good Question! It shouldn't be. America should have no part of the marriage business at all. No Same-Sex Marriages, no Polygamous marriages, no "Traditional" Marriages, nothing. It should be up to the individuals involved that are getting married and their marrying organization or church if they chose to have one.
What does this mean for Partner and Marriage law? That will be revamped, but here is how...
Everyone pays their own taxes. Parents are still parents, and that is a legal issue to become a parent just like before. A deadbeat dad will still have to pay child support regardless of what arrangement the parents had. To replace the shared wealth of current marriage, people will be able to enter a "shared union" where a group of two or more people share what ever they decide on sharing in the self designed contract and according to the stipulations of that contract. Visitation rights, etc. in hospitals are allowed when people enter a "shared union" contract.
What of Work benefits? They will of course be decided by the company. But the benefits could be that each employee gets coverage of themself and one other person like a buddy or an uncle, or a spouse, what ever it is, each person gets one. That is just an example. Another company may say each person gets to cover 4 people that all live in the same dwelling. Or a person they are married to, since there will be marriages still, just without any governmental legal implications.
Finally, there is the question of immigration. That will have to be debated for a good answer, but one possible idea is that one natural birth citizen is entitled to bring in one non-citizen for citizenship if they want. But the person must dwell together for a period of time upon arrival. What ever it is, it will all work out the same as marriage before, but also allow the non-wed partner, or same-sex partner a chance also.
The bottom line is that the U.S. is a country based on Freedom. The freedom of EVERY religion, and no establisment of one religion over another. So we need to get Marriage out of our goverment and give marriage back to us. Back to the families and back to the people.
Very well put, sound logic and reasoning! Man, wouldnt that be something, the government not being involved in marrige!? But, good ole W in washington was elected by Jesus, so, sadly I think we'll have to wait a few years for the government to get out of religion.
~GB
I like that idea. It not only would bring more equality among people but would treat those in a marriage as individuals.
Hey, they have to set laws. First off sure it sounds good off the bat, you want them to stay clear of marriage? no laws? So can a 7 year old marry her dad? Why not? Because we need rules. Now I am not against same sex marriage, however I am against everything else.
Polygamous marriages will bring disorder. Look at Utah. A Man with permission to marry 12 women? with who knows how many kids, who will pay for that? If this was allowed the old men would get all the girls, and what would the boys be left with?
Well, there do need to be limits on who can enter these arrangements to keep minors from exploitation. That is why these have to be between Adults only (over 18 at least). The old man who has many women would have to have some deep pockets. What about the women that marry 5 or 6 men to off set that? It would seem pretty complex at first, but since there are no special benefits from marriage, then I don't think it would matter too much. And there are already many kids being popped out, I don't think a polygamous arrangement would produce any more than multiple regular marriages. It would be interesting to see what happens, but on the whole I think people would be much happier and families would be stronger if families were created in ways that made everyone happy and able to chose their own style that fits them.
Well I guess. But truely, how many people would go for this style? So many men and women get so jealous, I don't think many would do it. Do you mean that the word "marriage" should be done away with? What about welfare? Don't you think it makes too many problems?
I agree, It's trouble enough dealing with one significant other! I don't think polygamy would be too popular, which is why it wouldn't really have much effect on the numbers of singles out there for the rest of us to chose a mate from.
Government has intervention in everything. Give it a couple of years and the USA will be a 1984, if we are not already.
Unless I misunderstood your comment, it is now okay to look at someone and say "you're ugly, you should wear make-up".
Is our society really becoming that arrogant?
-Kristen
I have no Idea where make-up comes into this discussion, but I don't think anyone has a need to say "Your Ugly" to anyone, because there is beauty in everyone so one can focus on that instead. The government doesn't have to intervene in evererything of course. Just like the government has removed itself from other things through privitization, and discontinuation of different programs, it can remove itself from marriage also.
Government has intervention in everything. Give it a couple of years and the USA will be a 1984, if we are not already.
Unless I misunderstood your comment, it is now okay to look at someone and say "you're ugly, you should wear make-up".
Is our society really becoming that arrogant?
-Kristen
Well, that is why we need to vote so it doesn't turn into 1984
I think you are missing a huge point here. If you think that the Government should stay out of marriage, the Church is still going to get the final say. The vast majority of church communities and religions are opposed to gay marriage. So even if the government is completely hands-off the Church will still, almost always, turn down a same sex couple... and I bet that will be where you will ironically ask the government to step back in and legislate something to force the church to allow these marriages.
No, a church can marry who ever they want. If someone's church doesn't marry them, that's the churches problem. They lost some customers. There are plenty of options. If you don't have a church that lets you be a woman, with multiple husbands for instance, start one! It's as simple as that. The government should NEVER Tell a Church who they can or can't marry, that is just rediculous.
I want to vote you for president.... when is the next election?
VERY good article
Hahaha! Thanks! How about YOU run, and I'll just be your policy advisor!
I know this is a kind of old post, but I just wanted to say I totally agree with most of what you said. If you're going to use religious principles to define marriage, then individual churches should define marriage without government imput, and the government should have a separate way (such as civil unions or what you were calling shared unions) of recognizing those who are in a relationship where they wish to share property, income, taxes, expenses, and legal rights. The government recognized unions should be open to any legal adults, regardless of race, gender, etc., who meet the requirements (I would say things living in the same household the majority of the time, and being able to contribute x in order to enter more then one such union, but what ever the requirements might be they would apply equally to everyone and not be based on religious biases).
I'm with you. When people say "the sanctity of marriage" they are refferring to it as a union between a man a woman and God (probably in that oder!!), and not as what it really is. A human institution created for financial or political help. It was created for alliances and dowries. The rest of it is just making things official that you a monogamous. do we need a liscense to do that?
Maggie