My version of the "marriage is love" meme

[pne]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Comments

[entirelysonja.livejournal.com]

I have a few questions about your views, which I hope you will answer.

Do you differentiate between the secular and religious aspects of marriage?

Do you object to the state granting same-sex couples the same kinds of legal benefits that are granted to opposite-sex couples?

Would you object if the state no longer performed marriage ceremonies for any couples, instead granting "civil unions" or some such, and leaving the concept of marriage entirely for the churches?

(That last is my preferred solution to this entire dilemma -- I believe that "marriage" is most appropriately viewed as a religious concept, while I also believe that the state has an interest in recognizing family units for various reasons.)

[pne.livejournal.com]

Do you differentiate between the secular and religious aspects of marriage?

I think I haven't thought about this in that much detail. I'd say that for me, marriage, family, and children are all ethical/religious in nature and not so much secular.

Do you object to the state granting same-sex couples the same kinds of legal benefits that are granted to opposite-sex couples?

I'm not sure. (What kind of legal benefits are we talking about, for one?)

Let's get back to that in a minute.

Would you object if the state no longer performed marriage ceremonies for any couples, instead granting "civil unions" or some such, and leaving the concept of marriage entirely for the churches?

I haven't given this much thought again, but I think I wouldn't object much if the concept of marriage were confined to the churches. But I'm not sure what the point of a "civil union" would be, then?

I believe that "marriage" is most appropriately viewed as a religious concept

*nods*

I also believe that the state has an interest in recognizing family units for various reasons.

See, I think this is what it hinges on.

Why does the state have to recognise family units? What privileges do married couples have that non-married couples don't?

In Germany, you get a tax reduction if you're married. But other than that?

Unless it's things to do with children (e.g. I think a child born to unmarried parents is legally connected to the mother but not to the father, and unmarried couples can't adopt). But then that falls into the realm of "family" again, which to me is religious.

Or naming: partners often change their surname after marriage, and children born into a marriage get the surname of one of their parents, whereas children of unmarried parents take the surname of their mother AFAIK even if the parents consider themselves married but they aren't before the law.

I wouldn't like same-sex couples to be able to adopt children, and they can't have any of their own in the first place. (I would also want opposite-sex couples be married if they're going to be a couple and spend their life together, whether they have children or not.)

So I'm also not quite sure why the state wants to promote marriage, unless it's religious elements. Or perhaps something like promoting having children so that children are born so that the population doesn't die out (which wouldn't work for same-sex couples)—since I guess people usually prefer to be committed to one another before they'll go and have a child together. Or perhaps to promote families as a unit of a strong society?

What's in it for the state?

In summary: I think it's more a religious thing than a secular one and am not quite clear about the role of the state in all this.

Religious, personal and legal elements of marriage

[rho]

Disclaimer: I am not an expert. I am not anything that even vaguely approaches being an expert. I may be wrong on some bits, and all of it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

I split a marriage up into three main purposes. Firstly, there's the religious aspect, which I'm sure you're familiar with.

Then there's the personal element. When you get married, you're making a personal commitment to your partner. You're also celebrating your love. This has nothing to do with the state, but it's still a reason why people wish to get married even if they aren't religious.

Then there's the legal element. You mentioned tax breaks. These are Important. Consider something like inheritance tax. AIUI, in England at least, spouses can inherit from their dead partner without being taxed on it. Unmarried couples cannot, and by extension, no gay couples are afforded this right. This is a clear case of the rights given to two classes of people being different, and is a point of contention.

Whether or not tax breaks should be given to all couples, or taken away from them all is a somewhat different issue, but I strongly believe that the rights granted should be equal. And I rather suspect that the government would have riots on its hands if it tried to take them away, as it would cause things like little old ladies being forced to move out of their house of 40 years because they couldn't afford the tax on it.

Then you've got things like conflict resolution. Regardless of your personal moral feelings about it, divorce law is well established these days, with the aim being, always, to treat both parties fairly and equitibly. In the case of gay couples, this process is much less clear cut. Sure, there may not be children involved (barring the case of gay adoption, where I disagree with you but respect your opinion; I'd happily discuss that too, but I don't think here is the place), but there can be highly emotive disgareements over who owns what. A family pet for instance. Or a home. Should gay couples be denied the benefit of impartial legal adjudication on the same footing as straight couples here?

The question, in theses cases, isn't necessarily what's in it for the state, but what's in it for the people of the state. One of the duties of a state is to provide for its people, and I strongly believe that that means to provide for all its people on an equal footing.

As for what's in it for the state, I can only speculate. I'm trying to imagine a situation where marriage is rare though. There would be a lot more people living independently. More people would live alone, which would, in turn, mess up the economy in quite a big way. I would also imagine that people are much less likely to claim various government benefits (eg, unemployment) if they have a partner who is making an income and supporting them. In a way, it's sort of like a two-person co-operative, with a partner offering the first safety net when things go bad. This, in turn, prevents people from going to the nationwide co-operative that is the state quite so often. Or, in short, I imagine that marriage introduces stability and is good for the economy. If that's the case, then it owuld apply equally well to homosexuals as heterosexual. Of course, I may be missing some good reasons that do differentiate between the two, but I'm doubtful.

So, to summarise: there are currently reasons for marriage which are unrelated to its religious significance. My personal prefered solution is to split it up into multiple separate parts. To use an analogy which I've just thought of, it's like the "friends" concept on LiveJournal. It's overloaded. Different people talk about it, mainly refering to different bits, and if it were split up (for instance, if the religious and legal elements became totally separated) then I think things would work better.

I hope that answers some of your questions at least.

Re: Religious, personal and legal elements of marriage

[pne.livejournal.com]

I hope that answers some of your questions at least.

Some, yes; thanks. It was interesting reading and food for thought.

I believe I tend to agree with what you set out.

Re:

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Okay. Here in New Jersey:
1. Children can have any last name at all--my best friend's son has neither her last name nor his father's (yes, she and the father are married) because she's never changed her last name, but Immigration has messed up her husband's papers and so his legal last name is not his real last name. They're in the process of getting his last name legally changed, at which point she'll change her last name to match his, but their son already has his father's real (but so far, not legal) last name. Anyway, so in New Jersey a child can have any last name. In some states, children of married couples must take the father's last name, but children of unmarried women can take either the mother's name or the father's name. I've never heard of children born to unwed mothers having to take the mother's last name.
2. Both unmarried couples and gay couples can adopt children, and if one woman in a lesbian relationship has a child, the other partner can adopt the child so both are legally the child's mother (assuming there is no father).

Legal rights of married couples include: lower rates on automobile, health and life insurance; right to make medical and legal decisions for the other person if s/he is incapacitated; right to see the other person in the hospital [intensive-care units normally admit only immediate family]; lower interest rates on mortgages; being the automatic heir of the other person's estate. (In the US, married couples pay higher taxes than single people, not lower ... it's a bit more complicated than that, since married people whose spouses don't work pay lower taxes, but dual-income married people pay higher.)

The state's interest in promoting marriage is simple: married people, on the whole, are healthier, happier and more stable than unmarried people. (Also, they pay higher taxes, as I said.) Also, as you said, promoting the growth of the population.

I'm curious why you think marriage, family and children (on the whole) are "all ethical/religious in nature and not so much secular," especially since you went on to mention people wanting to be committed to each other before they have children, which is dead on. Areligious people want to have children too, and they want to bring them up in a committed relationship. Also, you seem to assume (in that sentence) that ethics cannot be secular. Why?

Not trying to start a fight here, and I hope you know that—I'm really curious as to why you hold the opinions that you do.

[pne.livejournal.com]

The state's interest in promoting marriage is simple: married people, on the whole, are healthier, happier and more stable than unmarried people.

Is this also true for same-sex married people compared to same-sex non-married couples or homosexual singles?

Also, as you said, promoting the growth of the population.

This, it seems to me, would indicate that it's not in the state's interest to promote same-sex marriages. (Or better: one factor that affects whether same-sex and opposite-sex marriages should be equally promoted by the state or not.)

I'm curious why you think marriage, family and children (on the whole) are "all ethical/religious in nature and not so much secular," especially since you went on to mention people wanting to be committed to each other before they have children, which is dead on. Areligious people want to have children too, and they want to bring them up in a committed relationship. Also, you seem to assume (in that sentence) that ethics cannot be secular. Why?

Ah. Apparently, I chose the wrong word; I think I wanted to express that the ideas of marriage, family, and children (as an "institution"), or perhaps better: the relationships implied by them, are something not primarily connected with the state but rather something personal, better governed or controlled by people's ethical and/or religious convictions rather than laws.

So, yes: both religious and areligious people want to have children and typically want to bring them up in a committed relationship, but that's something arising from their feelings and value system, so I'd put it under the "religious" and/or "personal" aspects of rho's three, rather than the "legal" aspect.

Re:

[entirelysonja.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not actually true that same sex couples can't have children. It's relatively easy for women to have children without being in a relationship with a man -- in this country, lesbian couples commonly either find a friend who's willing to donate sperm to them, or they buy sperm from a sperm bank. Depending on the sperm bank and the situation, the woman might either pay her doctor to inseminate her, or have her partner do it at home.

And either male or female couples may well have children from previous opposite-sex relationships -- this is quite common among couples comprised of 2 women.

Adoption is also an option. In this country, same-sex couples and single parents can adopt children. It may not be as easy for them as it is for opposite-sex couples, but it is possible and it happens frequently.

Many couples are concerned about what will happen to their children if the legal parent should die, which is why second-parent adoption is such an important issue in this country. I know a woman for whom this was a serious problem; her partner was the birth mother of their child, and developed cancer shortly after the child was born. Luckily, she was able to obtain adoptive parent status, allowing her to continue to raise the child after her partner died. I would suggest that the state has an interest in preventing children from entering into the child welfare system unnecessarily.

Health insurance benefits are also a significant concern for many couples here. Opposite-sex couples who marry are able to choose between the health insurance benefits offered by each of their employers, assuming that both are employed. These benefits differ significantly from employer to employer, and there are many jobs that offer no insurance at all. Obtaining health insurance on one's own is often prohibitively expensive. Same sex couples do not have this option unless their employers offer "domestic partnership benefits". I believe that the state has an interest here, in that it is obviously beneficial for more people to have health insurance coverage.

These are two major issues; there are many others where I would suggest that the major problem is lack of equal treatment, rather than a compelling state interest.

For example, it is more difficult for a same-sex couple to own purchase and own property (such as a house) together. Inheritance rights are more complicated. Obviously the taxation situation is different. Decision-making (and even access) in situations where one partner is incapacitated and under medical care can be problematic.

I think it's more a religious thing than a secular one and am not quite clear about the role of the state in all this.

In that case, are we in agreement that it would be better if the state were no longer involved in the concept of "marriage", leaving each religious group to establish their own rules and policies in line with their teachings?

[pne.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not actually true that same sex couples can't have children.

I meant "can't have children together from one another". Apologies for the confusion.

(As an exaggeration: if all people lived together in same-sex couples and were faithful to their partner, nobody would have any children. That's what I meant with "same-sex couples can't have children"; I realise that same-sex couples can acquire children from other sources than through one partner impregnating the other.)

In that case, are we in agreement that it would be better if the state were no longer involved in the concept of "marriage", leaving each religious group to establish their own rules and policies in line with their teachings?

I'll have to think about it, especially in the light of what I've read this evening from some of you.

As I said, I haven't given that much thought to this separation yet, so I'm not sure what would work out how in the long run.

Re:

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

There was also a very famous case here where a lesbian couple had a child together: one was the egg donor, and the other carried the baby (they used sperm from a donor IIRC). They won the right to both be listed as "mother" on the child's birth certificate.

if all people lived together in same-sex couples and were faithful to their partner, nobody would have any children.

I'm just itching to yell "Sperm banks! Surrogate mothers!" but I know that's not what you mean. Actually, I do see your point about same-sex couples not having children with each other, and I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that people who are anti-same-sex-marriage are not also campaigning to outlaw marriage between people who are biologically incapable of having children.

[pne.livejournal.com]

In that case, are we in agreement that it would be better if the state were no longer involved in the concept of "marriage", leaving each religious group to establish their own rules and policies in line with their teachings?

Tentatively: yes.

Re:

[christine.livejournal.com]

Just in response to your comment on naming...

My parents were never married, but I have my fathers last name (though it obviously wasn't my mothers). At least in the States, either is exceptable

u r awesome

[nycheetah.livejournal.com]

u r awesome