by Doctor Science
Yesterday President Obama ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. In honor of the occasion, I decided to read the copy of What Is Marriage? by Robert George (and two male grad students) I’d downloaded when I saw various people talking about it as a serious, intellectual defense of the DOMA position. Robert George is a Princeton politics full professor who is supposed to bring the big guns in conservative thought, a guy who can argue for natural law like a latter-day Aquinas. Or so they tell me.
Now I’ve read it, and if this is the best they’ve got, no wonder the Traditional Marriage people are in trouble. No wonder the defense in the trial against California’s Proposition 8 was unable to field a single witness the Judge found “expert”. This paper is, technically speaking, bunk.
Here’s what I mean by “bunk”. George et al. define defined “the conjugal view” as
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit.
They then argue that marriage must necessarily conform to this “conjugal view”:
Real Marriage Is—And Is Only—The Union of Husband and Wife
As many people acknowledge, marriage involves: first, a comprehensive union of spouses; second, a special link to children; and third, norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity. All three elements point to the conjugal understanding of marriage.
The “many people” who they cite as acknowledging this definition are contemporary political figures or gay rights activists. There are no historians or anthropologists, nor does George appear to have reflected, even for a moment, upon the works of, say, Jane Austen. Or the Bible.
The Biblical story of the patriarch Jacob is a particularly clear test case for a truly old-time definition of marriage. As you may recall, the Bible is quite clear that Jacob had legitimate children by four women (Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah), was married to two of them (Leah and Rachel), but loved only one, Rachel. So what made only the relationships with Leah and Rachel “marriages”? It wasn’t children, and it wasn’t love. Indeed, his marriage to Leah was a deceptive trick that didn’t even pass the basic test of consent — he thought he was marrying Rachel, but Leah was switched in, instead.
The defining factor, what makes some of Jacob’s relationships “marriage” and others not, is, anthropologically speaking, “affine relationships” — in-laws. Leah and Rachel were Jacob’s wives because he paid a bride-price to Laban (his uncle and also employer) for them. Indeed, the fact that Laban could switch Leah for Rachel and have the marriage still count proves that Jacob’s relationship to Laban was the crux — it was more important than Laban be Jacob’s father-in-law than that Jacob marry a particular woman, at least legally.
Now, let’s go back to George et al’s definition, which has three parts.
1. A comprehensive union of spouses, which they explain means “a sharing of lives and resources, and a union of minds and wills”. This is very pretty, but it doesn’t match up to the knowledge available to anyone who’s read the basic canon of Western literature (which can be a fairly good anthropological study of upper-class European marriage patterns for the past thousand years). In that culture, as in many others, a wife *never* had total or comprehensive rights to her husband’s property while he was alive, and rarely had the automatic right to control it when he was dead. The idea that marriage was “a union of minds and wills” could only make a present-day Jane Austen say LOLWHUT. Psychic soul-bonds are *fiction*, dude, while the very best fiction is often about the inevitable disunion of minds and wills in marriage.
2. A special link to children for George et al. involves “bearing and rearing children together.” Imagine this being said by a man from Shakespeare’s day and you will see how absurd it is: he would point out that child-bearing is perforce the task of woman alone (a fact that seems to have escape Professor George), and child-rearing is hers by both custom and nature. The legitimacy of a marriage and a child thereof is completely undisturbed if events such as shipwreck or war separate a man from his wife from the time the child is conceived until its adulthood. For the nobility — and even more for royalty — child-rearing was not a task for either parent, and the idea that their marriage was organized around doing it *together* would have seemed patently ridiculous.
Obviously, most people were not royalty nor nobility. But royal and noble marriages are *extremely* well -documented, and I’m going to assume that any educated person — even Professor George’s wet-behind-the-ears colleagues — will be familiar with the basics of how they worked. At the upper levels, marriage was *all* about kinship, property, and their intersection, inheritance. Yes, there was “a special link to children”: marriage determined children’s *status*, their place in the kinship networks that are central to every human society. And all this was bound up inextricably in property.
For instance, in Boswell’s Life of Johnson:
I talked of legitimation by subsequent marriage, which obtained in the Roman law, and still obtains in the law of Scotland. JOHNSON. ‘I think it a bad thing; because the chastity of women being of the utmost importance, as all property depends upon it, they who forfeit it should not have any possibility of being restored to good character; nor should the children, by an illicit connection, attain the full right of lawful children, by the posteriour consent of the offending parties.
In other words, to Johnson marriage was important not because it was good for children, but because children conceived in marriage were good for property, which was good for society.
At another point, Boswell is feeling doubtful about the double standard — that is, that married women had to be faithful, while married men did not. Johnson
talked of the heinousness of the crime of adultery, by which the peace of families was destroyed. He said, ‘Confusion of progeny constitutes the essence of the crime; and therefore a woman who breaks her marriage vows is much more criminal than a man who does it. A man, to be sure, is criminal in the sight of God: but he does not do his wife a very material injury, if he does not insult her; if, for instance, from mere wantonness of appetite, he steals privately to her chambermaid. Sir, a wife ought not greatly to resent this. I would not receive home a daughter who had run away from her husband on that account.
Which brings us to
3. permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity. I hate to break it to Prof. George, but permanence and exclusivity are not part of the social or even legal definition for marriage in the US today. Monogamy (= only one per customer) is, but there are plenty of marriage systems in which that is not the case — the one in which Jacob, Leah and Rachel lived, for example. To claim that marriages in our system are “more real” than ones in polygamous societies shows IMO a really poor understanding of the term “real”.
Contemporary American marriages usually aspire to exclusivity, but that is a recent cultural development compared to the thousands of years over which the institution as we know it has been developing. I’m not referring to exclusivity on the part of the wife, of course, but that of the husband. I don’t think male infidelity was considered a devastating blow to a marriage or grounds for divorce in any Western society before the 20th century — as long as the husband didn’t support his other women (and their children) at the same level as his wife or acknowledge them in public, he could dally with whomever he wanted, as Doctor Johnson says above.
I could analyze the rest of this paper in comparable detail, but I don’t see the point. Their definition of marriage “points to the conjugal understanding” because it is based on it: it’s a nicely circular argument without reference to history, anthropology, or reality. When you choose your premises so badly, your logic train has no where to go but down. Rob Tish at Waking Up Now is heroically going through the whole thing and I can only salute his sacrifice, which I admire but do not seek to emulate.
And yet, Robert George is the best they’ve got, the guy the New York Times calls this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker. No wonder, as Fred Clark puts it, that their arguments in the courts sound like [cricket. … cricket. … tumbleweed.].
What’s really astounding is that, when I was a youngling, *conservatives* were the ones you could count on to know history and the canon of Western lit; liberals were the ones who said “hey, dude, don’t be square.” Now it seems as though it’s conservatives, the supposed followers of tradition and the wisdom of the past, who know nothing about history. What are they teaching them in these schools?
Some recommended reading for Robert George and his associates:
Thomas Mann’s Joseph and His Brothers is a wonderful midrash or fanfic about Jacob, his marriages, and the way his family developed.
I knew to look for quotes in Boswell because of The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500-1800 by Lawrence Stone.
Project Gutenberg has the complete works of Jane Austen.
The conjugal view has been the sole perception of marriage in common countries for centuries, until the last 3 decades or so, updated periodically to eventually recognizes the spouses as legal equals. I support gay marriage, but the conjugal view isn’t something made up last week or 20 years ago. It is an idealized view of marriage, not a recognition of marriage as a human and therefore imperfect institution.
My quarrel with conjugal exclusivists is that they think their definition (1) has or should have the force of law and (2) that the definition is the sole definition.
The essence of individual liberty coupled with equal protection under the law is that Group A does not get to define the lives and relationships of Group B, if Group B consists of adult citizens who propose nothing that harms or impairs the rights of a third person and if the activity proposed by Group B imposes no greater burden on the state than identical conduct by Group A. Put differently, Group A cannot reserve for themselves privileges/rights that are not equally available to Group A and not violate fundamental constitutional principles.
The conjugal view has been the sole perception of marriage in common countries for centuries, until the last 3 decades or so, updated periodically to eventually recognizes the spouses as legal equals. I support gay marriage, but the conjugal view isn’t something made up last week or 20 years ago. It is an idealized view of marriage, not a recognition of marriage as a human and therefore imperfect institution.
My quarrel with conjugal exclusivists is that they think their definition (1) has or should have the force of law and (2) that the definition is the sole definition.
The essence of individual liberty coupled with equal protection under the law is that Group A does not get to define the lives and relationships of Group B, if Group B consists of adult citizens who propose nothing that harms or impairs the rights of a third person and if the activity proposed by Group B imposes no greater burden on the state than identical conduct by Group A. Put differently, Group A cannot reserve for themselves privileges/rights that are not equally available to Group A and not violate fundamental constitutional principles.
Any supporter of DOMA is in a tough spot.
a) DOMA is anti federalist which takes the wind out of the sails of the small government folks
b) defending DOMA requires reasoning for why discrimination is OK. Any full throated defense of this is going to turn off your more independent types that don’t want to get called bigots.
So what are you really left with as far as conservatives go? Fundies and Zealots?
Any supporter of DOMA is in a tough spot.
a) DOMA is anti federalist which takes the wind out of the sails of the small government folks
b) defending DOMA requires reasoning for why discrimination is OK. Any full throated defense of this is going to turn off your more independent types that don’t want to get called bigots.
So what are you really left with as far as conservatives go? Fundies and Zealots?
The link to Slacktivist’s post is broken. Also, it’s kind of odd to have both of these articles open at the same time for some reason…
The link to Slacktivist’s post is broken. Also, it’s kind of odd to have both of these articles open at the same time for some reason…
Geds:
Thanks, it was the old “a herf” problem.
Geds:
Thanks, it was the old “a herf” problem.
McKinneyTexas:
Obviously I did not make myself clear.
My post is about how NO, the conjugal view was NOT the sole or even main perception of marriage in centuries before the 20th. No definition of marriage that did not include the words “property”, “kinship”, or “inheritance” could be. In what way did I fail to make that point?
“a) DOMA is anti federalist which takes the wind out of the sails of the small government folks”
Are we using “anti-federalist” to mean opposition to a federalist system? I was under the impression that, in a “federalist” system, some matters are dealt with at the federal level, and some at the state or local. The DOMA apparently makes the definition of “marriage” a state level concern, and thus is not in any particular sense an “anti-federalist” measure. Well, not unless you’re defining “federalist” as though it meant federal supremacy…
My main reaction to this development, is that the next time the administration defends some law I find odious, and this action is defended on the basis that that’s what the DOJ does, defend federal laws, I’m entitled to call BS.
McKinneyTexas:
Obviously I did not make myself clear.
My post is about how NO, the conjugal view was NOT the sole or even main perception of marriage in centuries before the 20th. No definition of marriage that did not include the words “property”, “kinship”, or “inheritance” could be. In what way did I fail to make that point?
“a) DOMA is anti federalist which takes the wind out of the sails of the small government folks”
Are we using “anti-federalist” to mean opposition to a federalist system? I was under the impression that, in a “federalist” system, some matters are dealt with at the federal level, and some at the state or local. The DOMA apparently makes the definition of “marriage” a state level concern, and thus is not in any particular sense an “anti-federalist” measure. Well, not unless you’re defining “federalist” as though it meant federal supremacy…
My main reaction to this development, is that the next time the administration defends some law I find odious, and this action is defended on the basis that that’s what the DOJ does, defend federal laws, I’m entitled to call BS.
The DOMA apparently makes the definition of “marriage” a state level concern, and thus is not in any particular sense an “anti-federalist” measure.
Except that it attempts to negate the Full Faith & Credit clause in regards to mariages, without amending the Constitution.
The DOMA apparently makes the definition of “marriage” a state level concern, and thus is not in any particular sense an “anti-federalist” measure.
Except that it attempts to negate the Full Faith & Credit clause in regards to mariages, without amending the Constitution.
the next time the administration defends some law I find odious, and this action is defended on the basis that that’s what the DOJ does, defend federal laws, I’m entitled to call BS.
Well, bully for you! That and a dollar will get you a small coffee at Starbucks.
the next time the administration defends some law I find odious, and this action is defended on the basis that that’s what the DOJ does, defend federal laws, I’m entitled to call BS.
Well, bully for you! That and a dollar will get you a small coffee at Starbucks.
The DOMA apparently makes the definition of “marriage” a state level concern, and thus is not in any particular sense an “anti-federalist” measure.
Really? Wikipedia says that under DOMA, the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. That seems to contradict your assertion above.
I would think that a federalist position would be that states get to set their own standards for marriages and that the feds have to honor them. DOMA prevents that.
The DOMA apparently makes the definition of “marriage” a state level concern, and thus is not in any particular sense an “anti-federalist” measure.
Really? Wikipedia says that under DOMA, the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. That seems to contradict your assertion above.
I would think that a federalist position would be that states get to set their own standards for marriages and that the feds have to honor them. DOMA prevents that.
They’re not actually declining to defend the part about state recognition. They’re specifically only declining to defend Section 3, the part about the federal definition of marriage.
And their justification is pretty narrow; they’re specifically saying they can’t defend it in circuits where there is no existing precedent for sexual orientation discrimination falling under rational-basis scrutiny. I’ll leave it to lawyers to argue about whether this makes sense, but it’s narrower than “I don’t like this law”; it’s “I can’t in good faith argue that this section of the law meets intermediate or strict scrutiny, nor will I argue that sexual orientation falls under rational-basis scrutiny”.
They’re not actually declining to defend the part about state recognition. They’re specifically only declining to defend Section 3, the part about the federal definition of marriage.
And their justification is pretty narrow; they’re specifically saying they can’t defend it in circuits where there is no existing precedent for sexual orientation discrimination falling under rational-basis scrutiny. I’ll leave it to lawyers to argue about whether this makes sense, but it’s narrower than “I don’t like this law”; it’s “I can’t in good faith argue that this section of the law meets intermediate or strict scrutiny, nor will I argue that sexual orientation falls under rational-basis scrutiny”.
What Turbulence said.
DOMA pretty much is the federal government refusing to recognize a pretty obvious aspect of state power. It would be like the government saying states can elect whoever they want for senator… But the senate will only seat them if its a man.
What Turbulence said.
DOMA pretty much is the federal government refusing to recognize a pretty obvious aspect of state power. It would be like the government saying states can elect whoever they want for senator… But the senate will only seat them if its a man.
Actually Console, I think just fundies. It’s always been a bad law. CCDG could never support that level of usurpation? Of states rights if nothing else was wrong with it.
However, left to their own devices the states may continue to come up with the wrong answer. So this seems to me, just me, that the Justice Department sees an unfriendly Supreme amd is not inclined to set the precedent in front of this court.
Actually Console, I think just fundies. It’s always been a bad law. CCDG could never support that level of usurpation? Of states rights if nothing else was wrong with it.
However, left to their own devices the states may continue to come up with the wrong answer. So this seems to me, just me, that the Justice Department sees an unfriendly Supreme amd is not inclined to set the precedent in front of this court.
My post is about how NO, the conjugal view was NOT the sole or even main perception of marriage in centuries before the 20th. No definition of marriage that did not include the words “property”, “kinship”, or “inheritance” could be. In what way did I fail to make that point?
Well, I guess I disagree with your premise. The New Testament notion of marriage is two people, a man and a woman, becoming one flesh and having children, forsaking all others, etc. The NT was the western canon for the institution of marriage for 99% of England and eventually the commonwealth. That there were add-on’s including property, inheritance, etc. wasn’t new at the time and remains the case today, marital property rights being among the many courses I barely got by in. Only in the latter part of my lifetime has the notion that two men or two women could have a state sanctioned marriage been discussed. The conjugal view, or its functional equivalent, was the reason why and the manner in which the Church, both the Catholic Church prior to the break with the Church of England and then the Church of England, sanctioned marriage. It’s right there in the Book of Common Prayer, which is what, 450 years old or thereabouts?
My post is about how NO, the conjugal view was NOT the sole or even main perception of marriage in centuries before the 20th. No definition of marriage that did not include the words “property”, “kinship”, or “inheritance” could be. In what way did I fail to make that point?
Well, I guess I disagree with your premise. The New Testament notion of marriage is two people, a man and a woman, becoming one flesh and having children, forsaking all others, etc. The NT was the western canon for the institution of marriage for 99% of England and eventually the commonwealth. That there were add-on’s including property, inheritance, etc. wasn’t new at the time and remains the case today, marital property rights being among the many courses I barely got by in. Only in the latter part of my lifetime has the notion that two men or two women could have a state sanctioned marriage been discussed. The conjugal view, or its functional equivalent, was the reason why and the manner in which the Church, both the Catholic Church prior to the break with the Church of England and then the Church of England, sanctioned marriage. It’s right there in the Book of Common Prayer, which is what, 450 years old or thereabouts?
On the ‘full faith and credit’ and federal/state separation of powers, DOMA raises consistency problems for both sides. If the definition of marriage is a state law call, it follows that the Supreme Court cannot be in a position to say otherwise or to declare, as a matter of state law, that the equal protection clause mandates that states redefine marriage. So, proponents of finding the denial of gay marriage to be a denial of equal protection may want to revise some of their arguments against DOMA.
Phil’s point about full faith and credit is my view also. DOMA has otherwise strict constructionist switching places with the living constitutionalists.
On the ‘full faith and credit’ and federal/state separation of powers, DOMA raises consistency problems for both sides. If the definition of marriage is a state law call, it follows that the Supreme Court cannot be in a position to say otherwise or to declare, as a matter of state law, that the equal protection clause mandates that states redefine marriage. So, proponents of finding the denial of gay marriage to be a denial of equal protection may want to revise some of their arguments against DOMA.
Phil’s point about full faith and credit is my view also. DOMA has otherwise strict constructionist switching places with the living constitutionalists.
I just reread Dr. S’ quote from my comment.
“Common countries” should be “common law countries.”
I just reread Dr. S’ quote from my comment.
“Common countries” should be “common law countries.”
McKinney: you’re citing the Anglo-Saxon religious view of marriage for the last 5 centuries or so. Um. And then asserting that they’re exactly the same as Anglo-Saxon (nay, Western) legal views of marriage, without any evidence, or making any effort to refute Dr. S’s cited evidence that no, it’s a wee mite more complicated beyond passing references to “add-on’s” [sic]. That doesn’t really do enough to justify your assertion that said add-ons are necessarily to be viewed as utterly subservient to the aforementioned religious view of marriage when determining what the prevailing common view of marriage in the West is and has been…
McKinney: you’re citing the Anglo-Saxon religious view of marriage for the last 5 centuries or so. Um. And then asserting that they’re exactly the same as Anglo-Saxon (nay, Western) legal views of marriage, without any evidence, or making any effort to refute Dr. S’s cited evidence that no, it’s a wee mite more complicated beyond passing references to “add-on’s” [sic]. That doesn’t really do enough to justify your assertion that said add-ons are necessarily to be viewed as utterly subservient to the aforementioned religious view of marriage when determining what the prevailing common view of marriage in the West is and has been…
Envy, the view of marriage, as an ideal, is laid out in the Catholic and Church of England Rites of Marriage. They have been around for centuries and they are substantively indistinguishable from the conjugal view. And no, I am not saying they are the same as the legal view of marriage in whatever time period you want to pick. The legal rights attendant to marriage have changed over time, they predate the New Testament “one man, one woman, one flesh” and have continued to this day, evolving over time. I am simply saying that the understanding of marriage for centuries has been pretty much as the conjugal proponents contend. The evidence lies in written texts going back centuries.
Simply because that is the case is not an argument against gay marriage. Marriage today between a man and a woman, as a matter of civil law, is barely recognizable compared to the legal trappings 100 years ago. Thus, what was a ‘marriage’ then is not a ‘marriage’ now. Same for gay marriage. The time has come. History is pretty much irrelevant.
Envy, the view of marriage, as an ideal, is laid out in the Catholic and Church of England Rites of Marriage. They have been around for centuries and they are substantively indistinguishable from the conjugal view. And no, I am not saying they are the same as the legal view of marriage in whatever time period you want to pick. The legal rights attendant to marriage have changed over time, they predate the New Testament “one man, one woman, one flesh” and have continued to this day, evolving over time. I am simply saying that the understanding of marriage for centuries has been pretty much as the conjugal proponents contend. The evidence lies in written texts going back centuries.
Simply because that is the case is not an argument against gay marriage. Marriage today between a man and a woman, as a matter of civil law, is barely recognizable compared to the legal trappings 100 years ago. Thus, what was a ‘marriage’ then is not a ‘marriage’ now. Same for gay marriage. The time has come. History is pretty much irrelevant.
CC* Logic: Is the word “marriage” in the U.S. Constitution? No? Now wait a minute….Why, then..well, er, it doesn’t matter….we want what we want, and that makes it right.
QED
*CC=common conservatism. Conservatism as practiced by the hoi poloi, the great unwashed, the ignorant but virtuous masses, or the poor but petty. As opposed to the infinitely nubile rhetoric of High Conservatism (National Review, which see).
CC* Logic: Is the word “marriage” in the U.S. Constitution? No? Now wait a minute….Why, then..well, er, it doesn’t matter….we want what we want, and that makes it right.
QED
*CC=common conservatism. Conservatism as practiced by the hoi poloi, the great unwashed, the ignorant but virtuous masses, or the poor but petty. As opposed to the infinitely nubile rhetoric of High Conservatism (National Review, which see).
You are still missing the point.
The entire premise on which the anti-gay-marriage crowd’s argument is based is that there is this one specific thing that is “real” marriage, and that specific thing just happens to be their particular take on the concept. And that premise is completely, absolutely, one hundred percent demonstrably wrong. It’s not debatable and it’s not a matter of opinion at all: their premise flies in the face of both history and huge chunks of the book they like to cite as the basis for their rejection of SSM.
That their religiously-centered, one-man and one-woman-at-a-time take on marriage has been the typical form for a number of centuries is entirely beside the point. The point is that historically speaking, their take on marriage is a very recent phenomenon and it absolutely has not even been the norm for the majority of the time marriage has existed as a social construct.
Their premise fails right out of the starting gate, because it is demonstrably untrue that “real” marriage can only take this one form that they proscribe.
You are still missing the point.
The entire premise on which the anti-gay-marriage crowd’s argument is based is that there is this one specific thing that is “real” marriage, and that specific thing just happens to be their particular take on the concept. And that premise is completely, absolutely, one hundred percent demonstrably wrong. It’s not debatable and it’s not a matter of opinion at all: their premise flies in the face of both history and huge chunks of the book they like to cite as the basis for their rejection of SSM.
That their religiously-centered, one-man and one-woman-at-a-time take on marriage has been the typical form for a number of centuries is entirely beside the point. The point is that historically speaking, their take on marriage is a very recent phenomenon and it absolutely has not even been the norm for the majority of the time marriage has existed as a social construct.
Their premise fails right out of the starting gate, because it is demonstrably untrue that “real” marriage can only take this one form that they proscribe.
Could someone explain to me again why the government defines and promotes “marriage” at all? Is it so that people can justify discrimination against single mothers?
Could someone explain to me again why the government defines and promotes “marriage” at all? Is it so that people can justify discrimination against single mothers?
What’s the point of getting married, if one doesn’t want permanence and exclusivity?
What’s the point of getting married, if one doesn’t want permanence and exclusivity?
McKinneyTexas:
On this, we completely agree. *high fives*
The argument I’m making is that marriage in, say, Doctor Johnson’s day — the time of the American Revolution — wasn’t the “conjugal view”, either.
And I agree with you here, too.
Here I disagree.
The NT, conjugal marriage you reference was not the *basis* for marriage in Christendom for most of the past 2 millenia. Marriage as an institution — organized around concepts anthropologists would call kinship, property, and division of labor — had existed for thousands of years already, and didn’t change all that much under Christianity.
IIRC, a truly Christian take on marriage was practiced at various times in the first millennium, and was eventually dropped under pressure from the legal system and society in general. It involved the concept that marriage was a pledge between two loving, consenting adults, and that it didn’t require family approval or witnesses. Two people could say to each other, “we’re married”, and that would be enough.
But that wasn’t what society wanted or needed from marriage, and it didn’t fly. The Roman, Germanic, and evolving common law systems continued to need marriage to organize issues of kinship, property and status; it was the Christian conjugal marriage that was the add-on.
McKinneyTexas:
On this, we completely agree. *high fives*
The argument I’m making is that marriage in, say, Doctor Johnson’s day — the time of the American Revolution — wasn’t the “conjugal view”, either.
And I agree with you here, too.
Here I disagree.
The NT, conjugal marriage you reference was not the *basis* for marriage in Christendom for most of the past 2 millenia. Marriage as an institution — organized around concepts anthropologists would call kinship, property, and division of labor — had existed for thousands of years already, and didn’t change all that much under Christianity.
IIRC, a truly Christian take on marriage was practiced at various times in the first millennium, and was eventually dropped under pressure from the legal system and society in general. It involved the concept that marriage was a pledge between two loving, consenting adults, and that it didn’t require family approval or witnesses. Two people could say to each other, “we’re married”, and that would be enough.
But that wasn’t what society wanted or needed from marriage, and it didn’t fly. The Roman, Germanic, and evolving common law systems continued to need marriage to organize issues of kinship, property and status; it was the Christian conjugal marriage that was the add-on.
sapient:
Because rules for kinship (which in modern times includes many medical issues), property, and inheritance are central concerns of *any* legal system. Which is pretty much what Doctor Johnson was talking about.
No, against their children.
One function of strict monogamy is to create bastards. Only some children are real or “legitimate”, others are “illegitimate”, not quite real. Traditional, monogamous marriage is thus far from being “for the sake of the children”, it is directly opposed to taking care of some children. In particular, in the case of a high-ranking man who can attract and maintain more than one mate (a type that is found in every society that has ranks), lifelong monogamy means that only the children of one woman, his wife, can expect support and inheritance. The others are SOL.
sapient:
Because rules for kinship (which in modern times includes many medical issues), property, and inheritance are central concerns of *any* legal system. Which is pretty much what Doctor Johnson was talking about.
No, against their children.
One function of strict monogamy is to create bastards. Only some children are real or “legitimate”, others are “illegitimate”, not quite real. Traditional, monogamous marriage is thus far from being “for the sake of the children”, it is directly opposed to taking care of some children. In particular, in the case of a high-ranking man who can attract and maintain more than one mate (a type that is found in every society that has ranks), lifelong monogamy means that only the children of one woman, his wife, can expect support and inheritance. The others are SOL.
novakant:
Didn’t my post make it clear?
Kinship (including medical decision-making), property, and inheritance. Or rather, people often want permanent, clear kinship and property relationships, even if they don’t want a permanent, exclusive sexual relationshp.
novakant:
Didn’t my post make it clear?
Kinship (including medical decision-making), property, and inheritance. Or rather, people often want permanent, clear kinship and property relationships, even if they don’t want a permanent, exclusive sexual relationshp.
As far as permanence, I’ve seen people argue that for lots of cases, what we have is serial monogamy, in that people will be together and then move on. Some may think that divorce and remarriage is something for movie actors and talk show hosts, but I think it is a lot more prevalent, at least in the circles I have traveled, that one might think. I don’t think that they don’t NOT want permanence, but it is not the point of getting married. I’m not sure why permanance and exclusivity seem to be seen as being equivalent.
As far as permanence, I’ve seen people argue that for lots of cases, what we have is serial monogamy, in that people will be together and then move on. Some may think that divorce and remarriage is something for movie actors and talk show hosts, but I think it is a lot more prevalent, at least in the circles I have traveled, that one might think. I don’t think that they don’t NOT want permanence, but it is not the point of getting married. I’m not sure why permanance and exclusivity seem to be seen as being equivalent.
it attempts to negate the Full Faith & Credit clause in regards to mariages, without amending the Constitution.
I’m certainly no defender of the DOMA, but the one thing you cannot say is that it violates the “full faith & credit” clause:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
it attempts to negate the Full Faith & Credit clause in regards to mariages, without amending the Constitution.
I’m certainly no defender of the DOMA, but the one thing you cannot say is that it violates the “full faith & credit” clause:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Good point as usual, Dr. S., thanks for posting. It’s an interesting thing, I notice, that George, et.al. make their “arguments” about “traditional” marriage (i.e., an idealized and romanticized stereotype) with little or no reference to what, in this day and age, has to be at least as major a component of the marriage equation: the legal aspect (though McKinney hints at it).
Leaving aside all the family-shmamily sappiness, and the kinship-property-inheritance factors, George and the other anti-SSM drones always seem to elide the fact that “marriage” also carries with it a specific set of legal (state-recognized) rights, responsibilities and privileges – a valid contract (more-or-less) universally recognized under applicable law. And one whose denial to same-sex couples seems always to be argued on either sentimental grounds (which ought not to have much bearing on issues of law), or religious ones (which really ought not to have bearing on the law).
Of course, IMO, all the hoity-toity “moral” arguments against SSM are just cover for the maintenance of institutional homophobia; but I suppose it’s a positive development that they have to devise figleaf talking-points: “Teh Ghey is ICCCKKKYYYY!!!” isn’t enouigh by itself these days…..
Good point as usual, Dr. S., thanks for posting. It’s an interesting thing, I notice, that George, et.al. make their “arguments” about “traditional” marriage (i.e., an idealized and romanticized stereotype) with little or no reference to what, in this day and age, has to be at least as major a component of the marriage equation: the legal aspect (though McKinney hints at it).
Leaving aside all the family-shmamily sappiness, and the kinship-property-inheritance factors, George and the other anti-SSM drones always seem to elide the fact that “marriage” also carries with it a specific set of legal (state-recognized) rights, responsibilities and privileges – a valid contract (more-or-less) universally recognized under applicable law. And one whose denial to same-sex couples seems always to be argued on either sentimental grounds (which ought not to have much bearing on issues of law), or religious ones (which really ought not to have bearing on the law).
Of course, IMO, all the hoity-toity “moral” arguments against SSM are just cover for the maintenance of institutional homophobia; but I suppose it’s a positive development that they have to devise figleaf talking-points: “Teh Ghey is ICCCKKKYYYY!!!” isn’t enouigh by itself these days…..
No, that is the function of hopeful people who pretend at strict monogamy, and fail. It’s got nothing to do with actual strict monogamy.
If one does not, in actuality, stray outside of the boundaries of one’s marriage, no bastards will result.
Unless you know something I don’t, I mean.
No, that is the function of hopeful people who pretend at strict monogamy, and fail. It’s got nothing to do with actual strict monogamy.
If one does not, in actuality, stray outside of the boundaries of one’s marriage, no bastards will result.
Unless you know something I don’t, I mean.
“One function of strict monogamy is to create bastards.”
True. Without the concept of monogamy (be it genetic, social, legal, etc.), there would be no bastards.
Dr. Science: Has the Age of Accumulation tended to break down the need to use monogomy to institutionalize “kinship, property, and status”?
“One function of strict monogamy is to create bastards.”
True. Without the concept of monogamy (be it genetic, social, legal, etc.), there would be no bastards.
Dr. Science: Has the Age of Accumulation tended to break down the need to use monogomy to institutionalize “kinship, property, and status”?
To defend DOMA, as a matter of political philosophy, you have to show that the federal government has historically had, and used, the ability to decide which marriages are legal and which are not. To take what I assume would be an obvious precedent, consider inter-racial marriages.
In the middle of the last century, there were states where inter-racial marriages were absolutely illegal. And there were others where they were permitted. Did the federal government make either a blanket non-recognition of those marriages, or did it mandate that they be permitted? Not that I recall. (Lawyers, feeel free to correct my admittedly sketchy understanding of legal history on the point.) If your state allowed your marriage, the federal government recognized it; if it did not, it didn’t. (I’m not certain how they dealt with people who got married in one place and moved to one where their marriage was illegal.)
The arguments (not legal arguments, just the ones advanced by those opposing them) against inter-racial marriage were much the same as those against gay marriage: this is just wrong, and allowing it will irreparably damage society and “real” marriages. Yet somehow society does not seem to have disintegrated on account of them being allowed.
To defend DOMA, as a matter of political philosophy, you have to show that the federal government has historically had, and used, the ability to decide which marriages are legal and which are not. To take what I assume would be an obvious precedent, consider inter-racial marriages.
In the middle of the last century, there were states where inter-racial marriages were absolutely illegal. And there were others where they were permitted. Did the federal government make either a blanket non-recognition of those marriages, or did it mandate that they be permitted? Not that I recall. (Lawyers, feeel free to correct my admittedly sketchy understanding of legal history on the point.) If your state allowed your marriage, the federal government recognized it; if it did not, it didn’t. (I’m not certain how they dealt with people who got married in one place and moved to one where their marriage was illegal.)
The arguments (not legal arguments, just the ones advanced by those opposing them) against inter-racial marriage were much the same as those against gay marriage: this is just wrong, and allowing it will irreparably damage society and “real” marriages. Yet somehow society does not seem to have disintegrated on account of them being allowed.
Slarti:
I’m not sure if you’re being wry and witty, or if you don’t understand me. I shall humorlessly assume the latter.
By “create bastards” I mean that the category “bastardy” is one specific to certain marriage systems. Parents may create *children*, it is the social system that creates or ascribes the status.
Any social system that legalizes strict monogamy (or strict anything else) also creates the category of “failed at our strict rules”. These failures are as inevitable as entropy.
In this case, it is a human universal that high-ranking men will often be polygynous and have more than their share of children. It is also a human universal that this causes problems, especially the problem of how to allocate resources and inheritance — and status — among many mothers and children. Different cultures have different solutions to these problems, different ways of drawing lines and moving the trouble around.
Strict monogamy is a solution that gives one woman and her children indissoluble status, and gives all the other children the status of “bastard”, absolutely forbidden to inherit their father’s status.
Under Islamic law, in contrast, kings have no bastards: bearing a child to the king automatically gives a woman some of the privileges of a wife, and her sons have the opportunity to inherit their father’s status.
Neither solution is problem-free. Christian rulers frequently ended up with an incompetant heir or none at all; Muslim rulers would see a Darwinian struggle among the many possible heirs.
Slarti:
I’m not sure if you’re being wry and witty, or if you don’t understand me. I shall humorlessly assume the latter.
By “create bastards” I mean that the category “bastardy” is one specific to certain marriage systems. Parents may create *children*, it is the social system that creates or ascribes the status.
Any social system that legalizes strict monogamy (or strict anything else) also creates the category of “failed at our strict rules”. These failures are as inevitable as entropy.
In this case, it is a human universal that high-ranking men will often be polygynous and have more than their share of children. It is also a human universal that this causes problems, especially the problem of how to allocate resources and inheritance — and status — among many mothers and children. Different cultures have different solutions to these problems, different ways of drawing lines and moving the trouble around.
Strict monogamy is a solution that gives one woman and her children indissoluble status, and gives all the other children the status of “bastard”, absolutely forbidden to inherit their father’s status.
Under Islamic law, in contrast, kings have no bastards: bearing a child to the king automatically gives a woman some of the privileges of a wife, and her sons have the opportunity to inherit their father’s status.
Neither solution is problem-free. Christian rulers frequently ended up with an incompetant heir or none at all; Muslim rulers would see a Darwinian struggle among the many possible heirs.
I’d go with taking you literally. Hopefully, that’s not a mistake.
There is a definite distinction between creating bastardy and creating bastards.
Which is not the same as the failure rate being 100%. Bastards are not an inevitable consequence of monogamy.
This is somewhat akin to the abstinence debate. Abstinence, done correcly, results in no children.
Of course, the trick is in the execution. Any aikido master could tell you that.
I’d go with taking you literally. Hopefully, that’s not a mistake.
There is a definite distinction between creating bastardy and creating bastards.
Which is not the same as the failure rate being 100%. Bastards are not an inevitable consequence of monogamy.
This is somewhat akin to the abstinence debate. Abstinence, done correcly, results in no children.
Of course, the trick is in the execution. Any aikido master could tell you that.
The legitimacy of a marriage and a child thereof is completely undisturbed if events such as shipwreck or war separate a man from his wife from the time the child is conceived until its adulthood.
I’d like to note that even this was not a completely prevalent view in the post-reformation, pre-modern Western world. Sweden, which was protestant (Lutheran) and a decidedly Western country, did give such separation a legal effect. Any wife whose man had been separated from her for seven years, for whatever reason, was allowed to apply for a divorce, with the right of both spouses to remarry right afterwards. Notable here was that the husband did not need to be presumed dead. There might be ample proof to show that the husband was alive, but the divorce was granted solely on the basis of separation.
In the 17th century, such cases were routine and did not attach social stigma to the woman or to the husband. This was because a soldier taken to the army was extremely unlikely to return, ever and their wives were typically left behind, with both parties having no fault of their own. In many cases the soldier’s wife having a divorce was not more than 24 years old.
Of course, this does not relate to the Anglo-Saxon legal history, but goes to show that any view citing that “Western” world did not give separation legal effect on the validity of marriage is not fully complete. Some parts of Western world did consider the unintentional separation of spouses a valid grounds for a no-fault divorce.
The legitimacy of a marriage and a child thereof is completely undisturbed if events such as shipwreck or war separate a man from his wife from the time the child is conceived until its adulthood.
I’d like to note that even this was not a completely prevalent view in the post-reformation, pre-modern Western world. Sweden, which was protestant (Lutheran) and a decidedly Western country, did give such separation a legal effect. Any wife whose man had been separated from her for seven years, for whatever reason, was allowed to apply for a divorce, with the right of both spouses to remarry right afterwards. Notable here was that the husband did not need to be presumed dead. There might be ample proof to show that the husband was alive, but the divorce was granted solely on the basis of separation.
In the 17th century, such cases were routine and did not attach social stigma to the woman or to the husband. This was because a soldier taken to the army was extremely unlikely to return, ever and their wives were typically left behind, with both parties having no fault of their own. In many cases the soldier’s wife having a divorce was not more than 24 years old.
Of course, this does not relate to the Anglo-Saxon legal history, but goes to show that any view citing that “Western” world did not give separation legal effect on the validity of marriage is not fully complete. Some parts of Western world did consider the unintentional separation of spouses a valid grounds for a no-fault divorce.
Traditional marraige explained
—
The argument against gay marriage as ‘barren’ implies that barren traditional marriages are also invalid. In the past this was indeed a recognized reason for divorce but few (outside the courthouse) would declare that to be the case, i.e. a vast majority considers childless marriages as as avalid as those with children.
—
The traditional (catholic) christian ideal was no marriage, a distant second was a Joseph marriage (=no marital sex) and marriage was for the weaklings that could not abstain (St.Paul: better marry than burn)*. And up to the encyclical Casti Connubii (1930) any non-procreative sex was at least a venial sin (from then on recreative marital sex was legitimate in moderate doses provided no contraceptive was used).
*some authors even calculated what percentage of heavenly reward members of each group could expect. Only virgins (male and female) could reach 100%, to have had sex even once reduced that to 80%, married people not going Joseph early enough could at best expect 50% (below 30% going to heaven was unlikely anyway).
Traditional marraige explained
—
The argument against gay marriage as ‘barren’ implies that barren traditional marriages are also invalid. In the past this was indeed a recognized reason for divorce but few (outside the courthouse) would declare that to be the case, i.e. a vast majority considers childless marriages as as avalid as those with children.
—
The traditional (catholic) christian ideal was no marriage, a distant second was a Joseph marriage (=no marital sex) and marriage was for the weaklings that could not abstain (St.Paul: better marry than burn)*. And up to the encyclical Casti Connubii (1930) any non-procreative sex was at least a venial sin (from then on recreative marital sex was legitimate in moderate doses provided no contraceptive was used).
*some authors even calculated what percentage of heavenly reward members of each group could expect. Only virgins (male and female) could reach 100%, to have had sex even once reduced that to 80%, married people not going Joseph early enough could at best expect 50% (below 30% going to heaven was unlikely anyway).
people often want permanent, clear kinship and property relationships, even if they don’t want a permanent, exclusive sexual relationshp.
Of course some people marry just for money and status, I just don’t think that this corresponds to the idea most people have of marriage, indeed such a materialistic attitude is widely regarded as morally questionable nowadays.
Just imagine your child, sibling or best friend talking about getting married, while it is clear that the prospective partner is only after the money – most of us wouldn’t feel very positive about this, would we?
And to be sure, I’m all in favour of gay marriage, I just don’t see why we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I’m also totally fine with people living together unmarried, if they don’t feel marriage is for them.
people often want permanent, clear kinship and property relationships, even if they don’t want a permanent, exclusive sexual relationshp.
Of course some people marry just for money and status, I just don’t think that this corresponds to the idea most people have of marriage, indeed such a materialistic attitude is widely regarded as morally questionable nowadays.
Just imagine your child, sibling or best friend talking about getting married, while it is clear that the prospective partner is only after the money – most of us wouldn’t feel very positive about this, would we?
And to be sure, I’m all in favour of gay marriage, I just don’t see why we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I’m also totally fine with people living together unmarried, if they don’t feel marriage is for them.
“Of course some people marry just for money and status, I just don’t think that this corresponds to the idea most people have of marriage, indeed such a materialistic attitude is widely regarded as morally questionable nowadays.”
“Nowadays” being the relevant word in this discussion. Choosing love over money/property used to be ridiculous.
“Of course some people marry just for money and status, I just don’t think that this corresponds to the idea most people have of marriage, indeed such a materialistic attitude is widely regarded as morally questionable nowadays.”
“Nowadays” being the relevant word in this discussion. Choosing love over money/property used to be ridiculous.
sapient: ” Could someone explain to me again why the government defines and promotes “marriage” at all?’
Doctor Science: “Because rules for kinship (which in modern times includes many medical issues), property, and inheritance are central concerns of *any* legal system.”
Before the availability of DNA testing, kinship laws made sense, but property and inheritance are available through contracts and wills, and DNA is a more reliable determinant of blood relationships than marriage. Certainly determining medical status is more reliably done through DNA testing. Obviously, most people form families and claim their own relatives, and our legal structure accommodates the most basic nonmarital kinship obligations very well, placing support obligations on natural parents, for example.
Why families have to be centered on the presumption of a couple’s sexual relationship only promotes the “conjugal marriage” myth, or something just as bad. Allowing any one living arrangement a preferred status necessarily causes other varieties of arrangements to suffer second-class status. Marriage laws are discriminatory per se.
sapient: ” Could someone explain to me again why the government defines and promotes “marriage” at all?’
Doctor Science: “Because rules for kinship (which in modern times includes many medical issues), property, and inheritance are central concerns of *any* legal system.”
Before the availability of DNA testing, kinship laws made sense, but property and inheritance are available through contracts and wills, and DNA is a more reliable determinant of blood relationships than marriage. Certainly determining medical status is more reliably done through DNA testing. Obviously, most people form families and claim their own relatives, and our legal structure accommodates the most basic nonmarital kinship obligations very well, placing support obligations on natural parents, for example.
Why families have to be centered on the presumption of a couple’s sexual relationship only promotes the “conjugal marriage” myth, or something just as bad. Allowing any one living arrangement a preferred status necessarily causes other varieties of arrangements to suffer second-class status. Marriage laws are discriminatory per se.
The entire premise on which the anti-gay-marriage crowd’s argument is based is that there is this one specific thing that is “real” marriage, and that specific thing just happens to be their particular take on the concept.
Pretty much correct. However, ‘their particular take’ is pretty much what that ‘take’ has been for centuries: one man, one woman, faithful and until death. That was the ideal, though hardly the reality. What is ideal and what humans make of the ideal are almost always two different things. Dr. S and other pro-gay marriage advocates seek to counter the conjugal view by declaring it to be invalid. Good luck, that will be a tough sell.
The better arguments are (1) the religious view, which is the conjugal view, is not the class of marriage under discussion (it is a matter of civil law) and (2) the role of women in marriage, from the get go, was pretty awful, so really ‘traditional marriage’ might not be so attractive to women these days, and what the anti GM crowd is arguing for is the very, very modern iteration of traditional marriage being the exclusive iteration of marriage. The problem with No. 2 is that that, by claiming exclusivity for only a certain class, the claim clashes with a society whose core elevates individual liberty and equal protection above all else.
What marriage was or was not in the eyes of the church or everyday people or the aristocracy prior to the US Constitution, the Civil War and the post war amendments is of historical interest but does not drive the substantive law debate today because we are writing on a historically new and unique canvas.
gives all the other children the status of “bastard”, absolutely forbidden to inherit their father’s status.
Maybe in some places and some times, but was this universal, even in the US say, pre-1950? I am thinking not.
“Because rules for kinship (which in modern times includes many medical issues), property, and inheritance are central concerns of *any* legal system.”
Before the availability of DNA testing, kinship laws made sense, but property and inheritance are available through contracts and wills, and DNA is a more reliable determinant of blood relationships than marriage.
I am not a family lawyer, but there are a lot of misapprehensions here. A modern state’s Family Code has a detailed statutory scheme for everything from how a marriage is formed, how it is dissolved, who has what rights to what property, how children are to be supported, access to children, who will be primarily responsible for the child, termination of parental rights and a ton of other crap. And we haven’t even gotten to the Probate Code which is an entirely different animal. Yes, a will will solve a lot of problems, but suppose you die suddenly or you will is outdated and names your last spouse and none of your current children. These are crazy, unrelated issues to married people. They matter like hell.
Regulate relationships with contracts? Bring it, if you have the money. If you don’t have a ton of money to (1) draft and (2) litigate your contract through trial and appeal, what do you have? Not a damn thing. My fees are relatively reasonable, but for a medium complex commercial matter through verdict and appeal, 175-225K minimum. These are reasonable fees BTW.
I am not saying divorce is free or that pre-nups in appropriate cases don’t solve more problems than they create. But for folks who need out of a marriage and don’t have unlimited funds, the Family Code gets them there at relatively affordable cost.
There are a ton of reasons to recognize and define marriage in civil law. People who, in aid of some other goal, imply that marriage is an institution we no longer need offer nothing useful to their side of the debate other than to insure that they lose.
The entire premise on which the anti-gay-marriage crowd’s argument is based is that there is this one specific thing that is “real” marriage, and that specific thing just happens to be their particular take on the concept.
Pretty much correct. However, ‘their particular take’ is pretty much what that ‘take’ has been for centuries: one man, one woman, faithful and until death. That was the ideal, though hardly the reality. What is ideal and what humans make of the ideal are almost always two different things. Dr. S and other pro-gay marriage advocates seek to counter the conjugal view by declaring it to be invalid. Good luck, that will be a tough sell.
The better arguments are (1) the religious view, which is the conjugal view, is not the class of marriage under discussion (it is a matter of civil law) and (2) the role of women in marriage, from the get go, was pretty awful, so really ‘traditional marriage’ might not be so attractive to women these days, and what the anti GM crowd is arguing for is the very, very modern iteration of traditional marriage being the exclusive iteration of marriage. The problem with No. 2 is that that, by claiming exclusivity for only a certain class, the claim clashes with a society whose core elevates individual liberty and equal protection above all else.
What marriage was or was not in the eyes of the church or everyday people or the aristocracy prior to the US Constitution, the Civil War and the post war amendments is of historical interest but does not drive the substantive law debate today because we are writing on a historically new and unique canvas.
gives all the other children the status of “bastard”, absolutely forbidden to inherit their father’s status.
Maybe in some places and some times, but was this universal, even in the US say, pre-1950? I am thinking not.
“Because rules for kinship (which in modern times includes many medical issues), property, and inheritance are central concerns of *any* legal system.”
Before the availability of DNA testing, kinship laws made sense, but property and inheritance are available through contracts and wills, and DNA is a more reliable determinant of blood relationships than marriage.
I am not a family lawyer, but there are a lot of misapprehensions here. A modern state’s Family Code has a detailed statutory scheme for everything from how a marriage is formed, how it is dissolved, who has what rights to what property, how children are to be supported, access to children, who will be primarily responsible for the child, termination of parental rights and a ton of other crap. And we haven’t even gotten to the Probate Code which is an entirely different animal. Yes, a will will solve a lot of problems, but suppose you die suddenly or you will is outdated and names your last spouse and none of your current children. These are crazy, unrelated issues to married people. They matter like hell.
Regulate relationships with contracts? Bring it, if you have the money. If you don’t have a ton of money to (1) draft and (2) litigate your contract through trial and appeal, what do you have? Not a damn thing. My fees are relatively reasonable, but for a medium complex commercial matter through verdict and appeal, 175-225K minimum. These are reasonable fees BTW.
I am not saying divorce is free or that pre-nups in appropriate cases don’t solve more problems than they create. But for folks who need out of a marriage and don’t have unlimited funds, the Family Code gets them there at relatively affordable cost.
There are a ton of reasons to recognize and define marriage in civil law. People who, in aid of some other goal, imply that marriage is an institution we no longer need offer nothing useful to their side of the debate other than to insure that they lose.
Just imagine your child, sibling or best friend talking about getting married, while it is clear that the prospective partner is only after the money – most of us wouldn’t feel very positive about this, would we?
I would not really mind, as long as the money grabbing is mutual. For example, two people doing it for tax reasons or immigration status. To the extent that I’d have negative feelings, it would be worry that they protect themselves. I’d strongly encourage them to meet with an attorney who could explain to them the long term legal consequences of what they’re doing. But as long as they understand, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Now, if they were trying to scam a church marriage in those circumstances, that would upset me greatly.
Just imagine your child, sibling or best friend talking about getting married, while it is clear that the prospective partner is only after the money – most of us wouldn’t feel very positive about this, would we?
I would not really mind, as long as the money grabbing is mutual. For example, two people doing it for tax reasons or immigration status. To the extent that I’d have negative feelings, it would be worry that they protect themselves. I’d strongly encourage them to meet with an attorney who could explain to them the long term legal consequences of what they’re doing. But as long as they understand, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Now, if they were trying to scam a church marriage in those circumstances, that would upset me greatly.
McKinneyTexas has a point here, although I don’t usually agree with him. You can do a lot with civil contracts, but most people cannot afford to do that with the help of a lawyer and don’t know how to write the documents themselves. So, if there is law that provides a “package deal” of social default rules for people who want to have a family, it is really fine. In this sense, marriage (and the rest of family law) is quite as useful a legal concept as Social Security, a form of social welfare to protect the weak and the short-sighted.
And if we want to have a society with equal rights, there is no rational, non-sectarian reason not to extend the benefits of this government program also to the same-sex couples.
McKinneyTexas has a point here, although I don’t usually agree with him. You can do a lot with civil contracts, but most people cannot afford to do that with the help of a lawyer and don’t know how to write the documents themselves. So, if there is law that provides a “package deal” of social default rules for people who want to have a family, it is really fine. In this sense, marriage (and the rest of family law) is quite as useful a legal concept as Social Security, a form of social welfare to protect the weak and the short-sighted.
And if we want to have a society with equal rights, there is no rational, non-sectarian reason not to extend the benefits of this government program also to the same-sex couples.
In many places (perhaps all states), one can be married by a Justice of the Peace, for a fee. Why not have a JoP (or the local equivalent) be legally able to execute a civil (civic?) union?
In many places (perhaps all states), one can be married by a Justice of the Peace, for a fee. Why not have a JoP (or the local equivalent) be legally able to execute a civil (civic?) union?
The New Testament notion of marriage is two people, a man and a woman, becoming one flesh and having children, forsaking all others, etc. The NT was the western canon for the institution of marriage for 99% of England and eventually the commonwealth.
I’m with Dr Science here.
Yes, the NT, and Jesus specifically, refers to marriage as an exclusive bond between a man and a woman. The man and woman thing he grounds in the creation narrative, where humans were created male and female.
Kids BTW are not specifically discussed as being part of the purpose of marriage, at least by Jesus. FWIW.
But all of that said, it’s a far stretch to say that the actual law and practice of marriage in any of the nominally Christian world has, at any time, complied with or reflected the teachings of Jesus, or of the NT generally. Regarding marriage, or any other thing.
Which brings us back to Doctor Science’s point. The meaning of marriage is, historically, fluid and multiple.
The New Testament notion of marriage is two people, a man and a woman, becoming one flesh and having children, forsaking all others, etc. The NT was the western canon for the institution of marriage for 99% of England and eventually the commonwealth.
I’m with Dr Science here.
Yes, the NT, and Jesus specifically, refers to marriage as an exclusive bond between a man and a woman. The man and woman thing he grounds in the creation narrative, where humans were created male and female.
Kids BTW are not specifically discussed as being part of the purpose of marriage, at least by Jesus. FWIW.
But all of that said, it’s a far stretch to say that the actual law and practice of marriage in any of the nominally Christian world has, at any time, complied with or reflected the teachings of Jesus, or of the NT generally. Regarding marriage, or any other thing.
Which brings us back to Doctor Science’s point. The meaning of marriage is, historically, fluid and multiple.
In many places (perhaps all states), one can be married by a Justice of the Peace, for a fee. Why not have a JoP (or the local equivalent) be legally able to execute a civil (civic?) union?
A civil union is pretty much marriage-lite. As it currently exists, where it does exist, it’s a bundling of rights and responsibilities into a convenient one-stop-shopping package. If you’re suggesting it as a remedy to the problem McKinney points out with the idea of abolishing marriage and letting people join up by individual contract, it isn’t.
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.
In many places (perhaps all states), one can be married by a Justice of the Peace, for a fee. Why not have a JoP (or the local equivalent) be legally able to execute a civil (civic?) union?
A civil union is pretty much marriage-lite. As it currently exists, where it does exist, it’s a bundling of rights and responsibilities into a convenient one-stop-shopping package. If you’re suggesting it as a remedy to the problem McKinney points out with the idea of abolishing marriage and letting people join up by individual contract, it isn’t.
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.
McK: You’re talking about marriage as preached; Doctor Science is talking about marriage as practiced. They both matter, but for this discussion I think the practice matters more.
McK: You’re talking about marriage as preached; Doctor Science is talking about marriage as practiced. They both matter, but for this discussion I think the practice matters more.
McKinney: “People who, in aid of some other goal, imply that marriage is an institution we no longer need offer nothing useful to their side of the debate other than to insure that they lose.”
I’m not sure what “other goal” you think “people” have. As someone who has practiced family law, I am aware of the various rights and responsibilities and social structures that marriage creates for people. Unfortunately, most people who are getting married are not aware of them, and don’t become aware of them until they feel their effects, sometimes in a negative way.
What I’m suggesting is not that people go out and hire a lawyer to replicate a complicated version of family law for themselves. It would be quite easy to create legislation providing many of the “default” benefits of marriage to anyone who applied for them. Domestic partnerships (not necessarily limited to two people) could serve this purpose with far less reliance on Christian cultural norms, not necessarily shared by all Americans. In France, for example, civil unions are becoming much more popular than marriage among heterosexual couples. One reason cited is that “marriage bears the traces of a religious imprint.” It’s inappropriate for a government to foster an institution (to the point that it’s promoted as a preferred lifestyle) which is so strongly imbued with religion (specifically Judeo-Christian religion, since polygamy and other cultural practices are not tolerated within the marriage structure). A truly secular alternative could easily be made available, leaving “marriage” for people who wish to take vows.
McKinney: “People who, in aid of some other goal, imply that marriage is an institution we no longer need offer nothing useful to their side of the debate other than to insure that they lose.”
I’m not sure what “other goal” you think “people” have. As someone who has practiced family law, I am aware of the various rights and responsibilities and social structures that marriage creates for people. Unfortunately, most people who are getting married are not aware of them, and don’t become aware of them until they feel their effects, sometimes in a negative way.
What I’m suggesting is not that people go out and hire a lawyer to replicate a complicated version of family law for themselves. It would be quite easy to create legislation providing many of the “default” benefits of marriage to anyone who applied for them. Domestic partnerships (not necessarily limited to two people) could serve this purpose with far less reliance on Christian cultural norms, not necessarily shared by all Americans. In France, for example, civil unions are becoming much more popular than marriage among heterosexual couples. One reason cited is that “marriage bears the traces of a religious imprint.” It’s inappropriate for a government to foster an institution (to the point that it’s promoted as a preferred lifestyle) which is so strongly imbued with religion (specifically Judeo-Christian religion, since polygamy and other cultural practices are not tolerated within the marriage structure). A truly secular alternative could easily be made available, leaving “marriage” for people who wish to take vows.
A truly secular alternative could easily be made available, leaving “marriage” for people who wish to take vows.
It depends on what you mean by easily. If you mean, “could a philosopher-queen with absolute power do it?” then yeah, it would be pretty easy. But if you mean “could the current American polity working with the current governmental structures and institutions and their many many many veto points do it?” then the answer is: no. We’ve been trying for years. And what we’ve ended up with is a ghettoized form of marriage called civil unions that gives people substantially fewer rights and privleges than civil marriage. Efforts to make civil unions equivalent to marriage are strongly resisted by people who are against gay marriage to begin with.
Speaking as a heterosexual guy, I’m horrified at the symbolism here. Just when LGBT folk start to get some legal success with marriage, one of the most respected social institutions, we’re going to pull the rug out from under them and say “meh, now that folks like you can get married, we’ve decided that the marriage shouldn’t be such a universal high status institution”? I get that that’s not your goal sapient, but the optics are just awful.
In an ideal world, I think there’s a good case for scrapping civil marriage and replacing it with something better, but I don’t see how we can get to an ideal world from where we are right now. Marriage as a social institution has enormous prestige. And as long as that’s so, I’m not willing to consign my LGBT friends to a crappy ghetto institution.
A truly secular alternative could easily be made available, leaving “marriage” for people who wish to take vows.
It depends on what you mean by easily. If you mean, “could a philosopher-queen with absolute power do it?” then yeah, it would be pretty easy. But if you mean “could the current American polity working with the current governmental structures and institutions and their many many many veto points do it?” then the answer is: no. We’ve been trying for years. And what we’ve ended up with is a ghettoized form of marriage called civil unions that gives people substantially fewer rights and privleges than civil marriage. Efforts to make civil unions equivalent to marriage are strongly resisted by people who are against gay marriage to begin with.
Speaking as a heterosexual guy, I’m horrified at the symbolism here. Just when LGBT folk start to get some legal success with marriage, one of the most respected social institutions, we’re going to pull the rug out from under them and say “meh, now that folks like you can get married, we’ve decided that the marriage shouldn’t be such a universal high status institution”? I get that that’s not your goal sapient, but the optics are just awful.
In an ideal world, I think there’s a good case for scrapping civil marriage and replacing it with something better, but I don’t see how we can get to an ideal world from where we are right now. Marriage as a social institution has enormous prestige. And as long as that’s so, I’m not willing to consign my LGBT friends to a crappy ghetto institution.
“And as long as that’s so, I’m not willing to consign my LGBT friends to a crappy ghetto institution.”
I’m not either, and I never said that my LGBT friends should endure discrimination in any form whatsoever. But when the original post by Doctor Science involved a discussion of “What is marriage?” and when a major European country has come up with a popular alternative, and when I just heard (yesterday) a popular NPR talk show featuring a discussion of the new PEW poll indicating that a large percentage of people think of unwed mothers as the lowest form of life, I think it’s worth mentioning that marriage isn’t an ideal institution.
But don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it.
“And as long as that’s so, I’m not willing to consign my LGBT friends to a crappy ghetto institution.”
I’m not either, and I never said that my LGBT friends should endure discrimination in any form whatsoever. But when the original post by Doctor Science involved a discussion of “What is marriage?” and when a major European country has come up with a popular alternative, and when I just heard (yesterday) a popular NPR talk show featuring a discussion of the new PEW poll indicating that a large percentage of people think of unwed mothers as the lowest form of life, I think it’s worth mentioning that marriage isn’t an ideal institution.
But don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it.
In France, for example, civil unions are becoming much more popular than marriage among heterosexual couples. One reason cited is that “marriage bears the traces of a religious imprint.”
It’s not a great comparison. France has a very different history of church-state relations than the US; they had to have a revolution and a long political battle over whether the Catholic Church or the goverment should perform public domestic functions like primary and secondary education and the registration of births, deaths and marriages. That kind of disestablishment happened much less contentiously here.
In France, for example, civil unions are becoming much more popular than marriage among heterosexual couples. One reason cited is that “marriage bears the traces of a religious imprint.”
It’s not a great comparison. France has a very different history of church-state relations than the US; they had to have a revolution and a long political battle over whether the Catholic Church or the goverment should perform public domestic functions like primary and secondary education and the registration of births, deaths and marriages. That kind of disestablishment happened much less contentiously here.
I would not really mind, as long as the money grabbing is mutual.
Well, I was talking about non-mutual money grabbing: “the prospective partner is only after the money” meaning “one partner marrying the other because of their money”. Maybe I should have been more clear.
I would not really mind, as long as the money grabbing is mutual.
Well, I was talking about non-mutual money grabbing: “the prospective partner is only after the money” meaning “one partner marrying the other because of their money”. Maybe I should have been more clear.
@Slartibartfast:
In many places (perhaps all states), one can be married by a Justice of the Peace, for a fee. Why not have a JoP (or the local equivalent) be legally able to execute a civil (civic?) union?
@sapient:
A truly secular alternative could easily be made available, leaving “marriage” for people who wish to take vows.
The problem with “civil unions” (IMHO, anyway) comes down to matter of semantics. Which, oddly, is the main stumbling-block in positing a “secular alternative”, as I see it. Since a “civil union” which does not confer the same package of rights, privileges and protections as a conventional “marriage” is pretty much by definition an inferior (and discriminatory) form of contract. And one that does, i.e. “marriage in all but name” has, ultimately, to base its status and/or legitimacy mainly on that “name”. Which leads us back to the question of semantics: and undercuts the argument against same-sex marriage: if it really just a matter of definitions, why the importance?
Of course, the arguments against same-sex “marriage”, AFAICT have mainly to do with the “same-sex” part: the circular debates about the “marriage” bits are just so much deflection.
@Turbulence”
It depends on what you mean by easily. If you mean, “could a philosopher-queen with absolute power do it?” then yeah, it would be pretty easy.
I agree. Unfortunately, Hilzoy already has a full-time job…
sapient:
As someone in a heterosexual civil marriage, I find this personally threatening. What you’re saying is that because I didn’t take religious vows I don’t deserve to be called “married”.
If my type of civil marriage is not available to my gay friends, then it is not truly a civil marriage, it’s a religious marriage in disguise. Even though we *deliberately* did not want to have a religious marriage.
Furthermore, several states (Texas, certainly, but I think one of the Carolinas as well) have passed laws explicitly stating that they won’t recognize anything substantially similar to marriage but flying under a different name.
On the other hand, leaving “marriage” for people who wish to take vows will not keep same-sex couples out of it. There are Episcopalian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, and Reform/Reconstructionist Jewish ministers who are more than willing to perform religious same-sex marriages, and AFAIK they are already doing so in states where it’s legal.
@Slartibartfast:
In many places (perhaps all states), one can be married by a Justice of the Peace, for a fee. Why not have a JoP (or the local equivalent) be legally able to execute a civil (civic?) union?
@sapient:
A truly secular alternative could easily be made available, leaving “marriage” for people who wish to take vows.
The problem with “civil unions” (IMHO, anyway) comes down to matter of semantics. Which, oddly, is the main stumbling-block in positing a “secular alternative”, as I see it. Since a “civil union” which does not confer the same package of rights, privileges and protections as a conventional “marriage” is pretty much by definition an inferior (and discriminatory) form of contract. And one that does, i.e. “marriage in all but name” has, ultimately, to base its status and/or legitimacy mainly on that “name”. Which leads us back to the question of semantics: and undercuts the argument against same-sex marriage: if it really just a matter of definitions, why the importance?
Of course, the arguments against same-sex “marriage”, AFAICT have mainly to do with the “same-sex” part: the circular debates about the “marriage” bits are just so much deflection.
@Turbulence”
It depends on what you mean by easily. If you mean, “could a philosopher-queen with absolute power do it?” then yeah, it would be pretty easy.
I agree. Unfortunately, Hilzoy already has a full-time job…
sapient:
As someone in a heterosexual civil marriage, I find this personally threatening. What you’re saying is that because I didn’t take religious vows I don’t deserve to be called “married”.
If my type of civil marriage is not available to my gay friends, then it is not truly a civil marriage, it’s a religious marriage in disguise. Even though we *deliberately* did not want to have a religious marriage.
Furthermore, several states (Texas, certainly, but I think one of the Carolinas as well) have passed laws explicitly stating that they won’t recognize anything substantially similar to marriage but flying under a different name.
On the other hand, leaving “marriage” for people who wish to take vows will not keep same-sex couples out of it. There are Episcopalian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, and Reform/Reconstructionist Jewish ministers who are more than willing to perform religious same-sex marriages, and AFAIK they are already doing so in states where it’s legal.
“It’s not a great comparison.”
There’s no perfect comparison. My point is not that there are perfect comparisons, or even that I would wholly embrace the French model. My point is that it’s very feasible to come up with a statutory model that incorporates many of the legal “defaults” that McKinney was talking about without also incorporating the cultural and religious accoutrements (like families which are based on two people’s sexual relationship).
But, as Turbulence noted, the timing isn’t good. Even on this “progressive” blog, most of the commenters freak out about the possibility of contemplating a less rigid system than “marriage.” People don’t really care whether single mothers are considered a scourge of society, or whether promoting “marriage” might contribute to that feeling. There are plenty of people whose position in society is at least as uncomfortable as gay people, but we’re obviously not allowed to think about how our family laws exacerbate the situation for these people.
In other words, I agree that we’re not ready for the discussion.
“It’s not a great comparison.”
There’s no perfect comparison. My point is not that there are perfect comparisons, or even that I would wholly embrace the French model. My point is that it’s very feasible to come up with a statutory model that incorporates many of the legal “defaults” that McKinney was talking about without also incorporating the cultural and religious accoutrements (like families which are based on two people’s sexual relationship).
But, as Turbulence noted, the timing isn’t good. Even on this “progressive” blog, most of the commenters freak out about the possibility of contemplating a less rigid system than “marriage.” People don’t really care whether single mothers are considered a scourge of society, or whether promoting “marriage” might contribute to that feeling. There are plenty of people whose position in society is at least as uncomfortable as gay people, but we’re obviously not allowed to think about how our family laws exacerbate the situation for these people.
In other words, I agree that we’re not ready for the discussion.
“What you’re saying is that because I didn’t take religious vows I don’t deserve to be called “married”.”
Doctor Science, please don’t tell me “what I’m saying”. I didn’t say that and wouldn’t have said it. I didn’t say “deserve” and I didn’t say “religious vows.” Anyone who wants to be called “married” should ask that people call them that.
“What you’re saying is that because I didn’t take religious vows I don’t deserve to be called “married”.”
Doctor Science, please don’t tell me “what I’m saying”. I didn’t say that and wouldn’t have said it. I didn’t say “deserve” and I didn’t say “religious vows.” Anyone who wants to be called “married” should ask that people call them that.
Well, I was talking about non-mutual money grabbing: “the prospective partner is only after the money” meaning “one partner marrying the other because of their money”. Maybe I should have been more clear.
I’d be very upset, but that’s because the relationship is exploitative. I mean, I’d be just as upset if one of my unmarried friends was just dating someone who was exploiting them. Exploitation is the problem, and it has nothing to do with marriage per se.
There are Episcopalian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, and Reform/Reconstructionist Jewish ministers who are more than willing to perform religious same-sex marriages, and AFAIK they are already doing so in states where it’s legal.
A small quibble, but I don’t believe that there are any Episcopalian ministers performing same sex marriages in the US. It is a subject of great political debate within the Episcopal church, and while some ministers will perform blessings or commitment ceremonies, these are specifically not marriages as far as the church is concerned.
Well, I was talking about non-mutual money grabbing: “the prospective partner is only after the money” meaning “one partner marrying the other because of their money”. Maybe I should have been more clear.
I’d be very upset, but that’s because the relationship is exploitative. I mean, I’d be just as upset if one of my unmarried friends was just dating someone who was exploiting them. Exploitation is the problem, and it has nothing to do with marriage per se.
There are Episcopalian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, and Reform/Reconstructionist Jewish ministers who are more than willing to perform religious same-sex marriages, and AFAIK they are already doing so in states where it’s legal.
A small quibble, but I don’t believe that there are any Episcopalian ministers performing same sex marriages in the US. It is a subject of great political debate within the Episcopal church, and while some ministers will perform blessings or commitment ceremonies, these are specifically not marriages as far as the church is concerned.
Novakant: you wrote this:
Of course some people marry just for money and status, I just don’t think that this corresponds to the idea most people have of marriage, indeed such a materialistic attitude is widely regarded as morally questionable nowadays.
–after quoting this from Doctor Science:
people often want permanent, clear kinship and property relationships, even if they don’t want a permanent, exclusive sexual relationship.
If you meant that as a response, it is a really weird, narrow reading of what she said. I don’t see how you can equate “wanting to define a kinship and property relationship” with “marrying just for money and status”; the latter is clearly a subcategory of the former, but you’re leaving out all the others:
1. people who have more money and status than their partner and want to share it, rather than to increase their own;
2. couples who don’t have much money or status at all, but still want to be legally committed to each other in recognition of their personal bond– it just doesn’t include an exclusive sexual relationship;
3. people who have a child, and are no longer romantically involved but still want to be a legal family for the kid’s sake, because legal kinship is sometimes a big deal.
You could, I guess, argue that “money and status” are still relevant in all of those cases, but your reference to “materialism” certainly sounded more specific and pejorative, as if you thought Doctor Science was talking about gold-diggers. If so, you may want to re-examine your assumptions.
Novakant: you wrote this:
Of course some people marry just for money and status, I just don’t think that this corresponds to the idea most people have of marriage, indeed such a materialistic attitude is widely regarded as morally questionable nowadays.
–after quoting this from Doctor Science:
people often want permanent, clear kinship and property relationships, even if they don’t want a permanent, exclusive sexual relationship.
If you meant that as a response, it is a really weird, narrow reading of what she said. I don’t see how you can equate “wanting to define a kinship and property relationship” with “marrying just for money and status”; the latter is clearly a subcategory of the former, but you’re leaving out all the others:
1. people who have more money and status than their partner and want to share it, rather than to increase their own;
2. couples who don’t have much money or status at all, but still want to be legally committed to each other in recognition of their personal bond– it just doesn’t include an exclusive sexual relationship;
3. people who have a child, and are no longer romantically involved but still want to be a legal family for the kid’s sake, because legal kinship is sometimes a big deal.
You could, I guess, argue that “money and status” are still relevant in all of those cases, but your reference to “materialism” certainly sounded more specific and pejorative, as if you thought Doctor Science was talking about gold-diggers. If so, you may want to re-examine your assumptions.
Great post, Doctor Science.
At risk of complicating things, and I hope not diverting overly, but also in response to some comments, I’ll also throw into the mix that a small, but noticeably visible in many subcultures and urban communities, increasingly so for many years, are what once were called open committed relationships, or non-monogamous committed relationships, or nowadays polyamory.
Sometimes these include the only form of legal marriage possible, but also non-legally-binding marriage ceremonies and vows taken by three people, or more, and thus the “it’s complicated” categories on Facebook, and similarly so on some sites such as OKCupid, and so forth, and many websites devoted to polyamory: “About 493,000 results”
I will add that I have good friends, some Hugo-winners among them, and/or famous editors and authors, and/or other highly well-known people, who may keep this aspect of their lives known only among their friends, others “out” of any closet, who have been in such marriages, some for over thirty years.
It’s all about honesty and committment, too, and in many cases other legally binding contracts are signed. It’s the best present law allows.
Naturally, many people will find this news, and shocking, and take issue, but there it is. It’s also about honesty and commitment, and it works, by my observation, as well or badly as conventional marriages and partnerships, which is to say that some last, some don’t, some are irresponsible, some responsible, everyone is an individual, but yes, the more people you involve, the greater the complications, and the greater the need for more communication and honesty, and yes, sometimes children are involved, and yes, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t, just like two-party marriages, which fail and result in affairs, and divorce and so on.
Great post, Doctor Science.
At risk of complicating things, and I hope not diverting overly, but also in response to some comments, I’ll also throw into the mix that a small, but noticeably visible in many subcultures and urban communities, increasingly so for many years, are what once were called open committed relationships, or non-monogamous committed relationships, or nowadays polyamory.
Sometimes these include the only form of legal marriage possible, but also non-legally-binding marriage ceremonies and vows taken by three people, or more, and thus the “it’s complicated” categories on Facebook, and similarly so on some sites such as OKCupid, and so forth, and many websites devoted to polyamory: “About 493,000 results”
I will add that I have good friends, some Hugo-winners among them, and/or famous editors and authors, and/or other highly well-known people, who may keep this aspect of their lives known only among their friends, others “out” of any closet, who have been in such marriages, some for over thirty years.
It’s all about honesty and committment, too, and in many cases other legally binding contracts are signed. It’s the best present law allows.
Naturally, many people will find this news, and shocking, and take issue, but there it is. It’s also about honesty and commitment, and it works, by my observation, as well or badly as conventional marriages and partnerships, which is to say that some last, some don’t, some are irresponsible, some responsible, everyone is an individual, but yes, the more people you involve, the greater the complications, and the greater the need for more communication and honesty, and yes, sometimes children are involved, and yes, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t, just like two-party marriages, which fail and result in affairs, and divorce and so on.
Sapient: Even on this “progressive” blog, most of the commenters freak out about the possibility of contemplating a less rigid system than “marriage.”
What are you talking about? I mean, seriously, what are you referring to and what conclusion are you trying to advance?
As a statement of fact I don’t think it’s defensible at all, unless you have unusual definitions of “most” and “freak out”. But even if it were true, the implication that one can infer something about what progressive Americans in general are “not ready for” from a survey of comments on one particular blog on the Internet, because that blog has a generally lefty set of front-page authors, would still be ridiculous.
Sapient: Even on this “progressive” blog, most of the commenters freak out about the possibility of contemplating a less rigid system than “marriage.”
What are you talking about? I mean, seriously, what are you referring to and what conclusion are you trying to advance?
As a statement of fact I don’t think it’s defensible at all, unless you have unusual definitions of “most” and “freak out”. But even if it were true, the implication that one can infer something about what progressive Americans in general are “not ready for” from a survey of comments on one particular blog on the Internet, because that blog has a generally lefty set of front-page authors, would still be ridiculous.
Hob, point taken. Still, I’m forever surprised by the shock and anger that seems to accompany responses to what seems (to me) like a fairly benign suggestion that the law be changed to accommodate creation of family structures not necessarily based on people’s sex lives.
Hob, point taken. Still, I’m forever surprised by the shock and anger that seems to accompany responses to what seems (to me) like a fairly benign suggestion that the law be changed to accommodate creation of family structures not necessarily based on people’s sex lives.
Before the availability of DNA testing, kinship laws made sense, but property and inheritance are available through contracts and wills, and DNA is a more reliable determinant of blood relationships than marriage.
I assure you that with anyone I marry, DNA tests will only demonstrate that we are not related.
Before the availability of DNA testing, kinship laws made sense, but property and inheritance are available through contracts and wills, and DNA is a more reliable determinant of blood relationships than marriage.
I assure you that with anyone I marry, DNA tests will only demonstrate that we are not related.
I’d be just as upset if one of my unmarried friends was just dating someone who was exploiting them. Exploitation is the problem, and it has nothing to do with marriage per se.
Both cases would be upsetting of course, but in the case of dating the partner being exploited at least has the chance of terminating the relationship and walking away with little loss, while in the case of marriage he/she might loose a large amount of their money in a settlement and/or be bound by financial obligations towards their partner for the rest of their lives.
Generally speaking, if one wants to make the case for gay marriage, I don’t think it’s the best rhetorical strategy to devalue any romantic notion of marriage based on love and respect and instead liken it to a merely legalistic, business-like arrangement. Of course some conservatives are over the top speaking of “traditional marriage”, but this would only be a minor point in my argument, while I would emphasize that there is no reason gay people cannot be as devoted to each other as heteros.
I’d be just as upset if one of my unmarried friends was just dating someone who was exploiting them. Exploitation is the problem, and it has nothing to do with marriage per se.
Both cases would be upsetting of course, but in the case of dating the partner being exploited at least has the chance of terminating the relationship and walking away with little loss, while in the case of marriage he/she might loose a large amount of their money in a settlement and/or be bound by financial obligations towards their partner for the rest of their lives.
Generally speaking, if one wants to make the case for gay marriage, I don’t think it’s the best rhetorical strategy to devalue any romantic notion of marriage based on love and respect and instead liken it to a merely legalistic, business-like arrangement. Of course some conservatives are over the top speaking of “traditional marriage”, but this would only be a minor point in my argument, while I would emphasize that there is no reason gay people cannot be as devoted to each other as heteros.
sapient, what did you think you were saying?
Here’s how I read it:
— implies that my civil marriage is NOT truly secular
— leaving the word “marriage” for people who want to do it under religious auspices.
Every single time the issue of SSM comes up, here or elsewhere, someone says something like, “why not get government out of marriage altogether and leave it to the churches?” Every. Single. Time.
Statements like that are IMHO an attack on *my* marriage and other civil marriages. I don’t think they’re consciously intended to be (for the most part), but that’s what they actually *are*.
So possibly I over-reacted to you, thinking you were making a get-the-government-out-of-marriage argument when you meant something else. In which case I don’t know what that something else is.
sapient, what did you think you were saying?
Here’s how I read it:
— implies that my civil marriage is NOT truly secular
— leaving the word “marriage” for people who want to do it under religious auspices.
Every single time the issue of SSM comes up, here or elsewhere, someone says something like, “why not get government out of marriage altogether and leave it to the churches?” Every. Single. Time.
Statements like that are IMHO an attack on *my* marriage and other civil marriages. I don’t think they’re consciously intended to be (for the most part), but that’s what they actually *are*.
So possibly I over-reacted to you, thinking you were making a get-the-government-out-of-marriage argument when you meant something else. In which case I don’t know what that something else is.
Gary:
The trouble, legally speaking, with poly marriages, and the reason they aren’t on the slippery slope from SSM, is that there’s no legal tradition — anywhere in the world AFAIK — to use as a template.
There are legal traditions that incorporate polygyny, but in those cultures the husband has legally distinct relationships with each wife, the wives aren’t spouses for each other.
Crucially, all the marriages end at the same time, when the husband dies. Something like the line marriages in Robert Heinlein are more like corporations — immortal, wealthy, and amoral.
Gary, do you think we’d have fun if I made that old blogspot post a separate post here?
Gary:
The trouble, legally speaking, with poly marriages, and the reason they aren’t on the slippery slope from SSM, is that there’s no legal tradition — anywhere in the world AFAIK — to use as a template.
There are legal traditions that incorporate polygyny, but in those cultures the husband has legally distinct relationships with each wife, the wives aren’t spouses for each other.
Crucially, all the marriages end at the same time, when the husband dies. Something like the line marriages in Robert Heinlein are more like corporations — immortal, wealthy, and amoral.
Gary, do you think we’d have fun if I made that old blogspot post a separate post here?
Every single time the issue of SSM comes up, here or elsewhere, someone says something like, “why not get government out of marriage altogether and leave it to the churches?” Every. Single. Time.
And so often that someone is sapient, which makes it bit of a mystery why s/he could still be not only “forever surprised” by people’s reactions, but also confused about the reasons for them.
From Jesurgislac, in a previous iteration of this discussion:
Any reaction I have to sapient has nothing to do with “shock” or “anger” at the idea of re-assessing the idea of marriage. Rather, it has to do with what Jes said last time (or at least the last time I was here for it), i.e. that repeatedly bringing up the idea of abolishing civil marriage in discussions of same-sex marriage is like repeatedly p33ing in someone’s else’s pool. What surprises me is that sapient is still surprised that people still don’t like it.
In relation to people who support same-sex marriage, it’s a slap in the face to say, in effect, that they’re fighting for the right to be included in an institution that would be better abolished. Whether it’s meant to be or not, it comes across as both a denigration of that effort and an attempt to derail attention from it.
In relation to people who don’t support same-sex marriage, it’s perfectly designed to feed the idea that same-sex marriage is a step down the slippery slope that leads to horrors. So again, whether it’s meant to be or not, the effect is to undermine the effort to establish same-sex marriage by feeding the worst fears of its opponents, who are well known to be a little bit touchy about the idea of abolishing marriage as we know it.
Not to mention that there are tens of millions of people like Doctor Science (including a few right here at ObWi) who are married and don’t appreciate the institution they value being so casually and airily waved away.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Misattributed to various people, including Albert Einstein and Mark Twain. The earliest known occurrence, and probable origin is Rita Mae Brown, Sudden Death (Bantam Books, New York, 1983), p. 68.
(Who knew.)
Every single time the issue of SSM comes up, here or elsewhere, someone says something like, “why not get government out of marriage altogether and leave it to the churches?” Every. Single. Time.
And so often that someone is sapient, which makes it bit of a mystery why s/he could still be not only “forever surprised” by people’s reactions, but also confused about the reasons for them.
From Jesurgislac, in a previous iteration of this discussion:
Any reaction I have to sapient has nothing to do with “shock” or “anger” at the idea of re-assessing the idea of marriage. Rather, it has to do with what Jes said last time (or at least the last time I was here for it), i.e. that repeatedly bringing up the idea of abolishing civil marriage in discussions of same-sex marriage is like repeatedly p33ing in someone’s else’s pool. What surprises me is that sapient is still surprised that people still don’t like it.
In relation to people who support same-sex marriage, it’s a slap in the face to say, in effect, that they’re fighting for the right to be included in an institution that would be better abolished. Whether it’s meant to be or not, it comes across as both a denigration of that effort and an attempt to derail attention from it.
In relation to people who don’t support same-sex marriage, it’s perfectly designed to feed the idea that same-sex marriage is a step down the slippery slope that leads to horrors. So again, whether it’s meant to be or not, the effect is to undermine the effort to establish same-sex marriage by feeding the worst fears of its opponents, who are well known to be a little bit touchy about the idea of abolishing marriage as we know it.
Not to mention that there are tens of millions of people like Doctor Science (including a few right here at ObWi) who are married and don’t appreciate the institution they value being so casually and airily waved away.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Misattributed to various people, including Albert Einstein and Mark Twain. The earliest known occurrence, and probable origin is Rita Mae Brown, Sudden Death (Bantam Books, New York, 1983), p. 68.
(Who knew.)
There is a river at the edge of town. Every so often someone brings up the notion that building a footbridge over the river would be a good idea. Many people think it would be great if the people could walk across the river.
One person thinks that it would be a good idea to build a bridge that would handle cars and other vehicles. It would be more difficult, take more time but ultimately help many more people.
He is labelled a troublemaker for bringing up the bigger picture every time the subject comes up.
Hopefully, the footbridge gets built, he soesn’t really object to a footbridge. Someday the other bridge will be important toenough people to build it.
There is a river at the edge of town. Every so often someone brings up the notion that building a footbridge over the river would be a good idea. Many people think it would be great if the people could walk across the river.
One person thinks that it would be a good idea to build a bridge that would handle cars and other vehicles. It would be more difficult, take more time but ultimately help many more people.
He is labelled a troublemaker for bringing up the bigger picture every time the subject comes up.
Hopefully, the footbridge gets built, he soesn’t really object to a footbridge. Someday the other bridge will be important toenough people to build it.
One person thinks that it would be a good idea to build a bridge that would handle cars and other vehicles. It would be more difficult, take more time but ultimately help many more people.
No, that one person in your anecdote is objecting to the concept of bridges or even the idea of going on to the other side of the river at all and has long winded explanations about why the other side of the river sucks and even if you wanted to go on to the other side of the river, you wouldn’t just have everyone use boats.
One person thinks that it would be a good idea to build a bridge that would handle cars and other vehicles. It would be more difficult, take more time but ultimately help many more people.
No, that one person in your anecdote is objecting to the concept of bridges or even the idea of going on to the other side of the river at all and has long winded explanations about why the other side of the river sucks and even if you wanted to go on to the other side of the river, you wouldn’t just have everyone use boats.
I not really talking about sapient, so much. But really, folks, Every. Single. Time. Sometimes it’s sapient here, but sometimes it’s something else. I’ve lost track of the commenters who say it at slacktivist, Kit Whitfield & I have a whole tag-team routine to reply to them. I’ve seen them at Balloon Juice, at Ordinary Gentlemen, at Balko’s, in random newspaper comments sections. It’s been going on for YEARS.
Where does this meme come from, and how can I make it stop?
I not really talking about sapient, so much. But really, folks, Every. Single. Time. Sometimes it’s sapient here, but sometimes it’s something else. I’ve lost track of the commenters who say it at slacktivist, Kit Whitfield & I have a whole tag-team routine to reply to them. I’ve seen them at Balloon Juice, at Ordinary Gentlemen, at Balko’s, in random newspaper comments sections. It’s been going on for YEARS.
Where does this meme come from, and how can I make it stop?
Where does this meme come from, and how can I make it stop?
I think there are a few traits that combine to make this sort of behavior depressingly common:
(1) Most people don’t know a damn thing about public policy and are very ignorant of public institutions. Their ignorance of the fact that American governance has an absurdly large number of veto points stops them from realizing that their ideas are unworkable in the extreme.
(2) Contrarianism. You know how Slate has carved a niche writing insane things like Creed was good and black people really are genetically inferior? There’s a fundamental human drive to proudly assert that the conventional wisdom is wrong, that everyone else is a simp who lacks your unique vision which allows you to see the world as it is rather than as hand puppets on the cave wall. Of course, a true contrarian can’t just say “gay marriage is wrong!” because lots of people already believe that. They need a way to be contrary without being on the wrong side of history. So they say “marriage should be eliminated” instead. That gives them contrarian cred without having to feel ashamed in 20 years when same sex marriage is universally accepted.
(3) They’re Architecture Astronauts:
This desire to wish away all the legacy encumberants of our culture and our history (will married people be pissed off when we demote marriage as an institution and blame it on the guys? Pshaw! I’m an astronaut!) is of a piece with solving the meta problem. Sapient makes it explicit: people think unwed mothers are the lowest form of life. What do we do about that problem? Radically reorganize our society! But how do we do that? Let’s take advantage of all the hard work that LGBT folks have done. They probably won’t mind.
As for how to make it stop, I have no idea. I’m still boggled at the thought of people writing, in public, that Creed is good. In comparison, the bizarre tick that compels people to say “let’s eliminate marriage!” whenever same sex marriage discussions arise may not be that bad.
Where does this meme come from, and how can I make it stop?
I think there are a few traits that combine to make this sort of behavior depressingly common:
(1) Most people don’t know a damn thing about public policy and are very ignorant of public institutions. Their ignorance of the fact that American governance has an absurdly large number of veto points stops them from realizing that their ideas are unworkable in the extreme.
(2) Contrarianism. You know how Slate has carved a niche writing insane things like Creed was good and black people really are genetically inferior? There’s a fundamental human drive to proudly assert that the conventional wisdom is wrong, that everyone else is a simp who lacks your unique vision which allows you to see the world as it is rather than as hand puppets on the cave wall. Of course, a true contrarian can’t just say “gay marriage is wrong!” because lots of people already believe that. They need a way to be contrary without being on the wrong side of history. So they say “marriage should be eliminated” instead. That gives them contrarian cred without having to feel ashamed in 20 years when same sex marriage is universally accepted.
(3) They’re Architecture Astronauts:
This desire to wish away all the legacy encumberants of our culture and our history (will married people be pissed off when we demote marriage as an institution and blame it on the guys? Pshaw! I’m an astronaut!) is of a piece with solving the meta problem. Sapient makes it explicit: people think unwed mothers are the lowest form of life. What do we do about that problem? Radically reorganize our society! But how do we do that? Let’s take advantage of all the hard work that LGBT folks have done. They probably won’t mind.
As for how to make it stop, I have no idea. I’m still boggled at the thought of people writing, in public, that Creed is good. In comparison, the bizarre tick that compels people to say “let’s eliminate marriage!” whenever same sex marriage discussions arise may not be that bad.
Justme:
I assure you that everyone is related and that DNA tests prove it.
All that matters is that we now have genetic testing to avoid genetic disorders.
This is a solved problem. Move on.
Justme:
I assure you that everyone is related and that DNA tests prove it.
All that matters is that we now have genetic testing to avoid genetic disorders.
This is a solved problem. Move on.
Hey Doc,
Is the ‘it’ just this thing about marriage, or is it more general?
It may be cold comfort, but I explain to my students any number of things, and, as soon as there is another assignment, they make precisely the same mistake. In some cases, it has been PRECISELY the same mistake, without the fig-leaf of a different word, or a different context. It happens in aikido as well. I’ll teach something, I’ll get someone to the point of doing it correctly, and, when their attention is moved back away from that specific point, the same exact mistake.
There’s an open thread opp there that will be exploited later, so please go back to discussing marriage, though.
Hey Doc,
Is the ‘it’ just this thing about marriage, or is it more general?
It may be cold comfort, but I explain to my students any number of things, and, as soon as there is another assignment, they make precisely the same mistake. In some cases, it has been PRECISELY the same mistake, without the fig-leaf of a different word, or a different context. It happens in aikido as well. I’ll teach something, I’ll get someone to the point of doing it correctly, and, when their attention is moved back away from that specific point, the same exact mistake.
There’s an open thread opp there that will be exploited later, so please go back to discussing marriage, though.
Where does this meme come from, and how can I make it stop?
Maybe just plug your ears? 😉
But if you do figure out how to stop it, I hope you’ll share your methods so that we can apply them to some other pesky memes, like the idea that blizzards mean climate change isn’t happening, or evolution has something to do with the big bang….
Where does this meme come from, and how can I make it stop?
Maybe just plug your ears? 😉
But if you do figure out how to stop it, I hope you’ll share your methods so that we can apply them to some other pesky memes, like the idea that blizzards mean climate change isn’t happening, or evolution has something to do with the big bang….
Doctor Science:
Without sparing time to go and do fresh research, last I looked, this is true, and you’re correct, and it’s definitely problematic, I agree.
But the solution, legally, I think, is simply to let contract theory and contract law prevail.
Then we get into questions of international scope, the essence of whether nationalism should exist, to what degree there should be federalism, globalism, localism, and I walk away at that point to leave that for another discussion. 🙂
Fine by me, but I can’t resist pointing out that only hours ago, minutes ago, and right now, I’m avoiding an argument on Facebook between Scott, and one of my oldest and best friends (someone I tend to exchange long sets of email and other communications with many times a day, many days), a major science fiction editor, about comparing the Wisconsin to Egypt.
I realize that most people can’t read that discussion, but if you got onto Facebook, and friended me, and since Moshe has their privacy set to Friends of Friends — you could — and since that includes Moshe’s 957 Friends and my — it says 772 Friends at the moment (but, weirdly, I have not Friended Scott, nor asked him to Be My Friend, so I don’t know his number of Friends), that’s a lot of people — and then I might suggest that people simply google the two phrases, together, of “gary farber” and “robert heinlein” and then stand back, because that’ll take through decades of my history with RAH and Alexei Panshin, and more.
Then I might talk about how I gave so many notes on my friend for over thirty-three years, Bill Patterson’s manuscript of his biography of RAH — the disk of that draft is within arm’s reach of me now, I “talk” with Bill most days — and I might, you know, digress, though I could, having now done that his far, probably stay on topic if I’m awake enough. 🙂
So, sure, why not, if we find a slow moment.
Doctor Science:
Without sparing time to go and do fresh research, last I looked, this is true, and you’re correct, and it’s definitely problematic, I agree.
But the solution, legally, I think, is simply to let contract theory and contract law prevail.
Then we get into questions of international scope, the essence of whether nationalism should exist, to what degree there should be federalism, globalism, localism, and I walk away at that point to leave that for another discussion. 🙂
Fine by me, but I can’t resist pointing out that only hours ago, minutes ago, and right now, I’m avoiding an argument on Facebook between Scott, and one of my oldest and best friends (someone I tend to exchange long sets of email and other communications with many times a day, many days), a major science fiction editor, about comparing the Wisconsin to Egypt.
I realize that most people can’t read that discussion, but if you got onto Facebook, and friended me, and since Moshe has their privacy set to Friends of Friends — you could — and since that includes Moshe’s 957 Friends and my — it says 772 Friends at the moment (but, weirdly, I have not Friended Scott, nor asked him to Be My Friend, so I don’t know his number of Friends), that’s a lot of people — and then I might suggest that people simply google the two phrases, together, of “gary farber” and “robert heinlein” and then stand back, because that’ll take through decades of my history with RAH and Alexei Panshin, and more.
Then I might talk about how I gave so many notes on my friend for over thirty-three years, Bill Patterson’s manuscript of his biography of RAH — the disk of that draft is within arm’s reach of me now, I “talk” with Bill most days — and I might, you know, digress, though I could, having now done that his far, probably stay on topic if I’m awake enough. 🙂
So, sure, why not, if we find a slow moment.
I’ll not mention that I’m probably the only person in the world who is a good friend of Bill Patterson’s and a friend of Alexei Panshin’s, and that I actually can, it turns out, be diplomatic, under many circumstances. 🙂 🙂 🙂
I’m going to be away, btw, next weekend, with friends, and the weekend after, doing stuff:
And other stuff:
I have some guest blog posts lined up, and if I have time, will write some of my own and time them to auto-post, but mostly I’ll be out of contact, more than not, for much of March 3rd through March 7th, and March 10th though March 14th, so those are good gap times, I expect, although who knows, maybe the place will be jumping?
It’s not as if, after all, we had some system for coordinating posts.
Although I do have in mind a possible suggestion for sending around a single sentence note to those of us willing to receive such more or less saying “I’m going to address Current Event X” so we don’t wind up with two of us putting a bunch of work into the same thing and accidentally duplicate each other, but for now that’s doesn’t seem to be a problem, and can wait until it becomes one, if it ever does.
Have fun! Er, TANSTAAFL? Talk away.
Influence of the Science Fiction Writings of Robert A. Heinlein on Polyamory. We have some dinkum thinkums, but I’m afraid my own philosophy has never always been “Keep mouth shut.”
Or I wouldn’t be a blogger and writer. Apologies.
I’ll not mention that I’m probably the only person in the world who is a good friend of Bill Patterson’s and a friend of Alexei Panshin’s, and that I actually can, it turns out, be diplomatic, under many circumstances. 🙂 🙂 🙂
I’m going to be away, btw, next weekend, with friends, and the weekend after, doing stuff:
And other stuff:
I have some guest blog posts lined up, and if I have time, will write some of my own and time them to auto-post, but mostly I’ll be out of contact, more than not, for much of March 3rd through March 7th, and March 10th though March 14th, so those are good gap times, I expect, although who knows, maybe the place will be jumping?
It’s not as if, after all, we had some system for coordinating posts.
Although I do have in mind a possible suggestion for sending around a single sentence note to those of us willing to receive such more or less saying “I’m going to address Current Event X” so we don’t wind up with two of us putting a bunch of work into the same thing and accidentally duplicate each other, but for now that’s doesn’t seem to be a problem, and can wait until it becomes one, if it ever does.
Have fun! Er, TANSTAAFL? Talk away.
Influence of the Science Fiction Writings of Robert A. Heinlein on Polyamory. We have some dinkum thinkums, but I’m afraid my own philosophy has never always been “Keep mouth shut.”
Or I wouldn’t be a blogger and writer. Apologies.
JanieM:
Um….
I’m afraid not.
I do not regret to inform you that I quite frequently find myself a much better researcher than Wikiquotes, although in general, it’s probably the best single site on the web for authenticating quotes.
But — I really don’t like sounding immodest, I really don’t — the fact is that I’ve frequently checked when something seems doubtful, and found more correct information, so, immodestly: I’m better.
Example, on my sidebar:
You have to look carefully, but 1919 and 1914 are not, in fact, the same years, Wikiquotes’ link goes to the wrong place, it’s close, but Wikiquotes is wrong, I’m right, I’ve done this a lot of times. 🙂
JanieM:
Um….
I’m afraid not.
I do not regret to inform you that I quite frequently find myself a much better researcher than Wikiquotes, although in general, it’s probably the best single site on the web for authenticating quotes.
But — I really don’t like sounding immodest, I really don’t — the fact is that I’ve frequently checked when something seems doubtful, and found more correct information, so, immodestly: I’m better.
Example, on my sidebar:
You have to look carefully, but 1919 and 1914 are not, in fact, the same years, Wikiquotes’ link goes to the wrong place, it’s close, but Wikiquotes is wrong, I’m right, I’ve done this a lot of times. 🙂
DS:
It’s not an illogical progression of thought, offensive as it is when considered from better angles, so:
You can’t, any more than I can stop people referring to “Ghandi”, or get people to stop referring to “Ursula K. LeGuin” instead of her actual name, Ursula K. Le Guin.
DS:
It’s not an illogical progression of thought, offensive as it is when considered from better angles, so:
You can’t, any more than I can stop people referring to “Ghandi”, or get people to stop referring to “Ursula K. LeGuin” instead of her actual name, Ursula K. Le Guin.
Gary:
Sorry, I don’t cross the streams. No bloglandia friends on FB. And I only log onto FB in a “playpen” — Google Chrome, in which I log into absolutely nothing else (including gmail). I don’t trust Chrome not to send every click back to Google, and I don’t trust FB not to track me everywhere, so I give them each other to play with.
Gary:
Sorry, I don’t cross the streams. No bloglandia friends on FB. And I only log onto FB in a “playpen” — Google Chrome, in which I log into absolutely nothing else (including gmail). I don’t trust Chrome not to send every click back to Google, and I don’t trust FB not to track me everywhere, so I give them each other to play with.
Gary:
You say, of the “leave marriage to the churches” meme:
— and I don’t see the logic *at all*. It reminds me more of an exasperated parent giving a kid the toy he’s whining for to shut him up — with (to me) the implication that the toy isn’t worth the whining, anyway.
Gary:
You say, of the “leave marriage to the churches” meme:
— and I don’t see the logic *at all*. It reminds me more of an exasperated parent giving a kid the toy he’s whining for to shut him up — with (to me) the implication that the toy isn’t worth the whining, anyway.
I don’t trust Chrome not to send every click back to Google
I think you should reconsider because:
(0) Google says they don’t right here (Matt Cutts is a google employee).
(1) Almost all of Chrome’s source code is open to the public here.
(2) Anyone can check exactly what data Chrome sends back to Google by running a packet sniffer like Wireshark.Needless to say, no one has ever found evidence that Chrome was secretly sending all your clicks back to Google.
I don’t trust Chrome not to send every click back to Google
I think you should reconsider because:
(0) Google says they don’t right here (Matt Cutts is a google employee).
(1) Almost all of Chrome’s source code is open to the public here.
(2) Anyone can check exactly what data Chrome sends back to Google by running a packet sniffer like Wireshark.Needless to say, no one has ever found evidence that Chrome was secretly sending all your clicks back to Google.
Higher up, sapient said:
McKinneyTexas did a good job of pointing out the legal difficulties of using contracts and wills to do some of the job of marriage.
I’m going to also explain that “kinship” is a technical anthropological term that does *not* mean “genetic relationship”. Every human society has a set of kinship rules that specify which relationships *count* as family, whether the people are genetically related or not.
To take the classic example, rules about incest.
There are cultures in which half-sibling incest is permitted, but usually it is only permitted where the half-sibs have the same father, not where they have the same mother. Both sorts of half-sibs are genetically related to the same degree, but in these cultures half-sibs who share a mother are considered “brother and sister”, while half-sibs who share a father are not.
Another example, about which different European cultures have diametrically-opposed rules: a widow and her late husband’s brother. In some kinship systems, this marriage would be considered incest (see: Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII’s first wife) and not permitted. In other kinship systems, it would be mandatory: levirate marriage. In Tibet, the widow might already be married to the brother, via sibling polyandry.
Biologically speaking, the marriage between a widow and her brother-in-law is *never* incest, because they have no (family-level) genetic relationship. But kinship systems aren’t about genetic relationships, they’re about *family* relationships, as a culture defines them.
Higher up, sapient said:
McKinneyTexas did a good job of pointing out the legal difficulties of using contracts and wills to do some of the job of marriage.
I’m going to also explain that “kinship” is a technical anthropological term that does *not* mean “genetic relationship”. Every human society has a set of kinship rules that specify which relationships *count* as family, whether the people are genetically related or not.
To take the classic example, rules about incest.
There are cultures in which half-sibling incest is permitted, but usually it is only permitted where the half-sibs have the same father, not where they have the same mother. Both sorts of half-sibs are genetically related to the same degree, but in these cultures half-sibs who share a mother are considered “brother and sister”, while half-sibs who share a father are not.
Another example, about which different European cultures have diametrically-opposed rules: a widow and her late husband’s brother. In some kinship systems, this marriage would be considered incest (see: Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII’s first wife) and not permitted. In other kinship systems, it would be mandatory: levirate marriage. In Tibet, the widow might already be married to the brother, via sibling polyandry.
Biologically speaking, the marriage between a widow and her brother-in-law is *never* incest, because they have no (family-level) genetic relationship. But kinship systems aren’t about genetic relationships, they’re about *family* relationships, as a culture defines them.
Turb:
I don’t suspect Chrome of being a keylogger. I know, though, that it sends a *bucket* of data back as I surf — look at how fast the I/O reads pile up. I assume that it keeps track of every link I visit, To Serve You Better.
Having Google vouch for its own behavior is *not* convincing.
Turb:
I don’t suspect Chrome of being a keylogger. I know, though, that it sends a *bucket* of data back as I surf — look at how fast the I/O reads pile up. I assume that it keeps track of every link I visit, To Serve You Better.
Having Google vouch for its own behavior is *not* convincing.
look at how fast the I/O reads pile up.
That doesn’t actually tell you anything meaningful. Not all network IO goes to Google.
I assume that it keeps track of every link I visit, To Serve You Better.
All browsers keep track of links you visit in order to implement history. But that doesn’t mean Chrome sends back history data to Google’s servers.
Having Google vouch for its own behavior is *not* convincing.
When they open source the code, it becomes pretty convincing to me. When anyone can download Wireshark for free and verify for themselves, that becomes pretty convincing. I don’t know what Google could do beyond that: their word isn’t good enough for you and neither is evidence.
I mean, your belief that Chrome is sending your clicks to Google is either something that can be tested or it is some sort of religious belief. There’s zero evidence that Chrome sends clicks to Google. It is easy to check, and no one has ever detected such transmissions. Fire up Wireshark and look for connections from Chrome that are going to Google. You won’t find any except as described in the link I gave you. I get that most people aren’t comfortable running a packet sniffer, but there are a few million people in the world who are and none of them have ever found anything problematic here.
look at how fast the I/O reads pile up.
That doesn’t actually tell you anything meaningful. Not all network IO goes to Google.
I assume that it keeps track of every link I visit, To Serve You Better.
All browsers keep track of links you visit in order to implement history. But that doesn’t mean Chrome sends back history data to Google’s servers.
Having Google vouch for its own behavior is *not* convincing.
When they open source the code, it becomes pretty convincing to me. When anyone can download Wireshark for free and verify for themselves, that becomes pretty convincing. I don’t know what Google could do beyond that: their word isn’t good enough for you and neither is evidence.
I mean, your belief that Chrome is sending your clicks to Google is either something that can be tested or it is some sort of religious belief. There’s zero evidence that Chrome sends clicks to Google. It is easy to check, and no one has ever detected such transmissions. Fire up Wireshark and look for connections from Chrome that are going to Google. You won’t find any except as described in the link I gave you. I get that most people aren’t comfortable running a packet sniffer, but there are a few million people in the world who are and none of them have ever found anything problematic here.
“No bloglandia friends on FB.”
That’s fine.
I do talk to Russell, Slart, on occasion Eric, and now LJ, there. Also various ObWi commenters; some lurkers here lurk there as my Friends.
Most of my FB Friends are either bloggers, journalists/academics, sf people, or other commenters here, fans of my own writing, plus various misc.
I’ve recently been using Twitter, which I have relayed to FB. Eric is quite active on Twitter.
There are also mailing lists; I could nominate you, but not if you’re not interested.
No need to include yourself in any of these things, or anything else.
Google is something I also know a great deal about, and I also have very good friends very high up there, but I decline to further involve myself in this discussion.
“No bloglandia friends on FB.”
That’s fine.
I do talk to Russell, Slart, on occasion Eric, and now LJ, there. Also various ObWi commenters; some lurkers here lurk there as my Friends.
Most of my FB Friends are either bloggers, journalists/academics, sf people, or other commenters here, fans of my own writing, plus various misc.
I’ve recently been using Twitter, which I have relayed to FB. Eric is quite active on Twitter.
There are also mailing lists; I could nominate you, but not if you’re not interested.
No need to include yourself in any of these things, or anything else.
Google is something I also know a great deal about, and I also have very good friends very high up there, but I decline to further involve myself in this discussion.
Okay, not declining, this much: Turbulence is correct.
Okay, not declining, this much: Turbulence is correct.
And: “I assume that it keeps track of every link I visit, To Serve You Better.”
a) Don’t use Chrome, then. Not a problem.
It’s a very nice program, but shouldn’t be used if you have paranoias about Google.
In fact, don’t use Google, or gmail, or any Google tool. This is easy, if you prefer.
b) Use Firefox, add-ons HTTPS-Everywhere, BetterPrivacy, and NoScript.
c) Don’t use MyGoogle.
How they could do anything if you take any of these steps, let alone all, let alone also use any of a zillion other possible security software tools, I’m unaware.
As Turb notes, sniff your own packets.
If anyone can specify ways around this, I certainly would learn much I don’t; unlike Turbulence, I’m not remotely a computer expert of any kind, nor any kind of engineer, etc.
I merely know people who are, like Bruce Schneier and his wife, for decades, they’ve bought me dim sum, had beers with Whit Diffie (bored him talking sf fandom with Avedon Carol, very close friend since 1974ish, not so much currently), have read a certain amount, know what I’ve learned.
That only goes so far and anyone remotely expert knows much more than I do.
But I don’t assume much.
I’ve also never gotten a computer virus, ever.
I use the internet rather heavily. And Google.
And before Google, Alta Vista, before that: gopher, veronica, archie.
Before the web, before the internet, I read and archived print-outs of all messages from sf-lovers on ARPANET since 1978.
I do know a little bit of relevant stuff.
In general, I try to assume as little as possible.
But I’m very human and flawed, I do make all sorts of errors all the time. I have my ups and downs.
If you’re using FB, and have concerns, I would hope you’re using the https option, per Security › Security: Opt-in security features and Secure Browsing.
If not, you might want to, though it will break certain FB parts. This may be a feature, not a bug; it is for me in many ways, but then, FB constantly breaks itself, anyway, so 6 of 1, half dozen of the other, and FB is a tool, use it or not as one wishes. I’m agnostic.
And: “I assume that it keeps track of every link I visit, To Serve You Better.”
a) Don’t use Chrome, then. Not a problem.
It’s a very nice program, but shouldn’t be used if you have paranoias about Google.
In fact, don’t use Google, or gmail, or any Google tool. This is easy, if you prefer.
b) Use Firefox, add-ons HTTPS-Everywhere, BetterPrivacy, and NoScript.
c) Don’t use MyGoogle.
How they could do anything if you take any of these steps, let alone all, let alone also use any of a zillion other possible security software tools, I’m unaware.
As Turb notes, sniff your own packets.
If anyone can specify ways around this, I certainly would learn much I don’t; unlike Turbulence, I’m not remotely a computer expert of any kind, nor any kind of engineer, etc.
I merely know people who are, like Bruce Schneier and his wife, for decades, they’ve bought me dim sum, had beers with Whit Diffie (bored him talking sf fandom with Avedon Carol, very close friend since 1974ish, not so much currently), have read a certain amount, know what I’ve learned.
That only goes so far and anyone remotely expert knows much more than I do.
But I don’t assume much.
I’ve also never gotten a computer virus, ever.
I use the internet rather heavily. And Google.
And before Google, Alta Vista, before that: gopher, veronica, archie.
Before the web, before the internet, I read and archived print-outs of all messages from sf-lovers on ARPANET since 1978.
I do know a little bit of relevant stuff.
In general, I try to assume as little as possible.
But I’m very human and flawed, I do make all sorts of errors all the time. I have my ups and downs.
If you’re using FB, and have concerns, I would hope you’re using the https option, per Security › Security: Opt-in security features and Secure Browsing.
If not, you might want to, though it will break certain FB parts. This may be a feature, not a bug; it is for me in many ways, but then, FB constantly breaks itself, anyway, so 6 of 1, half dozen of the other, and FB is a tool, use it or not as one wishes. I’m agnostic.
No one has talked about Robert George’s “revisionist” definition of marriage, and whether it is correct. Just wondering what people think of it:
“Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.”
I would offer a different definition:
“Marriage is a legal action taken by two unrelated people, who with the purpose of creating a new family unit (with the possibility of children and in-law relationships) make their relationship subject to state and federal laws associated with family rights (involving, among other things, medical access, custody, property, inheritance, immigration and tax treatment).”
No one has talked about Robert George’s “revisionist” definition of marriage, and whether it is correct. Just wondering what people think of it:
“Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.”
I would offer a different definition:
“Marriage is a legal action taken by two unrelated people, who with the purpose of creating a new family unit (with the possibility of children and in-law relationships) make their relationship subject to state and federal laws associated with family rights (involving, among other things, medical access, custody, property, inheritance, immigration and tax treatment).”
I realize I’m late to the party (gotta remember to check in before bed). But I can’t resist commenting (OK, ranting) on the civil unions (“domestic partnerships” here in California) question.
The problem with these, in my mind, is not so much that they are marraige-lite because they do not confer all of the rights of marriage. It is that they are marriage-lite because they entail very few of the responsibilities that come with marriage. Which is why, IMHO, the substantial majority of all domestic partnerships in California are between heterosexuals who have no legal bar to marrying — it gets them (most of) the rights, without the burden of the responsibilities.
Which is why I would think that any real conservative, being big on responsibility as a concept, should argue hard to both legalize gay marriage and simultaneously repeal any and all domestic partnership (i.e. civil union) legislation. Insist that people accept the responsibilities if they want the rights. And if they don’t want the responsibilities, they can just shack up and get neither.
I realize I’m late to the party (gotta remember to check in before bed). But I can’t resist commenting (OK, ranting) on the civil unions (“domestic partnerships” here in California) question.
The problem with these, in my mind, is not so much that they are marraige-lite because they do not confer all of the rights of marriage. It is that they are marriage-lite because they entail very few of the responsibilities that come with marriage. Which is why, IMHO, the substantial majority of all domestic partnerships in California are between heterosexuals who have no legal bar to marrying — it gets them (most of) the rights, without the burden of the responsibilities.
Which is why I would think that any real conservative, being big on responsibility as a concept, should argue hard to both legalize gay marriage and simultaneously repeal any and all domestic partnership (i.e. civil union) legislation. Insist that people accept the responsibilities if they want the rights. And if they don’t want the responsibilities, they can just shack up and get neither.
sapient:
Your definition seems, offhand, to be a heck of a lot better than what Prof. George came up with. I’d appreciate a response to some of the other things I’ve said to you, though.
sapient:
Your definition seems, offhand, to be a heck of a lot better than what Prof. George came up with. I’d appreciate a response to some of the other things I’ve said to you, though.
For the record, btw, I wrote “like Bruce Schneier and his wife” not as sexist language, but because Bruce is very public, and ***** ****** is very private, and wouldn’t like further clues to her name being added to the public internet. But I’m friendlier, last I looked, with her than him, actually; we’re FB Friends.
Incidentally, Doctor Science, it’s perfectly easy to not Cross Streams on FB by simply having separate Friends Lists for blogging Friends, Friend Friends, Relatives, and as many separate lists as you want, create them once, set Privacy Levels once, then simply post to whichever list you want, it’s all invisible to the other set, problem solved; you can similarly do this via Groups, or any number of systematic ways FB provides, trivially.
I have dozens of such Friends Lists. And read accordingly, but mostly being an open person, I just mostly post to Friends Of Friends, save when I’m protecting other people’s privacy.
One of my private lists is Boring People. 🙂
The great thing about FB, though, is the nigh-infinite configurability, though the often breakage as they tweak stuff every day is a downside.
A lot of people have learning curve issues, but the Help is generally very good, and my own opinion is that, as a generality, the tweakage is generally towards improvement, and the Learning Curve problem is simply an inevitable outcome of our increasingly headed, if not towards a Technological Singularity, but certainly along an ever-increasing rate of growth of knowledge, information, information systems, technology, and played out in software and capitalist competition, and in other words we either constantly adjust or stagnate, but, on the other hand, we also must all deal with the need for the comfort of routine and habits, which I crave myself, for efficiencies sake, there are only 24 hours in a day, and there’s always a tension between these two, and a balance to be found that each of us must find for themselves.
Apologies if this is too much of a digression or thread diversion.
For the record, btw, I wrote “like Bruce Schneier and his wife” not as sexist language, but because Bruce is very public, and ***** ****** is very private, and wouldn’t like further clues to her name being added to the public internet. But I’m friendlier, last I looked, with her than him, actually; we’re FB Friends.
Incidentally, Doctor Science, it’s perfectly easy to not Cross Streams on FB by simply having separate Friends Lists for blogging Friends, Friend Friends, Relatives, and as many separate lists as you want, create them once, set Privacy Levels once, then simply post to whichever list you want, it’s all invisible to the other set, problem solved; you can similarly do this via Groups, or any number of systematic ways FB provides, trivially.
I have dozens of such Friends Lists. And read accordingly, but mostly being an open person, I just mostly post to Friends Of Friends, save when I’m protecting other people’s privacy.
One of my private lists is Boring People. 🙂
The great thing about FB, though, is the nigh-infinite configurability, though the often breakage as they tweak stuff every day is a downside.
A lot of people have learning curve issues, but the Help is generally very good, and my own opinion is that, as a generality, the tweakage is generally towards improvement, and the Learning Curve problem is simply an inevitable outcome of our increasingly headed, if not towards a Technological Singularity, but certainly along an ever-increasing rate of growth of knowledge, information, information systems, technology, and played out in software and capitalist competition, and in other words we either constantly adjust or stagnate, but, on the other hand, we also must all deal with the need for the comfort of routine and habits, which I crave myself, for efficiencies sake, there are only 24 hours in a day, and there’s always a tension between these two, and a balance to be found that each of us must find for themselves.
Apologies if this is too much of a digression or thread diversion.
Doctor Science: “I’d appreciate a response to some of the other things I’ve said to you, though.”
Hi, Doctor Science. I appreciate your posts, and thank you for inviting me to respond. I have to say, I didn’t feel particularly welcome to do so since you said:
“Where does this meme come from, and how can I make it stop?”
By not responding, I thought I was helping to make it stop.
I didn’t realize your post was specifically about “LGBT marriage issues” since you were quoting Robert George, who is trying to define “marriage” in a certain way, and who is trying to force the rest of us to accept that view of marriage. I thought the subject was, in other words, “marriage.”
I had already, of course, learned that if someone brings up LGBT marriage in this blog, I am not allowed to raise any objection to the legal institution of marriage. Apparently, only LGBT rights matter, and until LGBT rights are vindicated and all jurisdictions accept LGBT marriage, the rest of us will have to wait if we wish to discuss whether it’s right for the government to prefer certain family arrangements over others.
I believe McKinney is incorrect that the law can’t address kinship, property, descent and distribution, custody, etc., without the institution of marriage being the centerpiece. In fact, there are many people opting out of marriage who live together, have children, and even die. All of these people have kin, and the law deals with their custody issues, property issues, and death. (Perhaps they don’t have “in-laws,” but in the scheme of things, “in-laws” aren’t very important in the law.) There are certainly creative ways to allow the law to do a better job of coming up with “defaults” for all of these categories of things (using partnership law mixed with aspects of domestic relations law). But no “default” system addresses every need in an ideal way, according to every person’s preference. That’s why attorneys still advise married people to draft wills and estate plans, designate medical representatives, etc.
You stated that you felt “threatened” by a change in the legal construct of marriage because you believe you have a secular marriage, and everything is fine with it. You’re worried that Texas might not recognize your relationship if your state made changes in its marriage laws. Of course, I don’t suggest burning the statutes down all at once, and those matters would have to be addressed gradually. Frankly, having a “preferred” status of “married” when my LGBT brothers and sisters can’t avail themselves of that status in most states is unappealing to me. For Texas to recognize my hypothetical “marriage” when they don’t recognize my friend’s is as offensive to me as it is “threatening” to you. I’d rather not be part of the discriminatory “preferred class”.
But, I’m glad that you’re fine with the status quo – most people are. That is, until they find that they want to get a divorce, or until they want a divorce but don’t get one because they are locked into a relationship that is too difficult and expensive to extricate themselves from. Your marriage is emotionally whatever you want it to be. But no matter how liberal the jurisdiction you were married in, if you move to certain states where the law is very much based on an ideal similar to what Robert George describes, you might be in for a surprise if your spouse decides to leave. (Again, this isn’t personal – I’m not suggesting that YOUR spouse would want to leave.) Your marriage isn’t a contract between you and your spouse; it’s a status and you’re stuck with the law of the place you’re living in. So all is good when your relationship is great – not so good if things go wrong and you happen to be in the wrong place.
Many people avoid marriage for the very reason that marriage has religious implications that they prefer not to live with. “Marriage” in the United States does not include polygamy, polyandry, and polyamorous arrangements – even though those arrangements are accepted in other cultures (as has been pointed out, but this is another interesting source.) But forget about sex, the idea that single mothers are disparaged by society – how can anyone be a feminist and not consider this problematic? Idealizing “marriage” contributes to this problem. Maybe the reason that Every Single Time people bring up marriage as being a problem is because they see it as being a problem.
Because marriage is an important to so many people as a cultural institution, it can continue to exist as such, separate from a legal institution. In fact, to have it co-exist legally for awhile along with a domestic partnership regime (which would not be based on sexual relationships at all, but on the idea that two or more people might want to live in a household) would satisfy me. This is what is already happening in France and other places. Marriage could then either thrive or atrophy, but at least people could get out of the habit of thinking that it was the only respectable option.
I’m tired of talking about this alone here, and being maligned by other commenters, as though I’m trying to subvert progress in the realm of gay rights. Frankly, it’s an interesting topic to me, but it’s not the most important thing in the world. I feel that my country is disintegrating. I’ll be very happy to see LGBT people have all of the rights that everyone else has – I think (hope) that’s inevitable given the demographic trends. The fact that gay and lesbian people are well represented among the wealthy makes me confident that their interests won’t be ignored. I’m not so sure about the interests of single mothers or a whole lot of other people. “In 2009, 29.9 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 16.9 percent of households headed by single men and 5.8 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty.” Is it that marriage is preferable? Or is it that marriage is preferred? Maybe there are other systems that could provide support more effectively for some people. (But, of course, marriage is the least of their worries – it’s a luxury even to ponder it. in fact, I read recently that the wealthy are getting married in droves; the less wealthy no longer bother. Not sure what the economic demographics are with respect to LGBT couples.)
I only comment on ObWi when I have a difference of opinion that I think is worth expressing (although my comments are rarely valued similarly by the community). I don’t comment when there are plenty of people stating the same case I would make, and better. But I do think it’s fruitless to talk about this issue here any further, since this community rejects out of hand the idea that alternative possibilities might be more fair and inclusive for everyone.
Doctor Science: “I’d appreciate a response to some of the other things I’ve said to you, though.”
Hi, Doctor Science. I appreciate your posts, and thank you for inviting me to respond. I have to say, I didn’t feel particularly welcome to do so since you said:
“Where does this meme come from, and how can I make it stop?”
By not responding, I thought I was helping to make it stop.
I didn’t realize your post was specifically about “LGBT marriage issues” since you were quoting Robert George, who is trying to define “marriage” in a certain way, and who is trying to force the rest of us to accept that view of marriage. I thought the subject was, in other words, “marriage.”
I had already, of course, learned that if someone brings up LGBT marriage in this blog, I am not allowed to raise any objection to the legal institution of marriage. Apparently, only LGBT rights matter, and until LGBT rights are vindicated and all jurisdictions accept LGBT marriage, the rest of us will have to wait if we wish to discuss whether it’s right for the government to prefer certain family arrangements over others.
I believe McKinney is incorrect that the law can’t address kinship, property, descent and distribution, custody, etc., without the institution of marriage being the centerpiece. In fact, there are many people opting out of marriage who live together, have children, and even die. All of these people have kin, and the law deals with their custody issues, property issues, and death. (Perhaps they don’t have “in-laws,” but in the scheme of things, “in-laws” aren’t very important in the law.) There are certainly creative ways to allow the law to do a better job of coming up with “defaults” for all of these categories of things (using partnership law mixed with aspects of domestic relations law). But no “default” system addresses every need in an ideal way, according to every person’s preference. That’s why attorneys still advise married people to draft wills and estate plans, designate medical representatives, etc.
You stated that you felt “threatened” by a change in the legal construct of marriage because you believe you have a secular marriage, and everything is fine with it. You’re worried that Texas might not recognize your relationship if your state made changes in its marriage laws. Of course, I don’t suggest burning the statutes down all at once, and those matters would have to be addressed gradually. Frankly, having a “preferred” status of “married” when my LGBT brothers and sisters can’t avail themselves of that status in most states is unappealing to me. For Texas to recognize my hypothetical “marriage” when they don’t recognize my friend’s is as offensive to me as it is “threatening” to you. I’d rather not be part of the discriminatory “preferred class”.
But, I’m glad that you’re fine with the status quo – most people are. That is, until they find that they want to get a divorce, or until they want a divorce but don’t get one because they are locked into a relationship that is too difficult and expensive to extricate themselves from. Your marriage is emotionally whatever you want it to be. But no matter how liberal the jurisdiction you were married in, if you move to certain states where the law is very much based on an ideal similar to what Robert George describes, you might be in for a surprise if your spouse decides to leave. (Again, this isn’t personal – I’m not suggesting that YOUR spouse would want to leave.) Your marriage isn’t a contract between you and your spouse; it’s a status and you’re stuck with the law of the place you’re living in. So all is good when your relationship is great – not so good if things go wrong and you happen to be in the wrong place.
Many people avoid marriage for the very reason that marriage has religious implications that they prefer not to live with. “Marriage” in the United States does not include polygamy, polyandry, and polyamorous arrangements – even though those arrangements are accepted in other cultures (as has been pointed out, but this is another interesting source.) But forget about sex, the idea that single mothers are disparaged by society – how can anyone be a feminist and not consider this problematic? Idealizing “marriage” contributes to this problem. Maybe the reason that Every Single Time people bring up marriage as being a problem is because they see it as being a problem.
Because marriage is an important to so many people as a cultural institution, it can continue to exist as such, separate from a legal institution. In fact, to have it co-exist legally for awhile along with a domestic partnership regime (which would not be based on sexual relationships at all, but on the idea that two or more people might want to live in a household) would satisfy me. This is what is already happening in France and other places. Marriage could then either thrive or atrophy, but at least people could get out of the habit of thinking that it was the only respectable option.
I’m tired of talking about this alone here, and being maligned by other commenters, as though I’m trying to subvert progress in the realm of gay rights. Frankly, it’s an interesting topic to me, but it’s not the most important thing in the world. I feel that my country is disintegrating. I’ll be very happy to see LGBT people have all of the rights that everyone else has – I think (hope) that’s inevitable given the demographic trends. The fact that gay and lesbian people are well represented among the wealthy makes me confident that their interests won’t be ignored. I’m not so sure about the interests of single mothers or a whole lot of other people. “In 2009, 29.9 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 16.9 percent of households headed by single men and 5.8 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty.” Is it that marriage is preferable? Or is it that marriage is preferred? Maybe there are other systems that could provide support more effectively for some people. (But, of course, marriage is the least of their worries – it’s a luxury even to ponder it. in fact, I read recently that the wealthy are getting married in droves; the less wealthy no longer bother. Not sure what the economic demographics are with respect to LGBT couples.)
I only comment on ObWi when I have a difference of opinion that I think is worth expressing (although my comments are rarely valued similarly by the community). I don’t comment when there are plenty of people stating the same case I would make, and better. But I do think it’s fruitless to talk about this issue here any further, since this community rejects out of hand the idea that alternative possibilities might be more fair and inclusive for everyone.
1. this community rejects out of hand the idea that alternative possibilities might be more fair and inclusive for everyone.
— Can you produce a single cite to support this assertion? Disagreeing with your particular suggestions (or disliking the way in which they’re offered) is not the same thing. Nor is skepticism as to whether massive wholesale reform of the marriage laws is likely to produce the consequences, and only the consequences, you’re counting on.
— There is nothing — other than the flat fact that we all do some reading here — that “this community” does or agrees upon monolithically. If so many people from such diverse areas of the political map are less than enthusiastic about your topic, maybe there’s something else at work besides the shortcomings of “this community.”
2. But forget about sex, the idea that single mothers are disparaged by society – how can anyone be a feminist and not consider this problematic? Idealizing “marriage” contributes to this problem.
— Can you quote any self-described feminists saying that they don’t consider this problematic? Again, being skeptical about whether your proposed solution will solve the problem isn’t the same thing.
— Do you go around bringing up the abolition of civil marriage every time someone writes about poverty, or birth control, or job training, or child care resources for working parents, or gender stereotyping of all kinds, or any one of dozens of other factors that contribute to the problems of single mothers? If not, why is it only the topic of same-sex marriage that inspires you to grab coattails and try to ride along?
3. I’m tired of talking about this alone here.
— Nobody’s making you talk about it. Conversely, no one is obliged to talk about something they’re not interested in.
4. Apparently, only LGBT rights matter, and until LGBT rights are vindicated and all jurisdictions accept LGBT marriage, the rest of us will have to wait if we wish to discuss whether it’s right for the government to prefer certain family arrangements over others.
— Leaving aside the snotty mischaracterization of what other people have written, nobody’s stopping you from starting your own d*mned blog and hoping someone shows up to discuss what you want to discuss.
1. this community rejects out of hand the idea that alternative possibilities might be more fair and inclusive for everyone.
— Can you produce a single cite to support this assertion? Disagreeing with your particular suggestions (or disliking the way in which they’re offered) is not the same thing. Nor is skepticism as to whether massive wholesale reform of the marriage laws is likely to produce the consequences, and only the consequences, you’re counting on.
— There is nothing — other than the flat fact that we all do some reading here — that “this community” does or agrees upon monolithically. If so many people from such diverse areas of the political map are less than enthusiastic about your topic, maybe there’s something else at work besides the shortcomings of “this community.”
2. But forget about sex, the idea that single mothers are disparaged by society – how can anyone be a feminist and not consider this problematic? Idealizing “marriage” contributes to this problem.
— Can you quote any self-described feminists saying that they don’t consider this problematic? Again, being skeptical about whether your proposed solution will solve the problem isn’t the same thing.
— Do you go around bringing up the abolition of civil marriage every time someone writes about poverty, or birth control, or job training, or child care resources for working parents, or gender stereotyping of all kinds, or any one of dozens of other factors that contribute to the problems of single mothers? If not, why is it only the topic of same-sex marriage that inspires you to grab coattails and try to ride along?
3. I’m tired of talking about this alone here.
— Nobody’s making you talk about it. Conversely, no one is obliged to talk about something they’re not interested in.
4. Apparently, only LGBT rights matter, and until LGBT rights are vindicated and all jurisdictions accept LGBT marriage, the rest of us will have to wait if we wish to discuss whether it’s right for the government to prefer certain family arrangements over others.
— Leaving aside the snotty mischaracterization of what other people have written, nobody’s stopping you from starting your own d*mned blog and hoping someone shows up to discuss what you want to discuss.
Somewhat digressive, but I think not entirely, and of interest: Who’s Behind the Bills that Could Legalize Killing Abortion Providers?
Somewhat digressive, but I think not entirely, and of interest: Who’s Behind the Bills that Could Legalize Killing Abortion Providers?
You’ve learned incorrectly. These are the Posting Rules.
They are the only rules ObWiM has. Until such time as the front pagers who chose to vote vote to change them, they remain The Only Rules.
Period.
If any commenter or front pager tells you otherwise, they’re wrong. All that is not forbidden is allowed.
Period.
No front pager has the right to make up their own rules, even assuming anyone were to try, or mistakenly assert such a right.
Period.
When, if, you see new Posting Rules appear, those will be the new Posting Rules.
Period, end of story.
I’m reading your comment, and it hasn’t be deleted.
You appear to be confused about what the word “allowed” means.
We all tire of many things.
If “other commenters” malign you, what do you want anyone to do about it? If they don’t violate the Posting Rules, they’re allowed.
Everyone is free to argue with you, you’re free to argue back, Doctor Science is free to argue with you, you’re free, enjoy your freedom.
I suggest trying persuasion. It will work on some, not on others. Unless you think someone has hypnotic Mind Ray Control Satellites being used to create a conspiracy against you, you’re going to be argued with until such time as you can magically convince everyone in the world who is free to post here not to argue with you.
Best of luck with that.
You’re precisely as much a part of the community as any other individual who chooses to post. All commenters are equal.
Some are more persuasive than others. Some are more like-minded than others.
If you’re tired, I recommend rest.
You’ve learned incorrectly. These are the Posting Rules.
They are the only rules ObWiM has. Until such time as the front pagers who chose to vote vote to change them, they remain The Only Rules.
Period.
If any commenter or front pager tells you otherwise, they’re wrong. All that is not forbidden is allowed.
Period.
No front pager has the right to make up their own rules, even assuming anyone were to try, or mistakenly assert such a right.
Period.
When, if, you see new Posting Rules appear, those will be the new Posting Rules.
Period, end of story.
I’m reading your comment, and it hasn’t be deleted.
You appear to be confused about what the word “allowed” means.
We all tire of many things.
If “other commenters” malign you, what do you want anyone to do about it? If they don’t violate the Posting Rules, they’re allowed.
Everyone is free to argue with you, you’re free to argue back, Doctor Science is free to argue with you, you’re free, enjoy your freedom.
I suggest trying persuasion. It will work on some, not on others. Unless you think someone has hypnotic Mind Ray Control Satellites being used to create a conspiracy against you, you’re going to be argued with until such time as you can magically convince everyone in the world who is free to post here not to argue with you.
Best of luck with that.
You’re precisely as much a part of the community as any other individual who chooses to post. All commenters are equal.
Some are more persuasive than others. Some are more like-minded than others.
If you’re tired, I recommend rest.
JanieM: “why is it only the topic of same-sex marriage that inspires you to grab coattails and try to ride along?”
Is same-sex marriage a completely different topic than the subject of marriage itself? Is Doctor Science’s post exclusively about same-sex marriage? Did I misread Robert George’s article that he was talking about two competing definitions of “marriage,” and how same-sex marriage would, in fact, change “marriage” for everyone? I’m not sure whose coattails I inappropriately grabbed. Yours?
And no, I don’t think changing domestic relations laws would solve the world’s problems. In fact, I said as much: “marriage is the least of their worries – it’s a luxury even to ponder it”. I think it’s an interesting possibility to ponder, and pondering is what blog commenting is there to promote. IMHO.
Gary, thanks for the link to the Mother Jones article. I hadn’t seen it or read about the trend it describes. It’s disturbing. And yes, I will rest.
JanieM: “why is it only the topic of same-sex marriage that inspires you to grab coattails and try to ride along?”
Is same-sex marriage a completely different topic than the subject of marriage itself? Is Doctor Science’s post exclusively about same-sex marriage? Did I misread Robert George’s article that he was talking about two competing definitions of “marriage,” and how same-sex marriage would, in fact, change “marriage” for everyone? I’m not sure whose coattails I inappropriately grabbed. Yours?
And no, I don’t think changing domestic relations laws would solve the world’s problems. In fact, I said as much: “marriage is the least of their worries – it’s a luxury even to ponder it”. I think it’s an interesting possibility to ponder, and pondering is what blog commenting is there to promote. IMHO.
Gary, thanks for the link to the Mother Jones article. I hadn’t seen it or read about the trend it describes. It’s disturbing. And yes, I will rest.
I believe McKinney is incorrect that the law can’t address kinship, property, descent and distribution, custody, etc., without the institution of marriage being the centerpiece. In fact, there are many people opting out of marriage who live together, have children, and even die. All of these people have kin, and the law deals with their custody issues, property issues, and death.
If two people cohabit and are unmarried, one owning the home and the other not, and if the home owner dies, the survivor has no rights. Moreover, if the law tried to create rights to address this issue, what you would have every time an unmarried person died would be contestants coming forward claiming whatever relationship would be necessary to get a piece of the action. It’s the seamy underbelly of humanity, and it’s something lawyers see all of the time. If want a screwed up legal situation, put two people in an unregulated relationship and have one become disabled or die. Oral wills aren’t enforceable and claiming a “gift” is very chancy and very expensive. Written wills are subject to claims of ‘undue influence’. There are a tons of other examples of why not being married AND having an up to date will is a really bad idea.
On the larger issue of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on gay marriage, attempting to persuade the ‘no’ camp by telling them that marriage has not traditionally been between a man and a woman, with the intent of exclusivity and having children is not going to change many minds. The trend in favor of gay marriage/civil union is not because people question the institution of marriage, it’s because, for the first time in history, gay people are being accepted as people and because it isn’t fair to treat people differently. It’s not complicated. Really.
Finally, I am unaware of any state which does not recognize valid, heterosexual marriages from other states, even if the recognizing state doesn’t permit the form of marriage in question. Example: Texas has common law marriages: cohabit, consummate and a mutually holding out publicly as man and wife. Many states do not have this form of marriage, but all AFAIK recognize a valid Texas common law marriage.
I believe McKinney is incorrect that the law can’t address kinship, property, descent and distribution, custody, etc., without the institution of marriage being the centerpiece. In fact, there are many people opting out of marriage who live together, have children, and even die. All of these people have kin, and the law deals with their custody issues, property issues, and death.
If two people cohabit and are unmarried, one owning the home and the other not, and if the home owner dies, the survivor has no rights. Moreover, if the law tried to create rights to address this issue, what you would have every time an unmarried person died would be contestants coming forward claiming whatever relationship would be necessary to get a piece of the action. It’s the seamy underbelly of humanity, and it’s something lawyers see all of the time. If want a screwed up legal situation, put two people in an unregulated relationship and have one become disabled or die. Oral wills aren’t enforceable and claiming a “gift” is very chancy and very expensive. Written wills are subject to claims of ‘undue influence’. There are a tons of other examples of why not being married AND having an up to date will is a really bad idea.
On the larger issue of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on gay marriage, attempting to persuade the ‘no’ camp by telling them that marriage has not traditionally been between a man and a woman, with the intent of exclusivity and having children is not going to change many minds. The trend in favor of gay marriage/civil union is not because people question the institution of marriage, it’s because, for the first time in history, gay people are being accepted as people and because it isn’t fair to treat people differently. It’s not complicated. Really.
Finally, I am unaware of any state which does not recognize valid, heterosexual marriages from other states, even if the recognizing state doesn’t permit the form of marriage in question. Example: Texas has common law marriages: cohabit, consummate and a mutually holding out publicly as man and wife. Many states do not have this form of marriage, but all AFAIK recognize a valid Texas common law marriage.
Finally, I am unaware of any state which does not recognize valid, heterosexual marriages from other states, even if the recognizing state doesn’t permit the form of marriage in question.
Maybe this is a quibble, but from the Maine statutes:
Headlines of subsections 2 to 5:
Interesting that consanguinity rules are included, but not rules about age.
Surely Maine isn’t the only place with reservations like this?
Finally, I am unaware of any state which does not recognize valid, heterosexual marriages from other states, even if the recognizing state doesn’t permit the form of marriage in question.
Maybe this is a quibble, but from the Maine statutes:
Headlines of subsections 2 to 5:
Interesting that consanguinity rules are included, but not rules about age.
Surely Maine isn’t the only place with reservations like this?
On the larger issue of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on gay marriage, attempting to persuade the ‘no’ camp by telling them that marriage has not traditionally been between a man and a woman, with the intent of exclusivity and having children is not going to change many minds.
Well, yes, probably, but it should also be true that “defending traditional marriage” — i.e., convincing people to fight against gay marriage — on the basis that “thus has it always been, thus should it always be” should be pushed back against, because it simply isn’t true.
On the larger issue of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on gay marriage, attempting to persuade the ‘no’ camp by telling them that marriage has not traditionally been between a man and a woman, with the intent of exclusivity and having children is not going to change many minds.
Well, yes, probably, but it should also be true that “defending traditional marriage” — i.e., convincing people to fight against gay marriage — on the basis that “thus has it always been, thus should it always be” should be pushed back against, because it simply isn’t true.
Janie, I think that every state has laws against polygamy, incest and lack of capacity. My point was, if the form of marriage is recognized in State A, and if its’ a valid marriage in State A, the other 49 states usually recognize that form.
“thus has it always been, thus should it always be” should be pushed back against, because it simply isn’t true.
In place of ‘true’, I would insert either ‘right’ or ‘fair’. I’m quibbling. It’s Monday.
Janie, I think that every state has laws against polygamy, incest and lack of capacity. My point was, if the form of marriage is recognized in State A, and if its’ a valid marriage in State A, the other 49 states usually recognize that form.
“thus has it always been, thus should it always be” should be pushed back against, because it simply isn’t true.
In place of ‘true’, I would insert either ‘right’ or ‘fair’. I’m quibbling. It’s Monday.
Doctor Science:
The trouble, legally speaking, with poly marriages, and the reason they aren’t on the slippery slope from SSM, is that there’s no legal tradition — anywhere in the world AFAIK — to use as a template.
Without sparing time to go and do fresh research, last I looked, this is true, and you’re correct, and it’s definitely problematic, I agree.
But the solution, legally, I think, is simply to let contract theory and contract law prevail.
I meant to address this first. Poly marriage is, first of all, a total nonstarter in the US and probably most other places as well. More importantly, introducing a third, co-equal partner into a relationship makes it administratively near-impossible for the law to address coherently. As but one example, if two of the three procreate, what parental duties/rights does the non-biological partner have? Inheritance, right of possession/visitation upon dissolution? Suppose two of three want to sell the family home, or buy a business and third wants out? Or, two gang up on one emotionally, etc.? It’s a really bad paradigm which, outside a grossly patriarchal and anachronistic model, you won’t find anywhere in a successful society throughout history.
Doctor Science:
The trouble, legally speaking, with poly marriages, and the reason they aren’t on the slippery slope from SSM, is that there’s no legal tradition — anywhere in the world AFAIK — to use as a template.
Without sparing time to go and do fresh research, last I looked, this is true, and you’re correct, and it’s definitely problematic, I agree.
But the solution, legally, I think, is simply to let contract theory and contract law prevail.
I meant to address this first. Poly marriage is, first of all, a total nonstarter in the US and probably most other places as well. More importantly, introducing a third, co-equal partner into a relationship makes it administratively near-impossible for the law to address coherently. As but one example, if two of the three procreate, what parental duties/rights does the non-biological partner have? Inheritance, right of possession/visitation upon dissolution? Suppose two of three want to sell the family home, or buy a business and third wants out? Or, two gang up on one emotionally, etc.? It’s a really bad paradigm which, outside a grossly patriarchal and anachronistic model, you won’t find anywhere in a successful society throughout history.
McK, I got what you were saying. I just thought it was interesting that based on this from the Maine statute:
I.e. Maine does not recognize all marriages from other states, e.g. if the other state’s consanguinity restrictions are different from Maine’s.
“Usually” is not what you said the first time.
Is there quibbling in the water today? 😉
McK, I got what you were saying. I just thought it was interesting that based on this from the Maine statute:
I.e. Maine does not recognize all marriages from other states, e.g. if the other state’s consanguinity restrictions are different from Maine’s.
“Usually” is not what you said the first time.
Is there quibbling in the water today? 😉
“If two people cohabit and are unmarried, one owning the home and the other not, and if the home owner dies, the survivor has no rights.”
Isn’t it just as easy to get a deed with joint tenancy and right of survivorship as it is to get married? It should be!
Not to mention the fact that a statutory scheme could easily be set up where a person could designate (and record in a courthouse) unrelated parties who could be considered next-of-kin. Just curious – doesn’t Texas’s common law marriage system promote the “imposter” problem that you describe, or the problem of people denying a marital relationship when there’s a disability?
“If two people cohabit and are unmarried, one owning the home and the other not, and if the home owner dies, the survivor has no rights.”
Isn’t it just as easy to get a deed with joint tenancy and right of survivorship as it is to get married? It should be!
Not to mention the fact that a statutory scheme could easily be set up where a person could designate (and record in a courthouse) unrelated parties who could be considered next-of-kin. Just curious – doesn’t Texas’s common law marriage system promote the “imposter” problem that you describe, or the problem of people denying a marital relationship when there’s a disability?
In place of ‘true’, I would insert either ‘right’ or ‘fair’.
We’re both right. The former part is not true; the latter part is not fair.
[Polyamory is] a really bad paradigm which, outside a grossly patriarchal and anachronistic model, you won’t find anywhere in a successful society throughout history.
Wait, how are we determining “successful societies” here? Because this seems to be a major case of question-begging.
In place of ‘true’, I would insert either ‘right’ or ‘fair’.
We’re both right. The former part is not true; the latter part is not fair.
[Polyamory is] a really bad paradigm which, outside a grossly patriarchal and anachronistic model, you won’t find anywhere in a successful society throughout history.
Wait, how are we determining “successful societies” here? Because this seems to be a major case of question-begging.
Is there quibbling in the water today? 😉
Seems so. It’s what I do for a living. You’d think I’d be better at it.
isn’t it just as easy to get a deed with joint tenancy and right of survivorship as it is to get married? It should be!
Sure, if you know that’s what you are supposed to do when you buy the house, but the problem with life is that people do so many things so many different ways that you can’t write a statutory scheme that covers everything. If A moves in with B and they live together for 10 years and B fails to deed over the house, then what are A’s rights? Zero. Also, if B deeds over the house, there are gift tax issues.
Not to mention the fact that a statutory scheme could easily be set up where a person could designate (and record in a courthouse) unrelated parties who could be considered next-of-kin.
Of course, and what rights would those be? Unplug the ventilator, sign on the checking account, sell the stock portfolio? Like I said upthread, if they have a bunch of money, I and my fellow lawyers do well. Everyone else, not so much.
Just curious – doesn’t Texas’s common law marriage system promote the “imposter” problem that you describe, or the problem of people denying a marital relationship when there’s a disability?
Yes, happens all the time in wrongful death cases. We get bereaved widows coming in from everywhere. Fortunately, my clients have the $$$ to pay me to sort it out.
Wait, how are we determining “successful societies” here? Because this seems to be a major case of question-begging.
I don’t think so. My criteria for a successful society is one that lasted long enough to make it into recorded history. Polygamy is not unheard of, obviously, and many polygamous societies were successful by my loose criteria. But the underpinning to those societies was a level of patriarchal dominance that is repugnant by contemporary standards.
Is there quibbling in the water today? 😉
Seems so. It’s what I do for a living. You’d think I’d be better at it.
isn’t it just as easy to get a deed with joint tenancy and right of survivorship as it is to get married? It should be!
Sure, if you know that’s what you are supposed to do when you buy the house, but the problem with life is that people do so many things so many different ways that you can’t write a statutory scheme that covers everything. If A moves in with B and they live together for 10 years and B fails to deed over the house, then what are A’s rights? Zero. Also, if B deeds over the house, there are gift tax issues.
Not to mention the fact that a statutory scheme could easily be set up where a person could designate (and record in a courthouse) unrelated parties who could be considered next-of-kin.
Of course, and what rights would those be? Unplug the ventilator, sign on the checking account, sell the stock portfolio? Like I said upthread, if they have a bunch of money, I and my fellow lawyers do well. Everyone else, not so much.
Just curious – doesn’t Texas’s common law marriage system promote the “imposter” problem that you describe, or the problem of people denying a marital relationship when there’s a disability?
Yes, happens all the time in wrongful death cases. We get bereaved widows coming in from everywhere. Fortunately, my clients have the $$$ to pay me to sort it out.
Wait, how are we determining “successful societies” here? Because this seems to be a major case of question-begging.
I don’t think so. My criteria for a successful society is one that lasted long enough to make it into recorded history. Polygamy is not unheard of, obviously, and many polygamous societies were successful by my loose criteria. But the underpinning to those societies was a level of patriarchal dominance that is repugnant by contemporary standards.
“Of course, and what rights would those be? Unplug the ventilator, sign on the checking account, sell the stock portfolio?” Same as enjoyed by next-of-kin now. Except that that people could override the default person. (In my state, by the way, nobody can sign somebody’s individual checking account except for the named individual. It’s not a marital prerogative.)
“Of course, and what rights would those be? Unplug the ventilator, sign on the checking account, sell the stock portfolio?” Same as enjoyed by next-of-kin now. Except that that people could override the default person. (In my state, by the way, nobody can sign somebody’s individual checking account except for the named individual. It’s not a marital prerogative.)
Sapient, your alternatives are simply a much less efficient way of doing what marriage already does. Among other things, marriage is a partnership. It does for the parties in a fairly coherent, well understood fashion what you would spend decades litigating and drafting for no better reason that you have issues with the institution. Simply because there is another way in theory doesn’t make supplanting an existing and viable system with a universe of unknowns a good idea.
For the most part, people get married for a reason. Usually, they think they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They intend, for the most part, all the stuff the conjugalists stand for. The practice often falls short. Neither the conjugalists’ concept of marriage nor human fallibility argue against SSM. As best I can tell, gay people want to marry for pretty much the same reason straight people do: love, commitment, exclusivity, stability, etc. Where I part company with the conjugalists is their insistence that marriage is the exclusive province of a man and a woman. The paradigm fits two men or two women who are in love just fine, even if procreation is nonstandard. As an aside, my sense is that gay couples seem to adopt where others will not, which is all to the good, not that adoption preferences or patterns impact the argument either way.
Sapient, your alternatives are simply a much less efficient way of doing what marriage already does. Among other things, marriage is a partnership. It does for the parties in a fairly coherent, well understood fashion what you would spend decades litigating and drafting for no better reason that you have issues with the institution. Simply because there is another way in theory doesn’t make supplanting an existing and viable system with a universe of unknowns a good idea.
For the most part, people get married for a reason. Usually, they think they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They intend, for the most part, all the stuff the conjugalists stand for. The practice often falls short. Neither the conjugalists’ concept of marriage nor human fallibility argue against SSM. As best I can tell, gay people want to marry for pretty much the same reason straight people do: love, commitment, exclusivity, stability, etc. Where I part company with the conjugalists is their insistence that marriage is the exclusive province of a man and a woman. The paradigm fits two men or two women who are in love just fine, even if procreation is nonstandard. As an aside, my sense is that gay couples seem to adopt where others will not, which is all to the good, not that adoption preferences or patterns impact the argument either way.
As a spiritual commitment, marriage works very well for some people, and no one should be deprived of engaging in it. There are many wonderful marriages (as well as life partnerships sans marriage).
As an arrangement favored by the law, it doesn’t work as well. It’s discriminatory. It creates stigmas. It tends to protect domestic abusers. It is isolating. It imposes rights and duties that aren’t always fully understood or chosen by the parties. It creates an expectation that the government should regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults. Where I part company with the conjugalists is that it imposes a Christian model on people who may prefer to think more expansively about their relationships.
As a spiritual commitment, marriage works very well for some people, and no one should be deprived of engaging in it. There are many wonderful marriages (as well as life partnerships sans marriage).
As an arrangement favored by the law, it doesn’t work as well. It’s discriminatory. It creates stigmas. It tends to protect domestic abusers. It is isolating. It imposes rights and duties that aren’t always fully understood or chosen by the parties. It creates an expectation that the government should regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults. Where I part company with the conjugalists is that it imposes a Christian model on people who may prefer to think more expansively about their relationships.
As an arrangement favored by the law, it doesn’t work as well. It’s discriminatory. It creates stigmas. It tends to protect domestic abusers. It is isolating. It imposes rights and duties that aren’t always fully understood or chosen by the parties. It creates an expectation that the government should regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults.
Russell is over on another thread arguing that problems Brett attributes to government per se are really “problems” with the human condition. I would make a similar argument here. Or, because I’m lazy, I’ll just copy what I wrote the last time we went ‘round these circles.
And
Just to take one of sapient’s examples, marriage doesn’t “create an expectation that the government should regulate sexual conduct,” it’s the outcome of societies’ urge to regulate sexual conduct. Etc.
And just to forestall the apparently inevitable, this doesn’t mean I think there are no problems with the institution of marriage as it currently exists. I would still like to see an example of where I or anyone else ever wrote such a thing on this blog.
As an arrangement favored by the law, it doesn’t work as well. It’s discriminatory. It creates stigmas. It tends to protect domestic abusers. It is isolating. It imposes rights and duties that aren’t always fully understood or chosen by the parties. It creates an expectation that the government should regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults.
Russell is over on another thread arguing that problems Brett attributes to government per se are really “problems” with the human condition. I would make a similar argument here. Or, because I’m lazy, I’ll just copy what I wrote the last time we went ‘round these circles.
And
Just to take one of sapient’s examples, marriage doesn’t “create an expectation that the government should regulate sexual conduct,” it’s the outcome of societies’ urge to regulate sexual conduct. Etc.
And just to forestall the apparently inevitable, this doesn’t mean I think there are no problems with the institution of marriage as it currently exists. I would still like to see an example of where I or anyone else ever wrote such a thing on this blog.
I started to write something about half as insightful as Janie’s post. Marriage exists because people, for centuries, if not millenia, want it so. We are only just starting to get it right and we still aren’t there yet. Close, relatively speaking, but still not there.
I started to write something about half as insightful as Janie’s post. Marriage exists because people, for centuries, if not millenia, want it so. We are only just starting to get it right and we still aren’t there yet. Close, relatively speaking, but still not there.
I have been following this thread with interest, and I find that I have some scattered reactions:
Dr. Science was absolutely right in the first place in pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy of the Robert George article. It only goes to show what happens when you let political scientists and philosophers wander about without adult supervision (i.e., historians and anthropologists)!
All societies have, and have always had, some version of “families.” They were there first, and they provide some of the most basic needs of any society: care of children and socialization (turning infants into actual people takes effort), economic sharing at the household level, property and inheritance, first-instance health care and old-age insurance (in the absence of “Insurance”), etc.
Virtually all religions and states, therefore, have attempted to co-opt the family, regulate it, formalize it (by “marriage,” etc.), and – in the case of religions – claim that it was their idea (GOD’s idea) all along. The exact manner in which they do this has varied from place to place and time to time.
The few religions (cults) and states that have attempted to eliminate or significantly downgrade the family have so far failed badly. Collective responsibility for the raising of all children and the welfare of all individuals may work in science fiction, and conceivably in some faraway future, but doesn’t seem to work for human society as it is presently constituted. (In China, ca. 1950, schoolchildren were taught to chant: “I don’t love my father, I don’t love my mother, I only love my country.” A generation later came the Cultural Revolution.)
OTOH, it is common (and functional) to have a fair amount of day-to-day flexibility in defining what a family is and allowing other institutions to substitute for it, at least on a voluntary basis. Case in point: monastic religious orders, which although they do not generally replace families in caring for very young children, have often replaced them in all “familial” functions from mid-childhood to death. And there are also all manner of “workarounds” for monogamy, even where it is the formal ideal: concubinage, official recognition of “bastards,” etc.
I believe, therefore, that it remains in the interest of the state to encourage and strengthen the family in general through the recognition of “marriage” and the continuation of legislation that in general treats the relationship of married couples as distinct from those of unmarried peoples. If we were designing human society from scratch, we might or might not choose to go that way, but we’re not, so we work – at least we begin – with what we’ve inherited. McKT at 12:57pm has it quite right (including his praise of Janie’s previous post).
But what we’ve got, as I said, also includes a long tradition of flexibility and workarounds, and in my view we should continue and expand these. Gays should have the right to marry because – simply – why not?
I’m dubious about polygamous marriage primarily because of the math (noted by McKT earlier): we’ve had centuries of tweaking marriage systems based on “couples,” and that is still imperfect. With two people you have one binary relationship: A + B. With three you suddenly have three binaries – A + B, B + C, A + C – and a trifecta. With four or more: you do the math. Our laws and customs are simply not up to handling that without a lot of forethought and careful planning. I can just imagine an entire “crime family” officially “marrying” each other and then all claiming spousal immunity vis-a-vis one another!
But even that may in time become workable, and when it does: why not? Clever contracts defining relationships (for those who can afford to have clever contracts drafted): why not? Various civil unions, by all means: why not? (The article on the prevalence of heterosexual civil unions in France was fascinating!) The only real objection to civil unions, at this point, is to their deployment as a pretext for denying LGBT’s the right to marry, which is simply unfair. Otherwise, whatever encourages “families” to flourish should probably be encouraged by the state.
All of these are ways of making the institution of “marriage” work better, which – I repeat – is in the general interest of society, as I see it. Attempts to abolish marriage, or to delete it completely from civil society and state recognition, are not conducive to the common weal and are in any event doomed to fail.
The question of single-parent (usually single-mother) families is an intriguing one, and one of much longer standing than most people realize, given how many widows with children were created in past times when morality was higher. It is obviously more difficult to raise children by yourself than with a partner. (I am not a Believer, but if there is anything that would incline me to credence in Divine Providence it is the fact that it takes two adults to create one child. This – it occurred to my wife and me many years ago – is just about the right ratio.)
It is not, then, necessarily in society’s interest to encourage one-parent families, which can, on the average, be expected to struggle more. OTOH, since one-parent families do exist, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, it *is* in our (general) interest to make them as functional as possible, for the sake of the next generation. I’m not quite sure how to resolve this paradox, but I seriously doubt that abolishing marriage is the answer, or even a significant component of the answer.
And them’s my thoughts, at least for today.
PS, FWIW: Ideas should be able to stand or fall on their own, not based upon who put them forward. Nevertheless, for those who care about such things: I have been married to the same woman for more than forty years.
I have been following this thread with interest, and I find that I have some scattered reactions:
Dr. Science was absolutely right in the first place in pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy of the Robert George article. It only goes to show what happens when you let political scientists and philosophers wander about without adult supervision (i.e., historians and anthropologists)!
All societies have, and have always had, some version of “families.” They were there first, and they provide some of the most basic needs of any society: care of children and socialization (turning infants into actual people takes effort), economic sharing at the household level, property and inheritance, first-instance health care and old-age insurance (in the absence of “Insurance”), etc.
Virtually all religions and states, therefore, have attempted to co-opt the family, regulate it, formalize it (by “marriage,” etc.), and – in the case of religions – claim that it was their idea (GOD’s idea) all along. The exact manner in which they do this has varied from place to place and time to time.
The few religions (cults) and states that have attempted to eliminate or significantly downgrade the family have so far failed badly. Collective responsibility for the raising of all children and the welfare of all individuals may work in science fiction, and conceivably in some faraway future, but doesn’t seem to work for human society as it is presently constituted. (In China, ca. 1950, schoolchildren were taught to chant: “I don’t love my father, I don’t love my mother, I only love my country.” A generation later came the Cultural Revolution.)
OTOH, it is common (and functional) to have a fair amount of day-to-day flexibility in defining what a family is and allowing other institutions to substitute for it, at least on a voluntary basis. Case in point: monastic religious orders, which although they do not generally replace families in caring for very young children, have often replaced them in all “familial” functions from mid-childhood to death. And there are also all manner of “workarounds” for monogamy, even where it is the formal ideal: concubinage, official recognition of “bastards,” etc.
I believe, therefore, that it remains in the interest of the state to encourage and strengthen the family in general through the recognition of “marriage” and the continuation of legislation that in general treats the relationship of married couples as distinct from those of unmarried peoples. If we were designing human society from scratch, we might or might not choose to go that way, but we’re not, so we work – at least we begin – with what we’ve inherited. McKT at 12:57pm has it quite right (including his praise of Janie’s previous post).
But what we’ve got, as I said, also includes a long tradition of flexibility and workarounds, and in my view we should continue and expand these. Gays should have the right to marry because – simply – why not?
I’m dubious about polygamous marriage primarily because of the math (noted by McKT earlier): we’ve had centuries of tweaking marriage systems based on “couples,” and that is still imperfect. With two people you have one binary relationship: A + B. With three you suddenly have three binaries – A + B, B + C, A + C – and a trifecta. With four or more: you do the math. Our laws and customs are simply not up to handling that without a lot of forethought and careful planning. I can just imagine an entire “crime family” officially “marrying” each other and then all claiming spousal immunity vis-a-vis one another!
But even that may in time become workable, and when it does: why not? Clever contracts defining relationships (for those who can afford to have clever contracts drafted): why not? Various civil unions, by all means: why not? (The article on the prevalence of heterosexual civil unions in France was fascinating!) The only real objection to civil unions, at this point, is to their deployment as a pretext for denying LGBT’s the right to marry, which is simply unfair. Otherwise, whatever encourages “families” to flourish should probably be encouraged by the state.
All of these are ways of making the institution of “marriage” work better, which – I repeat – is in the general interest of society, as I see it. Attempts to abolish marriage, or to delete it completely from civil society and state recognition, are not conducive to the common weal and are in any event doomed to fail.
The question of single-parent (usually single-mother) families is an intriguing one, and one of much longer standing than most people realize, given how many widows with children were created in past times when morality was higher. It is obviously more difficult to raise children by yourself than with a partner. (I am not a Believer, but if there is anything that would incline me to credence in Divine Providence it is the fact that it takes two adults to create one child. This – it occurred to my wife and me many years ago – is just about the right ratio.)
It is not, then, necessarily in society’s interest to encourage one-parent families, which can, on the average, be expected to struggle more. OTOH, since one-parent families do exist, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, it *is* in our (general) interest to make them as functional as possible, for the sake of the next generation. I’m not quite sure how to resolve this paradox, but I seriously doubt that abolishing marriage is the answer, or even a significant component of the answer.
And them’s my thoughts, at least for today.
PS, FWIW: Ideas should be able to stand or fall on their own, not based upon who put them forward. Nevertheless, for those who care about such things: I have been married to the same woman for more than forty years.
dr ngo: given how many widows with children were created in past times when morality was higher.
I have nothing to add to this, just loved the typo.
dr ngo: given how many widows with children were created in past times when morality was higher.
I have nothing to add to this, just loved the typo.
We aym to please.
We aym to please.
I stole this from Sullivan’s blog:
“‘I think it’s clear that something like same-sex marriage – indeed, almost exactly what we would envision by that – is going to become normalized, legalized, and recognized in the culture. It’s time for Christians to start thinking about how we’re going to deal with that,’ – Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, speaking with Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly about Obama’s DOMA decision.”
I don’t know the context, but this is still pretty damn interesting.
I stole this from Sullivan’s blog:
“‘I think it’s clear that something like same-sex marriage – indeed, almost exactly what we would envision by that – is going to become normalized, legalized, and recognized in the culture. It’s time for Christians to start thinking about how we’re going to deal with that,’ – Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, speaking with Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly about Obama’s DOMA decision.”
I don’t know the context, but this is still pretty damn interesting.
More from the link McK’s quote came from (not the Dish, but here):
I agree with McKinney that this is interesting. I also find it a little ambiguous — maybe Mohler doesn’t totally know his own mind yet, or is hedging what he really wants to say, but in which direction I have no idea.
That is, “where we stand as Christians” seems to relate to the outer world, to the place that the larger culture gives to Christians, maybe with implications of some kind of response to that. But a lot of the rest sounds like a call to hold steady in faith no matter what everyone else is doing.
*****
And just to lighten up the day a bit, another Dish quote, this time from The Onion:
Heh.
More from the link McK’s quote came from (not the Dish, but here):
I agree with McKinney that this is interesting. I also find it a little ambiguous — maybe Mohler doesn’t totally know his own mind yet, or is hedging what he really wants to say, but in which direction I have no idea.
That is, “where we stand as Christians” seems to relate to the outer world, to the place that the larger culture gives to Christians, maybe with implications of some kind of response to that. But a lot of the rest sounds like a call to hold steady in faith no matter what everyone else is doing.
*****
And just to lighten up the day a bit, another Dish quote, this time from The Onion:
Heh.
Double heh.
Double heh.
” I have been married to the same woman for more than forty years.”
Congrats, dr ngo. Although I would have preferred that your relationship be unofficial : ), it’s awfully heartening to see people grow together for such a long time. Lovely.
” I have been married to the same woman for more than forty years.”
Congrats, dr ngo. Although I would have preferred that your relationship be unofficial : ), it’s awfully heartening to see people grow together for such a long time. Lovely.
With two people you have one binary relationship: A + B. With three you suddenly have three binaries – A + B, B + C, A + C – and a trifecta. With four or more: you do the math.
2^n – n – 1.
You’re welcome.
With two people you have one binary relationship: A + B. With three you suddenly have three binaries – A + B, B + C, A + C – and a trifecta. With four or more: you do the math.
2^n – n – 1.
You’re welcome.
In that case, I’m point out that you’re making the United States citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam, District of Columbia, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa feel all sad and forgotten:
🙂
I emphatically agree with this.
There are innumerable cases. One is particularly close to home for me.
In that case, I’m point out that you’re making the United States citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam, District of Columbia, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa feel all sad and forgotten:
🙂
I emphatically agree with this.
There are innumerable cases. One is particularly close to home for me.
Quite belatedly, I’d like to say that Turbulence’s February 25, 2011 at 12:01 PM is also where I stand.
It’s also all I meant by “It’s not an illogical progression of thought” and when Doctor Science resonded that:
And I’ll go back to Turbulence’s February 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM and link and description of architecture astronauts. It’s not illogical; it’s simply unrealistic and insulting, and a substitution of abstract theory over the lives of actual human beings.
Which is also my view of the more unreasonable ideologists of most sorts, including unreasonable libertarians and communists. Fine in theory in some magic land, but we don’t live in magic land and aren’t getting there any time soon.
Quite belatedly, I’d like to say that Turbulence’s February 25, 2011 at 12:01 PM is also where I stand.
It’s also all I meant by “It’s not an illogical progression of thought” and when Doctor Science resonded that:
And I’ll go back to Turbulence’s February 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM and link and description of architecture astronauts. It’s not illogical; it’s simply unrealistic and insulting, and a substitution of abstract theory over the lives of actual human beings.
Which is also my view of the more unreasonable ideologists of most sorts, including unreasonable libertarians and communists. Fine in theory in some magic land, but we don’t live in magic land and aren’t getting there any time soon.
From Gary:
quoting McKinney: “If two people cohabit and are unmarried, one owning the home and the other not, and if the home owner dies, the survivor has no rights”
“Quite belatedly, I’d like to say that Turbulence’s February 25, 2011 at 12:01 PM is also where I stand.”
“it’s simply unrealistic and insulting, and a substitution of abstract theory over the lives of actual human beings.”
Honestly, Gary, I find these views insulting, or written by people who haven’t read anything about what I’ve said (and what other people have said, not to mention the statutory structures that already exist in some jurisdictions).
First of all, McKinney is mistaken. If you register a domestic partnership in the local courthouse, designating a specific person as next-of-kin, and the statute allows “next-of-kin” to share property in a certain way, why would that not work? What would be better about it would be that if two people lived together in a situation like the one you cited – say brothers taking care of each other – they would be protected as well as two lovers. People don’t always choose to live with a lover; sometimes people don’t even have one, but still have to share their lives with others.
What Turbulence said? Really? That “some people” don’t know anything about public policy? How long has Turbulence or have you practiced domestic relations law, or seen the ill effects of divorce on “the lives of real people”. There are still plenty of people (mostly women) who fall into a position of financial dependency based on the false comfort of marriage (giving up their job to take care of kids, usually), and finding out the hard way that “marriage” didn’t protect them. Marriage is an institution that is built-in with certain assumptions by people, assumptions that are often incorrect.
I find that incredibly insulting, not to be too thin skinned about it, that you and Turbulence believe yourselves to be masters of “knowing something about public policy” as opposed to other people who might have thought about domestic issues from a more gritty perspective. Why are American heterosexual couples are less frequently get married? One theory is that many believe that they need more money to start a family. Yet, if marriage protects people’s economic situation, why are economically vulnerable people less likely to engage in it until they’re financially stable? Why do you say that people who want to address these things are trying to “live in a magic land”?
From Gary:
quoting McKinney: “If two people cohabit and are unmarried, one owning the home and the other not, and if the home owner dies, the survivor has no rights”
“Quite belatedly, I’d like to say that Turbulence’s February 25, 2011 at 12:01 PM is also where I stand.”
“it’s simply unrealistic and insulting, and a substitution of abstract theory over the lives of actual human beings.”
Honestly, Gary, I find these views insulting, or written by people who haven’t read anything about what I’ve said (and what other people have said, not to mention the statutory structures that already exist in some jurisdictions).
First of all, McKinney is mistaken. If you register a domestic partnership in the local courthouse, designating a specific person as next-of-kin, and the statute allows “next-of-kin” to share property in a certain way, why would that not work? What would be better about it would be that if two people lived together in a situation like the one you cited – say brothers taking care of each other – they would be protected as well as two lovers. People don’t always choose to live with a lover; sometimes people don’t even have one, but still have to share their lives with others.
What Turbulence said? Really? That “some people” don’t know anything about public policy? How long has Turbulence or have you practiced domestic relations law, or seen the ill effects of divorce on “the lives of real people”. There are still plenty of people (mostly women) who fall into a position of financial dependency based on the false comfort of marriage (giving up their job to take care of kids, usually), and finding out the hard way that “marriage” didn’t protect them. Marriage is an institution that is built-in with certain assumptions by people, assumptions that are often incorrect.
I find that incredibly insulting, not to be too thin skinned about it, that you and Turbulence believe yourselves to be masters of “knowing something about public policy” as opposed to other people who might have thought about domestic issues from a more gritty perspective. Why are American heterosexual couples are less frequently get married? One theory is that many believe that they need more money to start a family. Yet, if marriage protects people’s economic situation, why are economically vulnerable people less likely to engage in it until they’re financially stable? Why do you say that people who want to address these things are trying to “live in a magic land”?
First of all, McKinney is mistaken. If you register a domestic partnership in the local courthouse, designating a specific person as next-of-kin, and the statute allows “next-of-kin” to share property in a certain way, why would that not work? What would be better about it would be that if two people lived together in a situation like the one you cited – say brothers taking care of each other – they would be protected as well as two lovers.
Sapient–you are introducing a new element to the conversation: a “domestic partnership” by which I infer you mean a device among any two adults that confers the same advantages/rights as marriage but is indifferent to whether the partners are sexually involved. Sure, in theory, that could be done, but very few people are lobbying for that. But, if you wanted to do something like right now, you could pull it off through adoption. I suspect state law varies widely in this regard, but it is not uncommon in Texas for one adult to adopt another adult.
But many/most people unite for reasons different than property. The emotional bond is the primary goal. Property is ancillary for most people. Not kings and the nobility of times past, not people with dynastic issues, but ordinary people. Spouses provide for each other and try their best, ideally, to ensure that when one checks out, the other is looked after. Ditto for the kids.
Gay people want in on this deal. I’m not gay and can’t speak from that perspective, I can only draw conclusions. My conclusion is that gay people are like everyone else, by and large, and want the same chance at a lifetime relationship, security etc.
First of all, McKinney is mistaken. If you register a domestic partnership in the local courthouse, designating a specific person as next-of-kin, and the statute allows “next-of-kin” to share property in a certain way, why would that not work? What would be better about it would be that if two people lived together in a situation like the one you cited – say brothers taking care of each other – they would be protected as well as two lovers.
Sapient–you are introducing a new element to the conversation: a “domestic partnership” by which I infer you mean a device among any two adults that confers the same advantages/rights as marriage but is indifferent to whether the partners are sexually involved. Sure, in theory, that could be done, but very few people are lobbying for that. But, if you wanted to do something like right now, you could pull it off through adoption. I suspect state law varies widely in this regard, but it is not uncommon in Texas for one adult to adopt another adult.
But many/most people unite for reasons different than property. The emotional bond is the primary goal. Property is ancillary for most people. Not kings and the nobility of times past, not people with dynastic issues, but ordinary people. Spouses provide for each other and try their best, ideally, to ensure that when one checks out, the other is looked after. Ditto for the kids.
Gay people want in on this deal. I’m not gay and can’t speak from that perspective, I can only draw conclusions. My conclusion is that gay people are like everyone else, by and large, and want the same chance at a lifetime relationship, security etc.
Well, sapient, I’m insulted that you are insulted that Gary and Turbulence are insulted. (/levity)
I’ve been watching the thread play out, and it might be a good time to go back and not only state original principles but also recount the background and anecdotage that leads you to your opinions. I’m not trying to weigh in on one side or the other at this point, but in your last comment, you mentioned domestic relations law and seeing the bad effects of divorce, so it might help if you recounted your background. You are not obliged to do this, but I think it would help get the conversation back on track. Thanks.
Well, sapient, I’m insulted that you are insulted that Gary and Turbulence are insulted. (/levity)
I’ve been watching the thread play out, and it might be a good time to go back and not only state original principles but also recount the background and anecdotage that leads you to your opinions. I’m not trying to weigh in on one side or the other at this point, but in your last comment, you mentioned domestic relations law and seeing the bad effects of divorce, so it might help if you recounted your background. You are not obliged to do this, but I think it would help get the conversation back on track. Thanks.
lj, as far as I can tell, the conversation isn’t off track. If you’re not following it clearly (perhaps because of jet lag?), and you need sapient to provide some anecdotes and original principles to bring you up to speed, then maybe you should ask for that directly as a favor to yourself instead of framing it as an attempt to shepherd the rest of us along. (Or maybe I should say cat-herd? ;=)
lj, as far as I can tell, the conversation isn’t off track. If you’re not following it clearly (perhaps because of jet lag?), and you need sapient to provide some anecdotes and original principles to bring you up to speed, then maybe you should ask for that directly as a favor to yourself instead of framing it as an attempt to shepherd the rest of us along. (Or maybe I should say cat-herd? ;=)
sapient: There are still plenty of people (mostly women) who fall into a position of financial dependency based on the false comfort of marriage (giving up their job to take care of kids, usually), and finding out the hard way that “marriage” didn’t protect them.
Refining my previous comment: though I don’t see the conversation as off track, I do feel that there’s a ships passing in the night quality to it. Sapient keeps citing problems (single mothers have problems, brothers who want to live together can’t have the rights of married people living together, soon-to-be-divorced mothers didn’t understand what they were getting into when they got married), ascribing the problems to marriage, and alleging that the abolition of civil marriage will go a long way toward solving all these problems.
Most of the rest of us have disagreed explicitly and at length with some or all of that reasoning. Speaking for myself, I think it
— ignores the possibility that the abolition of civil marriage will create a lot of new problems that sapient hasn’t thought of (here’s a place where the architecture astronaut quality comes in) or declines to acknowledge;
— misunderstands the extent to which these problems are “caused” by marriage in the first place (what, people will magically stop being ignorant of the law if we call marriage partnerships something else, and allow more people to enter into them?);
— writes off the complexity and pace of social change that it would take for such a transformation of the culture.
Among other things.
Oh, also, those of us who don’t agree with that line of reasoning are hard-hearted people who don’t care about the plight of single mothers and are willing to throw everyone else under the bus as long as LGBT people can get married. Speaking of insults.
People have repeatedly suggested that sapient has the causation arrow for the problems person keeps citing pointing the wrong way, and person’s response has been to just keep citing more problems and suggesting that abolishing civil marriage will solve them.
Far from wanting sapient to offer yet more anecdotes, list yet more problems allegedly caused by marriage, or restate per original principles, I would like to see person address some of the objections to per line of reasoning that other commenters have raised.
(Hat tip to Marge Piercy. It’s been a long time since I read Woman on the Edge of Time, so maybe I’m getting the pronouns wrong. But sapient has historically been reticent about revealing per gender, which is fine with me but which makes pronouns difficult. Tired of trying to circumlocute around them, I remembered per and person, which I liked when I read the book long ago. Onward)
sapient: There are still plenty of people (mostly women) who fall into a position of financial dependency based on the false comfort of marriage (giving up their job to take care of kids, usually), and finding out the hard way that “marriage” didn’t protect them.
Refining my previous comment: though I don’t see the conversation as off track, I do feel that there’s a ships passing in the night quality to it. Sapient keeps citing problems (single mothers have problems, brothers who want to live together can’t have the rights of married people living together, soon-to-be-divorced mothers didn’t understand what they were getting into when they got married), ascribing the problems to marriage, and alleging that the abolition of civil marriage will go a long way toward solving all these problems.
Most of the rest of us have disagreed explicitly and at length with some or all of that reasoning. Speaking for myself, I think it
— ignores the possibility that the abolition of civil marriage will create a lot of new problems that sapient hasn’t thought of (here’s a place where the architecture astronaut quality comes in) or declines to acknowledge;
— misunderstands the extent to which these problems are “caused” by marriage in the first place (what, people will magically stop being ignorant of the law if we call marriage partnerships something else, and allow more people to enter into them?);
— writes off the complexity and pace of social change that it would take for such a transformation of the culture.
Among other things.
Oh, also, those of us who don’t agree with that line of reasoning are hard-hearted people who don’t care about the plight of single mothers and are willing to throw everyone else under the bus as long as LGBT people can get married. Speaking of insults.
People have repeatedly suggested that sapient has the causation arrow for the problems person keeps citing pointing the wrong way, and person’s response has been to just keep citing more problems and suggesting that abolishing civil marriage will solve them.
Far from wanting sapient to offer yet more anecdotes, list yet more problems allegedly caused by marriage, or restate per original principles, I would like to see person address some of the objections to per line of reasoning that other commenters have raised.
(Hat tip to Marge Piercy. It’s been a long time since I read Woman on the Edge of Time, so maybe I’m getting the pronouns wrong. But sapient has historically been reticent about revealing per gender, which is fine with me but which makes pronouns difficult. Tired of trying to circumlocute around them, I remembered per and person, which I liked when I read the book long ago. Onward)
What Turbulence said? Really? That “some people” don’t know anything about public policy? How long has Turbulence or have you practiced domestic relations law, or seen the ill effects of divorce on “the lives of real people”.
I trust that you are an outstanding attorney Sapient.
However, one component of public policy involves the institutional structure of government and the feasability of large scale policy changes. I think students of American government can all agree that any attempt to deemphasize civil marriage in the US is doomed for the foreseeable future. There is just no constituency clamoring for such changes and there is a huge constituency that will fight it with their dying breath.
Given that the position of civil marriage is not going anywhere, all your talk about how, in a perfect world, we might construct better institutions serves no purpose at all.
On these questions, I think your experience as an attorney, no matter how excellent, is not very helpful.
There are still plenty of people (mostly women) who fall into a position of financial dependency based on the false comfort of marriage (giving up their job to take care of kids, usually), and finding out the hard way that “marriage” didn’t protect them. Marriage is an institution that is built-in with certain assumptions by people, assumptions that are often incorrect.
Absolutely. I am very much aware of all sorts of problems that manifest in modern marriage, including this one. But replacing civil marriage with some other institution is not going to happen. That is a project no more feasible than replacing the constitution with Sharia law: it is completely and totally absurd.
I find that incredibly insulting, not to be too thin skinned about it, that you and Turbulence believe yourselves to be masters of “knowing something about public policy” as opposed to other people who might have thought about domestic issues from a more gritty perspective.
Your gritty thinking does not seem to include any notion of political feasability. As such, I don’t find it very gritty.
What Turbulence said? Really? That “some people” don’t know anything about public policy? How long has Turbulence or have you practiced domestic relations law, or seen the ill effects of divorce on “the lives of real people”.
I trust that you are an outstanding attorney Sapient.
However, one component of public policy involves the institutional structure of government and the feasability of large scale policy changes. I think students of American government can all agree that any attempt to deemphasize civil marriage in the US is doomed for the foreseeable future. There is just no constituency clamoring for such changes and there is a huge constituency that will fight it with their dying breath.
Given that the position of civil marriage is not going anywhere, all your talk about how, in a perfect world, we might construct better institutions serves no purpose at all.
On these questions, I think your experience as an attorney, no matter how excellent, is not very helpful.
There are still plenty of people (mostly women) who fall into a position of financial dependency based on the false comfort of marriage (giving up their job to take care of kids, usually), and finding out the hard way that “marriage” didn’t protect them. Marriage is an institution that is built-in with certain assumptions by people, assumptions that are often incorrect.
Absolutely. I am very much aware of all sorts of problems that manifest in modern marriage, including this one. But replacing civil marriage with some other institution is not going to happen. That is a project no more feasible than replacing the constitution with Sharia law: it is completely and totally absurd.
I find that incredibly insulting, not to be too thin skinned about it, that you and Turbulence believe yourselves to be masters of “knowing something about public policy” as opposed to other people who might have thought about domestic issues from a more gritty perspective.
Your gritty thinking does not seem to include any notion of political feasability. As such, I don’t find it very gritty.
“Sapient–you are introducing a new element to the conversation: a “domestic partnership” by which I infer you mean a device among any two adults that confers the same advantages/rights as marriage but is indifferent to whether the partners are sexually involved.”
I have carefully avoided commenting here, for reasons some will understand. But this is not new to Sapient point, it is fundamental.
I have spent a few days soaking this in, listening as it were and I am struck that in many ways most everyone here i on the same “side”.
That side is the protection of the definition of marriage as a formalization of the emotional attachment. The legal framework is fine, but whether religious or not, the emotional tie of being “married” is almost universally protected in these comments as a requirement.
So the exploration of conferring the rights of “married” people to those who chose not to be married gets a very negative reaction.
For those who believe that some of us piggyback discussions of conferring marital rights to nonmarried people in other domestic relationships, oddly, I for one have been having those discussionss for many years before same sex marriage was a front of mind issue, so the discussion just seems to naturally go together.
“Sapient–you are introducing a new element to the conversation: a “domestic partnership” by which I infer you mean a device among any two adults that confers the same advantages/rights as marriage but is indifferent to whether the partners are sexually involved.”
I have carefully avoided commenting here, for reasons some will understand. But this is not new to Sapient point, it is fundamental.
I have spent a few days soaking this in, listening as it were and I am struck that in many ways most everyone here i on the same “side”.
That side is the protection of the definition of marriage as a formalization of the emotional attachment. The legal framework is fine, but whether religious or not, the emotional tie of being “married” is almost universally protected in these comments as a requirement.
So the exploration of conferring the rights of “married” people to those who chose not to be married gets a very negative reaction.
For those who believe that some of us piggyback discussions of conferring marital rights to nonmarried people in other domestic relationships, oddly, I for one have been having those discussionss for many years before same sex marriage was a front of mind issue, so the discussion just seems to naturally go together.
Absolutely. I am very much aware of all sorts of problems that manifest in modern marriage, including this one. But replacing civil marriage with some other institution is not going to happen. That is a project no more feasible than replacing the constitution with Sharia law: it is completely and totally absurd.
I would add to this that there isn’t any plausible replacement that would fix human nature and hence fix the plight of abandoned/mistreated women. Indeed, it would likely make it worse.
Absolutely. I am very much aware of all sorts of problems that manifest in modern marriage, including this one. But replacing civil marriage with some other institution is not going to happen. That is a project no more feasible than replacing the constitution with Sharia law: it is completely and totally absurd.
I would add to this that there isn’t any plausible replacement that would fix human nature and hence fix the plight of abandoned/mistreated women. Indeed, it would likely make it worse.
Thanks Janie, I didn’t mean to dismiss what anyone had said, it was just specifically this
How long has Turbulence or have you practiced domestic relations law, or seen the ill effects of divorce on “the lives of real people”.
That seems to imply that Sapient has practiced domestic relations law, as well as seeing some ill effects (I think anyone who is over 30 has seen these, so I’m not suggesting that he has some special insight, but anecdotes what he thinks are the main ‘ill effects’ might help move things along and perhaps anecdotes are not the right word, something more like ‘here is the background I am coming from’. ).
I don’t have a strong memory of sapient out and out saying he was a lawyer (or even, as Janie notes, revealing his/her gender), but Turb does, or at least takes his statement as such. However, I do think that understanding sapient’s experiences will help us understand each other, which I view as perhaps more important (if only from a local viewpoint) and certainly more feasible.
Thanks Janie, I didn’t mean to dismiss what anyone had said, it was just specifically this
How long has Turbulence or have you practiced domestic relations law, or seen the ill effects of divorce on “the lives of real people”.
That seems to imply that Sapient has practiced domestic relations law, as well as seeing some ill effects (I think anyone who is over 30 has seen these, so I’m not suggesting that he has some special insight, but anecdotes what he thinks are the main ‘ill effects’ might help move things along and perhaps anecdotes are not the right word, something more like ‘here is the background I am coming from’. ).
I don’t have a strong memory of sapient out and out saying he was a lawyer (or even, as Janie notes, revealing his/her gender), but Turb does, or at least takes his statement as such. However, I do think that understanding sapient’s experiences will help us understand each other, which I view as perhaps more important (if only from a local viewpoint) and certainly more feasible.
So the exploration of conferring the rights of “married” people to those who chose not to be married gets a very negative reaction.
At least in my case, that’s not really true. We are never going to live in a world where civil marriage goes away or is deemphasized. That is always going to be premier institution, socially and legally. Given that reality, all other institutions are going to be weaker. “Those who choose not to get married” ARE NEVER GOING TO HAVE all the rights of “married people”. Because it would be political suicide. Talking about the policy unicorn that shows up right after every politician in DC commits political suicide is absurd.
If it was just a nonsense discussion, that would be one thing. But this talk has real consequences. There are millions of people in the US who are on the fence regarding gay marriage. The absolute last thing they want to hear is talk of ending or sanctioning traditional marriage. That makes them less likely to support gay marriage. It provokes every anxiety they have about the evolution of our society. Sapient’s fantasy unicorn talk hurts the cause of people who are already suffering. It is, in a very real way, unethical.
So the exploration of conferring the rights of “married” people to those who chose not to be married gets a very negative reaction.
At least in my case, that’s not really true. We are never going to live in a world where civil marriage goes away or is deemphasized. That is always going to be premier institution, socially and legally. Given that reality, all other institutions are going to be weaker. “Those who choose not to get married” ARE NEVER GOING TO HAVE all the rights of “married people”. Because it would be political suicide. Talking about the policy unicorn that shows up right after every politician in DC commits political suicide is absurd.
If it was just a nonsense discussion, that would be one thing. But this talk has real consequences. There are millions of people in the US who are on the fence regarding gay marriage. The absolute last thing they want to hear is talk of ending or sanctioning traditional marriage. That makes them less likely to support gay marriage. It provokes every anxiety they have about the evolution of our society. Sapient’s fantasy unicorn talk hurts the cause of people who are already suffering. It is, in a very real way, unethical.
lj, I don’t know if sapient has ever explicitly said person is a lawyer. In the November 2009 thread that I linked to earlier, Jes raised the question of sapient’s gender and some observations and guesses were made by several people, but sapient never responded to the implied question.
My impression is that sapient has been careful to keep the personal out of per side of this conversation. I can see good reasons for it, in terms of wanting one’s thought trains and policy positions to be taken in general terms rather than as responses to specific personal experiences. I don’t have a problem with that, if that’s per choice. I would just point out that you’re asking for something entirely different from what has gone before.
lj, I don’t know if sapient has ever explicitly said person is a lawyer. In the November 2009 thread that I linked to earlier, Jes raised the question of sapient’s gender and some observations and guesses were made by several people, but sapient never responded to the implied question.
My impression is that sapient has been careful to keep the personal out of per side of this conversation. I can see good reasons for it, in terms of wanting one’s thought trains and policy positions to be taken in general terms rather than as responses to specific personal experiences. I don’t have a problem with that, if that’s per choice. I would just point out that you’re asking for something entirely different from what has gone before.
There are millions of people in the US who are on the fence regarding gay marriage. The absolute last thing they want to hear is talk of ending or sanctioning traditional marriage. That makes them less likely to support gay marriage. It provokes every anxiety they have about the evolution of our society. Sapient’s fantasy unicorn talk hurts the cause of people who are already suffering. It is, in a very real way, unethical.
Turb, I agree with everything you say here except the last sentence. I detect no desire on Sapient’s part to injure anyone. Free and open discussion is not unethical. A number of arguments advanced in support of gay marriage put fence-sitters off. That doesn’t make the argument unethical. Unwise, perhaps, but not unethical.
There are millions of people in the US who are on the fence regarding gay marriage. The absolute last thing they want to hear is talk of ending or sanctioning traditional marriage. That makes them less likely to support gay marriage. It provokes every anxiety they have about the evolution of our society. Sapient’s fantasy unicorn talk hurts the cause of people who are already suffering. It is, in a very real way, unethical.
Turb, I agree with everything you say here except the last sentence. I detect no desire on Sapient’s part to injure anyone. Free and open discussion is not unethical. A number of arguments advanced in support of gay marriage put fence-sitters off. That doesn’t make the argument unethical. Unwise, perhaps, but not unethical.
I don’t have a strong memory of sapient out and out saying he was a lawyer
Sapient did write in an earlier comment on this very thread: “As someone who has practiced family law…”
I detect no desire on Sapient’s part to injure anyone.
I’m sure he doesn’t. I said as much in my first comment to him upthread.
Free and open discussion is not unethical.
I disagree. Actions have costs and benefits. Discussing how awesome it would be to eliminate civil marriage in the context of a discussion about same sex marriage has no benefits: it is never going to happen. But it does have costs: it makes it harder for those on the fence to support SSM.
Now, people do all sorts of bad things all the time and those actions are not necessarily unethical. But when you’ve been doing the same damn thing for years and have had lots of people patiently explain to you the harm that your actions are causing…well, at some point, you become responsible.
I don’t have a strong memory of sapient out and out saying he was a lawyer
Sapient did write in an earlier comment on this very thread: “As someone who has practiced family law…”
I detect no desire on Sapient’s part to injure anyone.
I’m sure he doesn’t. I said as much in my first comment to him upthread.
Free and open discussion is not unethical.
I disagree. Actions have costs and benefits. Discussing how awesome it would be to eliminate civil marriage in the context of a discussion about same sex marriage has no benefits: it is never going to happen. But it does have costs: it makes it harder for those on the fence to support SSM.
Now, people do all sorts of bad things all the time and those actions are not necessarily unethical. But when you’ve been doing the same damn thing for years and have had lots of people patiently explain to you the harm that your actions are causing…well, at some point, you become responsible.
Thanks for prodding me to look at that thread, Janie. There are several things I draw from it, but I’ll hold off on stating those except to note that I don’t really know who sapient is. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, I’m not accusing him or her of sock-puppeting, and like you, I respect if s/he doesn’t want to give personal background for precisely the reasons you suggest.
But I think things have reached a point where I would like to know, if only to help me understand. I realize we don’t do a lot of asking for this kind of info, but with the part I quoted above, it had me wondering about the background, so I thought I would ask. I realize that asking automatically creates a presumption that someone should answer or provide a reason why they don’t, which is a problem, but I thought it more polite to ask than to simply wonder. I understand completely if this just gets ignored, and I’m not proposing any new kind of policy, except for the fact that I, as a general rule, think it is better to draw people out than to avoid doing so.
Thanks for prodding me to look at that thread, Janie. There are several things I draw from it, but I’ll hold off on stating those except to note that I don’t really know who sapient is. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, I’m not accusing him or her of sock-puppeting, and like you, I respect if s/he doesn’t want to give personal background for precisely the reasons you suggest.
But I think things have reached a point where I would like to know, if only to help me understand. I realize we don’t do a lot of asking for this kind of info, but with the part I quoted above, it had me wondering about the background, so I thought I would ask. I realize that asking automatically creates a presumption that someone should answer or provide a reason why they don’t, which is a problem, but I thought it more polite to ask than to simply wonder. I understand completely if this just gets ignored, and I’m not proposing any new kind of policy, except for the fact that I, as a general rule, think it is better to draw people out than to avoid doing so.
Thanks, Turb, I missed that.
I’d also point out it’s me on your first quote, but McT on the second quote. I only note that because it’s easy to start putting points together in a way that is problematic. McT just wrote in another thread here about an unfair conflation of him and others in discussing government oppression.
Thanks, Turb, I missed that.
I’d also point out it’s me on your first quote, but McT on the second quote. I only note that because it’s easy to start putting points together in a way that is problematic. McT just wrote in another thread here about an unfair conflation of him and others in discussing government oppression.
lj — thanks for accepting being prodded, and for the clarification of where you were coming from. I’m much more comfortable knowing that you wanted something (and knowing what exactly it was), in place of my original impression that you were telling us how we should converse. That’s a hot button of mine and I’m aware that I need to be careful about assuming that’s what’s going on. Which is why I asked, but tried to ask calmly. 🙂
And while we’re on the meta, as a general rule I prefer to have a sense of who commenters are personally, although it varies a lot in relation to both the commenter and the topic, and the downside is that it feeds the illusion that this community can stand in for community in the “real” world. (An eternal dilemma of mine, and why I left for several months and am ambivalent about coming back.)
I always come straight out of the personal perspective — that’s a shortcoming in some ways, but it feels less artificial (not meaning to imply that other approaches are artificial, just to say what’s comfortable for me in relation to my own participation). Hearing that other commenters sometimes want to say enough already wouldn’t surprise me at all.
lj — thanks for accepting being prodded, and for the clarification of where you were coming from. I’m much more comfortable knowing that you wanted something (and knowing what exactly it was), in place of my original impression that you were telling us how we should converse. That’s a hot button of mine and I’m aware that I need to be careful about assuming that’s what’s going on. Which is why I asked, but tried to ask calmly. 🙂
And while we’re on the meta, as a general rule I prefer to have a sense of who commenters are personally, although it varies a lot in relation to both the commenter and the topic, and the downside is that it feeds the illusion that this community can stand in for community in the “real” world. (An eternal dilemma of mine, and why I left for several months and am ambivalent about coming back.)
I always come straight out of the personal perspective — that’s a shortcoming in some ways, but it feels less artificial (not meaning to imply that other approaches are artificial, just to say what’s comfortable for me in relation to my own participation). Hearing that other commenters sometimes want to say enough already wouldn’t surprise me at all.
JanieM, not trying to stifle your clarification, but the history here with confidentiality of identity (and other things, not limited to gender) goes back as far as the blog itself does, if not further.
Jesurgislac herself had no gender known to the commentariat at large until she herself told us, outright. So, I think that asking is itself not intrinsically rude, but demanding is, as is implying that the other person has something damaging to hide if they don’t. Gracefully accepting a refusal to divulge personal information is, as always, considered to be good blog-citizenship here. According to my values, anyway.
JanieM, not trying to stifle your clarification, but the history here with confidentiality of identity (and other things, not limited to gender) goes back as far as the blog itself does, if not further.
Jesurgislac herself had no gender known to the commentariat at large until she herself told us, outright. So, I think that asking is itself not intrinsically rude, but demanding is, as is implying that the other person has something damaging to hide if they don’t. Gracefully accepting a refusal to divulge personal information is, as always, considered to be good blog-citizenship here. According to my values, anyway.
But when you’ve been doing the same damn thing for years and have had lots of people patiently explain to you the harm that your actions are causing…well, at some point, you become responsible.
If you agree with others’ assessment that you are causing harm, then yes. If you are simply putting forth a belief that others believe is harmful, that just the marketplace of ideas. IMO, the argument that marriage should be replaced with something else is such an outlier that no one really listens to it. A few cranks on the anti-marriage side try to wave it around from time to time, but they have the same small audience that Sapient’s argument does.
But when you’ve been doing the same damn thing for years and have had lots of people patiently explain to you the harm that your actions are causing…well, at some point, you become responsible.
If you agree with others’ assessment that you are causing harm, then yes. If you are simply putting forth a belief that others believe is harmful, that just the marketplace of ideas. IMO, the argument that marriage should be replaced with something else is such an outlier that no one really listens to it. A few cranks on the anti-marriage side try to wave it around from time to time, but they have the same small audience that Sapient’s argument does.
Here‘s where Jesurgislac came out. I doubt that absolutely everyone was surprised, but I’ve always been a little slow on the uptake.
Here‘s where Jesurgislac came out. I doubt that absolutely everyone was surprised, but I’ve always been a little slow on the uptake.
Slarti, are you suggesting that I have not gracefully accepted sapient’s preference to keep the personal out of the discussion? My statement that I find knowing more about commenters congenial hardly seems like “demanding” anything from anyone.
It was lj who suggested that knowing more of sapient’s experiences would help him (and the rest of us) understand where person was coming from. I thought perhaps lj didn’t remember, or hadn’t participated in, the earlier thread, and therefore hadn’t picked up on sapient’s preference to keep per personal life out of the discussion. lj was very gentle and undemanding, but maybe you and he should have a conversation about what’s fair and what’s rude in terms of asking commenters to elaborate.
But I think I will stop there, since this is now getting into the realm of fruitless at several levels of abstraction.
Slarti, are you suggesting that I have not gracefully accepted sapient’s preference to keep the personal out of the discussion? My statement that I find knowing more about commenters congenial hardly seems like “demanding” anything from anyone.
It was lj who suggested that knowing more of sapient’s experiences would help him (and the rest of us) understand where person was coming from. I thought perhaps lj didn’t remember, or hadn’t participated in, the earlier thread, and therefore hadn’t picked up on sapient’s preference to keep per personal life out of the discussion. lj was very gentle and undemanding, but maybe you and he should have a conversation about what’s fair and what’s rude in terms of asking commenters to elaborate.
But I think I will stop there, since this is now getting into the realm of fruitless at several levels of abstraction.
Off-topic, on the matter of pronouns: The effect on me of reading Woman on the Edge of Time was that for a while afterwards I found myself wanting to use per/person in daily life, except it was only in situations where gender wasn’t known, i.e. mostly when talking in generalities. I had no instinct to use it when I was talking about a specific person whose gender I already knew.
Simplistic, yeah. It was a long time ago, but my habits would be pretty similar now.
This is an interesting topic that spills over, for me, into material Ursula Le Guin dealt with in an essay called “Is Gender Necessary? Redux” in Dancing at the Edge of the World. The essay was written at least in part in response to criticism of her use of male pronouns for the dual-gender (? not sure that’s the best way to characterize them) characters in The Left Hand of Darkness.
/OT
Off-topic, on the matter of pronouns: The effect on me of reading Woman on the Edge of Time was that for a while afterwards I found myself wanting to use per/person in daily life, except it was only in situations where gender wasn’t known, i.e. mostly when talking in generalities. I had no instinct to use it when I was talking about a specific person whose gender I already knew.
Simplistic, yeah. It was a long time ago, but my habits would be pretty similar now.
This is an interesting topic that spills over, for me, into material Ursula Le Guin dealt with in an essay called “Is Gender Necessary? Redux” in Dancing at the Edge of the World. The essay was written at least in part in response to criticism of her use of male pronouns for the dual-gender (? not sure that’s the best way to characterize them) characters in The Left Hand of Darkness.
/OT
No! I’m simply agreeing with lj that asking is not inherently rude, but that we tend to graciously settle for not knowing if more information is not forthcoming.
If that’s the point lj was making. If not, I’m simply agreeing with myself 🙂
No! I’m simply agreeing with lj that asking is not inherently rude, but that we tend to graciously settle for not knowing if more information is not forthcoming.
If that’s the point lj was making. If not, I’m simply agreeing with myself 🙂
Slarti —
🙂
Thanks.
Slarti —
🙂
Thanks.
“At least in my case, that’s not really true. We are never going to live in a world where civil marriage goes away or is deemphasized. That is always going to be premier institution, socially and legally.”
I am not sure I disagree with this Turb, although societal and cultural norms do change over time. The discussion we ARE having proves that.
“At least in my case, that’s not really true. We are never going to live in a world where civil marriage goes away or is deemphasized. That is always going to be premier institution, socially and legally.”
I am not sure I disagree with this Turb, although societal and cultural norms do change over time. The discussion we ARE having proves that.
As to revealing my identity, I prefer not to be publicly outspoken about my various beliefs, not because I’m ashamed of them, or because they aren’t heartfelt. For a variety of reasons, including the face I have to wear professionally, it’s more comfortable for me to be anonymous.
My interest in marriage comes both from my experience as a divorce lawyer, and my belief in feminism. Marriage is a huge topic that doesn’t lend itself to a thorough discussion in blog comments.
Marriage means a lot of different things. It’s a personal commitment, a sacrament, a secular cultural institution, a lifetime project, a legal set of rights and responsibilities, a kinship-forming mechanism (as Doctor Science emphasized), a convenient way to refer to a common relationship pattern, etc. It’s a wonderful support system for some people and a disaster for others. I certainly agree that “it” will never disappear.
As a legal institution, it should be replaced with something that is not so bound up with such varying emotionally and religiously charged ideas. People who change their legal status should be able to do so knowing what it means, and they shouldn’t have to depend on Cupid to determine their legal relationships.
What marriage “means” has changed dramatically over time, and many people are abandoning it altogether. I disagree that it’s ridiculous to reconsider whether it’s an effective legal institution. I’ve mentioned anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There are growing numbers of people who are opting out of it. There are governments coming up with alternatives. I believe those efforts are worthwhile.
As to revealing my identity, I prefer not to be publicly outspoken about my various beliefs, not because I’m ashamed of them, or because they aren’t heartfelt. For a variety of reasons, including the face I have to wear professionally, it’s more comfortable for me to be anonymous.
My interest in marriage comes both from my experience as a divorce lawyer, and my belief in feminism. Marriage is a huge topic that doesn’t lend itself to a thorough discussion in blog comments.
Marriage means a lot of different things. It’s a personal commitment, a sacrament, a secular cultural institution, a lifetime project, a legal set of rights and responsibilities, a kinship-forming mechanism (as Doctor Science emphasized), a convenient way to refer to a common relationship pattern, etc. It’s a wonderful support system for some people and a disaster for others. I certainly agree that “it” will never disappear.
As a legal institution, it should be replaced with something that is not so bound up with such varying emotionally and religiously charged ideas. People who change their legal status should be able to do so knowing what it means, and they shouldn’t have to depend on Cupid to determine their legal relationships.
What marriage “means” has changed dramatically over time, and many people are abandoning it altogether. I disagree that it’s ridiculous to reconsider whether it’s an effective legal institution. I’ve mentioned anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There are growing numbers of people who are opting out of it. There are governments coming up with alternatives. I believe those efforts are worthwhile.
Thanks sapient, and apologies for any discomfort that I may have caused in asking you about this. I’m still trying to negotiate this transition from being a commentator to being a front pager, so I do appreciate any and all suggestions (from anyone!) if something I said is coloring outside the lines. And, not to make this too meta, Slarti is in a rather unique position on the blog imo, as I think all the regulars realize. And if you don’t, drop in Friday’s open thread and say so :^)
Rereading the thread that janie pointed to, she’s right, I wasn’t in there. I’m not sure why, but I tend not to participate in these threads, but I think there are two reasons. The first is that the conflict between the ideal and the practical tends to play out here more than on other topics and it becomes hard to figure out which one is which. I’m happy to talk about either, but when they get confused, I tend to back out.
The second is that here in Japan, there is this all purpose document, called a koseki or family register, that fulfills all the functions of a birth certificate, a death certificate, a marriage certificate, a floor wax, a dessert topping. And while there are benefits, the problems of the koseki system suggest that totally scrapping the system would be better for all involved, which is similar to the point that sapient seems to be making. I would probably be as dogged as sapient is with people telling me that I’m asking for too much when I say the system should be scrapped. However, to me, the telling difference is that the marriage system is not simply a single system but over 50 systems (and that doesn’t include marriages from nations or groups outside of the US) that are pieced together, so arguing that one can overturn the ‘system’ of marriage when it actually is a huge number of different systems with a similar aim and history makes me side with Janie and Turb in these discussions.
Finally, another question for sapient and others. Sapient, you mention that your belief in feminism is important in this. However, it’s my feeling that the notion of ‘feminism’ in this case covers such a wide range of opinions. So I’m curious as to what texts you would refer to about feminism that would convey your views and others. I know that early, first wave feminist writing often took issue with marriage as an institution (Germaine Greer in The Female Eunuch is the work I’m specifically thinking of), but my impression of second wave feminism is less that emphasis and more on restructuring current institutions. So, when you talk about ‘your belief in feminism’, I wonder what are the specific points. And for others, any pointers to works within feminism tohelp me is appreciated
Thanks sapient, and apologies for any discomfort that I may have caused in asking you about this. I’m still trying to negotiate this transition from being a commentator to being a front pager, so I do appreciate any and all suggestions (from anyone!) if something I said is coloring outside the lines. And, not to make this too meta, Slarti is in a rather unique position on the blog imo, as I think all the regulars realize. And if you don’t, drop in Friday’s open thread and say so :^)
Rereading the thread that janie pointed to, she’s right, I wasn’t in there. I’m not sure why, but I tend not to participate in these threads, but I think there are two reasons. The first is that the conflict between the ideal and the practical tends to play out here more than on other topics and it becomes hard to figure out which one is which. I’m happy to talk about either, but when they get confused, I tend to back out.
The second is that here in Japan, there is this all purpose document, called a koseki or family register, that fulfills all the functions of a birth certificate, a death certificate, a marriage certificate, a floor wax, a dessert topping. And while there are benefits, the problems of the koseki system suggest that totally scrapping the system would be better for all involved, which is similar to the point that sapient seems to be making. I would probably be as dogged as sapient is with people telling me that I’m asking for too much when I say the system should be scrapped. However, to me, the telling difference is that the marriage system is not simply a single system but over 50 systems (and that doesn’t include marriages from nations or groups outside of the US) that are pieced together, so arguing that one can overturn the ‘system’ of marriage when it actually is a huge number of different systems with a similar aim and history makes me side with Janie and Turb in these discussions.
Finally, another question for sapient and others. Sapient, you mention that your belief in feminism is important in this. However, it’s my feeling that the notion of ‘feminism’ in this case covers such a wide range of opinions. So I’m curious as to what texts you would refer to about feminism that would convey your views and others. I know that early, first wave feminist writing often took issue with marriage as an institution (Germaine Greer in The Female Eunuch is the work I’m specifically thinking of), but my impression of second wave feminism is less that emphasis and more on restructuring current institutions. So, when you talk about ‘your belief in feminism’, I wonder what are the specific points. And for others, any pointers to works within feminism tohelp me is appreciated
I disagree that it’s ridiculous to reconsider whether it’s an effective legal institution.
In my day job, I program computers. As such, I spend a lot of time making and receiving criticism. And I’ve found that there’s a big difference between criticism of the form “this thing sucks and needs to be replaced” and “this thing has problem X, which I think we can work around if we do Y”. Conversations of the first form are not productive because the boss has made it clear that scapping “that thing” is not going to happen, ever.
If you want to have a discussion about what sorts of problems exist in civil marriage and what sort of small legal changes we might make to address them, I’m up for that. It seems far off topic for discussions of SSM, which are the only places I’ve seen you raise the issue, but I’ll let the front-pagers deal with that. But we should be very clear: that is a totally different discussion that one in which you advocate the absurd impossible dream of getting rid of civil marriage in the US. That discussion is simply insane.
I’ve mentioned anecdotal evidence that it’s not.
Not really. You’ve mentioned some well known problems with marriage. You haven’t really explained why they’d disappear if we got rid of civil marriage. I mean, ignorance of the law and power differentials in relationships are not going to go away. An abuser who can beat his spouse near to death will have no trouble “convincing” her to sign off any contracts that he wants in a world without civil marriage. And people in the US are still going to look down on unmarried single mothers even if civil marriage disappears completely.
There are governments coming up with alternatives. I believe those efforts are worthwhile.
If by governments, you mean state and municipal governments, then: no. There are no such governments that have produced an institution that provides as many priviliges as civil marriage does for heterosexuals. Not even close.
If you mean non-US national governments, I don’t see why that’s relevant. Other countries do many interesting and innovative things that simply cannot be done in the US. That is unfortunate. But that does not change the fact that aboloshing civil marriage in the US is as likely as having a new Communist Party or Muslim Brotherhood party win 30% of the Senate.
I disagree that it’s ridiculous to reconsider whether it’s an effective legal institution.
In my day job, I program computers. As such, I spend a lot of time making and receiving criticism. And I’ve found that there’s a big difference between criticism of the form “this thing sucks and needs to be replaced” and “this thing has problem X, which I think we can work around if we do Y”. Conversations of the first form are not productive because the boss has made it clear that scapping “that thing” is not going to happen, ever.
If you want to have a discussion about what sorts of problems exist in civil marriage and what sort of small legal changes we might make to address them, I’m up for that. It seems far off topic for discussions of SSM, which are the only places I’ve seen you raise the issue, but I’ll let the front-pagers deal with that. But we should be very clear: that is a totally different discussion that one in which you advocate the absurd impossible dream of getting rid of civil marriage in the US. That discussion is simply insane.
I’ve mentioned anecdotal evidence that it’s not.
Not really. You’ve mentioned some well known problems with marriage. You haven’t really explained why they’d disappear if we got rid of civil marriage. I mean, ignorance of the law and power differentials in relationships are not going to go away. An abuser who can beat his spouse near to death will have no trouble “convincing” her to sign off any contracts that he wants in a world without civil marriage. And people in the US are still going to look down on unmarried single mothers even if civil marriage disappears completely.
There are governments coming up with alternatives. I believe those efforts are worthwhile.
If by governments, you mean state and municipal governments, then: no. There are no such governments that have produced an institution that provides as many priviliges as civil marriage does for heterosexuals. Not even close.
If you mean non-US national governments, I don’t see why that’s relevant. Other countries do many interesting and innovative things that simply cannot be done in the US. That is unfortunate. But that does not change the fact that aboloshing civil marriage in the US is as likely as having a new Communist Party or Muslim Brotherhood party win 30% of the Senate.
But I think I will stop there, since this is now getting into the realm of fruitless at several levels of abstraction.
I think I’ve been looking for this very useful sentence (and possible variations of it) for many years. Eureka, and thanks, Janie.
(I can’t wait to stop a useless meeting in its tracks with it.)
But I think I will stop there, since this is now getting into the realm of fruitless at several levels of abstraction.
I think I’ve been looking for this very useful sentence (and possible variations of it) for many years. Eureka, and thanks, Janie.
(I can’t wait to stop a useless meeting in its tracks with it.)
Thanks, lj, for seriously and respectfully engaging on this issue.
You say: “However, to me, the telling difference is that the marriage system is not simply a single system but over 50 systems (and that doesn’t include marriages from nations or groups outside of the US) that are pieced together, so arguing that one can overturn the ‘system’ of marriage when it actually is a huge number of different systems with a similar aim and history makes me side with Janie and Turb in these discussions.”
I believe that the variety of marriage systems that exist in the United States is, in fact, an argument against the institution’s fairness. The fact a couple who marries in California, in the belief that they have certain legal rights and responsibilities, can move to Louisiana, where their rights and responsibilities are different (and the consequences of divorce are different), is an unpleasant surprise to many people. If people enter into a contract, they can provide which state’s laws will govern disputes, and have some control over the consequences of their actions and failures. Not so in marriage.
Feminism is a vague term – I’m sorry I used it. Many of the early concerns of feminism were abandoned, not because they weren’t legitimate, but because varying smaller interests within the feminists community seemed at odds. The “mommy wars” is an example of this, and an interesting set of articles recently appeared in the Boston Review on the subject. Reading the articles reveals how women still don’t have a uniform view as to what things need to change. Most people agree, in theory, that we all want responsible and loving relationships, with choices available for personal fulfillment and economic security, as well as equal rights in the workplace and equitable distribution of labor at home. How to achieve that is still very up in the air.
There’s no question that family life is important to most people. People love other people, and often have complicated and difficult relationships because of their desire to do their best in specific situations with regards to spouse, children and others. Marriage doesn’t always accommodate the problems associated with those sometimes conflicting duties, and it shouldn’t be foisted on people for whom it doesn’t work well.
In the end, of course, if people are educated and well-informed, they have a better chance making marriage laws work for them, or using other laws to design their own protections. So I’ll refrain from commenting further.
Thanks, lj, for seriously and respectfully engaging on this issue.
You say: “However, to me, the telling difference is that the marriage system is not simply a single system but over 50 systems (and that doesn’t include marriages from nations or groups outside of the US) that are pieced together, so arguing that one can overturn the ‘system’ of marriage when it actually is a huge number of different systems with a similar aim and history makes me side with Janie and Turb in these discussions.”
I believe that the variety of marriage systems that exist in the United States is, in fact, an argument against the institution’s fairness. The fact a couple who marries in California, in the belief that they have certain legal rights and responsibilities, can move to Louisiana, where their rights and responsibilities are different (and the consequences of divorce are different), is an unpleasant surprise to many people. If people enter into a contract, they can provide which state’s laws will govern disputes, and have some control over the consequences of their actions and failures. Not so in marriage.
Feminism is a vague term – I’m sorry I used it. Many of the early concerns of feminism were abandoned, not because they weren’t legitimate, but because varying smaller interests within the feminists community seemed at odds. The “mommy wars” is an example of this, and an interesting set of articles recently appeared in the Boston Review on the subject. Reading the articles reveals how women still don’t have a uniform view as to what things need to change. Most people agree, in theory, that we all want responsible and loving relationships, with choices available for personal fulfillment and economic security, as well as equal rights in the workplace and equitable distribution of labor at home. How to achieve that is still very up in the air.
There’s no question that family life is important to most people. People love other people, and often have complicated and difficult relationships because of their desire to do their best in specific situations with regards to spouse, children and others. Marriage doesn’t always accommodate the problems associated with those sometimes conflicting duties, and it shouldn’t be foisted on people for whom it doesn’t work well.
In the end, of course, if people are educated and well-informed, they have a better chance making marriage laws work for them, or using other laws to design their own protections. So I’ll refrain from commenting further.
dr ngo:
It only goes to show what happens when you let political scientists and philosophers wander about without adult supervision (i.e., historians and anthropologists)!
heeee. Yes. I think the fact that the person who is by acclamation the best living mind of American conservatism makes these kind of mistakes is both sign and symptom of conservatism’s weakness in the academy. History and anthropology are the core social studies, and they are extremely left-wing, especially anthro.
I don’t mean that the fields themselves necessarily are liberal, but the people studying them *are*. Actually, I’m not sure about that — anthro may be the most liberal of fields, because it is premised on rejecting the idea that “our culture is the only right culture”. I don’t see that it’s psychologically possible to go into cultural anthro and be conservative, because it’s Diversity Studies par excellance.
So what I’m saying is that George and the choir he’s preaching to are likely to be especially weak in the adult areas of history & anthro. I don’t think that excuses the anthro-historical weakness of many people who argue against him, though.
dr ngo:
It only goes to show what happens when you let political scientists and philosophers wander about without adult supervision (i.e., historians and anthropologists)!
heeee. Yes. I think the fact that the person who is by acclamation the best living mind of American conservatism makes these kind of mistakes is both sign and symptom of conservatism’s weakness in the academy. History and anthropology are the core social studies, and they are extremely left-wing, especially anthro.
I don’t mean that the fields themselves necessarily are liberal, but the people studying them *are*. Actually, I’m not sure about that — anthro may be the most liberal of fields, because it is premised on rejecting the idea that “our culture is the only right culture”. I don’t see that it’s psychologically possible to go into cultural anthro and be conservative, because it’s Diversity Studies par excellance.
So what I’m saying is that George and the choir he’s preaching to are likely to be especially weak in the adult areas of history & anthro. I don’t think that excuses the anthro-historical weakness of many people who argue against him, though.