This editorial on CNN.com, titled Why the Marriage Gap Is Bad for America raises some interesting issues.At its core, though, there is a fallacy of logic. The author equates "marriage" with "stable family." Then she invokes government intervention into the institution as a solution to the problem. I disagree on both counts.
Back in the days of cave painting and sleeping on bearskins, women were considered property. When possession was transferred from her father's family to her chosen mate's (in exchange for consideration), there was a ceremony marking the occasion.
Upon that transfer, the male could now have sex with this woman, as she now belonged to him. In many cases, little or none of this was her choice.
Thus, "marriage" was a social sanction for having sex. This is not to say that sex never happened outside of that structure, but there were considerable risks involved. Even in today's primitive societies, the penalties for sex outside of marriage - especially for women - can be draconian.
Fast forward a bit, and religious sanction of this union becomes predominant, but the effect is largely the same.
As western society became more secular, and religion moved out of the role of government, the secular governments moved into the role of "licensing" marriages, and churches were parallel, but not legally binding, authorities.
Until a couple of decades ago, marriage was a contract from which neither party could withdraw unless fault was found in the other. This, too, goes back to a religious tradition. It is nearly unique in law. What other contracts or partnerships exist from which voluntary withdrawal is simply not allowed except through misconduct of the other party? You may have to pay a penalty, but you can always break a lease.
What is the appropriate role of government today?
In most modern societies, marriage provides a structure establishing a legal partnership for obligations, sharing property, and should the need arise, and there is no prior agreement otherwise, a default structure for dissolving that partnership.
It unfortunately is still used to establish whether a loving relationship is "legitimate" and (far worse) whether any children resulting from that relationship are "legitimate," (Fortunately we are getting past that in most places.)
Then there is the "social conservative" angle.
To be clear, a "social conservative" is someone who believes in using threat of government sanction to impose their religious behavioral standards upon others.
To the social conservatives, marriage comes down to a license to have sex. In other words, sex is a sin unless it is sanctioned by an outside enforced agreement of fidelity called a "marriage." This is why they are in such an uproar over marriages between same-sex couples. Since that form of sex is a sin, government should be forbidding it, not licensing it. The same goes for poly marriages, though those have yet to be brought under attack in the courts. Wait.
Let's get government out of the business of who is having sex with whom altogether.
The institution of "domestic partnership" is all government should apply. And even that should simply be a default structure, which can be altered by mutual agreement of all parties. The agreement is basically a prenup. It defines how property rights are established, obligations for child care, survivor rights, and establishes a relationship of "family" in the eyes of various social institutions who restrict services to family members.
We eliminate "marriage licenses" altogether, and replace them with a simple fee-for-service for recording the document.
Wait a minute - why record anything? I sign, you sign, she signs, we get it notarized, and its good to go. What does government need to do at all? Let's save the tax money for important things.
If a religious couple wants to "get married" they can do it in a church, just like the old days. There is no reason the church can't sanction the agreement. It is just the government doesn't recognize different levels of them.
Just a ramble for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment