Marriage, or Something Like It

I just read a comment somewhere that said same-sex couples "can have civil unions they just can't change the definition of marriage."

Sweet Pete, I wish the government would get out of the marriage business. And by marriage I mean doing anything that implies the joining of two souls.

But let's be real Mr. Civil Union, same-sex couples aren't the couples who have changed the definition of marriage. We mixed-sex couples have managed to do that all by ourselves.

For which I am truly thankful.

Marriage is no longer a transfer of property from father to husband. Personally, I really like that change but my friends who are into subjugation might have a different point of view. I get that. I just don't respect it.

Oh, and marriage is no longer all about procreation. I mean imagine someone suing for divorce on the grounds of infertility and the infertile party being found at fault or guilty of fraud or something like that.  Imagine having to return the dowry.

I'm being intentionally outlandish here, but seriously, imagine it.

Does anyone even remember what illegitimate children are? Bastards, I mean? Children without the rights and protections afforded to children born in wedlock? Children without legitimate claims to paternity. I mean, married or not, deadbeat dad or otherwise, nowadays the father of the child is still legally responsible for said child, which is more than could be said when marriage laws first hit the books.

So if it's not souls and it's not chattel and it's not children, then it's, what, romantic love?????

Well, with marriages of convenience being equally protected under the law, so long as they are mixed-sex, then it's not that either.

As far as the state is concerned, it should be simply the joining of households. The reason people are frustrated and confused is because we're trying to draw a logical conclusion from a faulty premise.

Now this is where I'm going to step over the line. Because there is a line people and gay marriage isn't anywhere near it. Gay marriage falls so short of addressing the real issue that it's downright reason to cry.

Here's what I think. I think marriage, like business partnerships, should not be limited to people who have sex or even to just two people. Now that people can't be property and birth control is ubiquitous, why on earth should we even have state sponsored marriage? Why not domestic partnerships (as opposed to the aforementioned business partnerships) for everyone? Why not have them be renewable licenses, kind of like how car registrations and drivers' licenses are renewable, and open them up to anyone who wants to set up joint finances and be legally entangled with another person(s).

Let me give you my favorite example: two widowed older women, both in their seventies, who have shared a household and finances for going on two decades. They have neither the inclination nor the stamina to share a bedroom and yet they are each other's family. In the event that one should become seriously ill, the other would need to act as next of kin. If death of one should occur, property should divert to the other. Only they have no legal rights to each other, or rather didn't until one adopted the other.

They should have been able to set up a domestic partnership.

So should anyone who requires domestically what marriage has afforded to mixed sex couples, even if there are more than two of them, even if they never want to see each other naked.

But we don't have that. We have something called marriage, which based on its intended definition should be obsolete as an institution and yet is still on the books, remarked upon as if marriage, sacred marriage, is, was, and has always been, although the reality is that our definition of marriage is hardly static.  And given how not static it really is, and how far we've come from its intended purpose, I think it's stupid that we still have state-sponsored marriage at all.

But we do have this ridiculous, stupid thing that is called marriage but is not really marriage, so let it be equal-opportunity stupid marriage, by all means. But let's not congratulate ourselves to heartily if we manage that, because we've still missed the point.

To my mind, what marriage has really come to mean is the ability to legally choose one's next of kin in a way that trumps all other kinship. We get to legally choose our most significant person and make that person our most immediate family.

I believe we should be allowed to do that regardless of gender, fertility, children, and without the assumption of romantic involvement. And I believe it should be subject to cancellation, with a regular renewal process built in, much like automobile registration.

And since Bookgirl brought it up, and I've had time to think about it, I'll add a little something about naturalization. I don't think that marriage should be a path to immigration. Parenthood of a citizen, maybe (just maybe), but not romantic inclination toward a citizen.

The right of sponsorship for citizenship should be just as equal opportunity as anything else. Every natural born citizen should be allowed access to that privilege of sponsorship regardless of whether or not we are in love. And it should be a difficult and lengthy process with full vetting and lots of nuisance and annoying intrusion because, after all, it's a big deal.

But the idea of only some people getting special rights and dominion because of some arbitrary intricacy of their personal relationships just sits wrong with me. Whatever wonkiness we're engaging in, we need to all have the choice of being engaged.

Pun intended.

And while I'm on my soapbox, I just want to admit that I don't think marriage inequality is an atrocity. It is an insult, an inconvenience, and a sad social commentary. But it's not being killed, beaten, denied housing or employment, or, oh yeah, raped and left for dead. The American Gay Rights Movement has accomplished an overwhelming shift in the social consciousness of this country. Think about what it must have meant to be a Gay American fifty years ago. Now consider that there was no such thing.

Marriage equality for same-sex couples is the home stretch. This is the time to be organized, to educate your friends and family, and your neighbors, and to assume the deal. That's right, I'm saying fake it until you make it. The dialogue of equality is wide open, and absolutely, it's right that all people be treated equal under the law, but think about the big picture. Remember Jim Crow. I may not be gay but I am a person and as far as this person is concerned, the point is not to be equal under the law, the point it to be so equal that it seems silly to even have such a law.

I am really looking forward to the day when we don't have all these qualifiers floating around in front of the word American because it just doesn't matter. I am looking forward to day when an American is an American is an American.

That will be my favorite day.

Comments

[Alice]

I think you should go into more detail (a part two if you will) about the idea of marriage being up for renewal like a car - because I really like that conversation.

People who care what other people do with their personal lives should find something else to care about. Why on Earth do I give a shit what someone elses relationship consists of? I don't. Unless I do, but I don't. Usually.

And can someone please explain to me (White Rabbit) why the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. I wish I was smart enough to know this but I'm not and I'd really like to learn the history of this form a religious context.

And - Bookgirl makes a very good point about marriage for citizenship purposes. A very good point.

[Polly Poppins]

Alice, I've asked White Rabbit and,at the risk of speaking out of turn, he says the Bible doesn't state a specific reason but clearly prohibits same-sex relationships. If he comes around to read these comments, he might be able to give you a better answer.

Also, Bookgirl just pointed out that civil unions do not provide a marriage-equivalent path to citizenship, the rest of the wonkiness is all mine.

As for a followup on why I feel marriage should be subject to renewal, well, if I get another hankering to get up on my soapbox, I'll expound. But I have my reasons.

[loafingcactus]

Polly, long ago I read a book called The Neutered Mother and the Sexual Family that also made me think the government should get out of the marriage business and, at most, into the household recognition business. Why should household's government status be regulated by sexual relationships. If a woman and her mother, for example, live together as a household, why shouldn't they be able to declare such on their taxes and perhaps even their health insurance? Leave marriages, partnerships, unions, whatever to church's and whatever equivalent secular institutions might arrive to name such.

[Nat]

I have always been partial to the idea that marriage is a religious thing -- not a legal one. The Man and I have been in a "civil union" since 1995. Yet, people still ask if The Boy was planned. Fact is we couldn't for the life of us figure out why, as agnostic/atheist, we should have god/state "sanctify" the union. To say nothing of the history of marriage as enslavement of women. Would it not make sense to make marriage a purely religious rite of passage? Just saying..

The CBC did a brilliant documentary about these sisters who lived together for 30 years. It was a living arrangement that they both chose and from all accounts they led full lives. Until one of them got sick, it turns out that the sister couldn't get compassionate leave because her sister wasn't her "spouse". Can't remember what it was called. I think in the end, she won and now the law in Canada are broader than they were.

[Alice]

I'm hoping white Rabbit can give some insight as to why the bible clearly prohibits same sex relationships. I understand it may not be spelled out, but maybe he can help me to understand the context in which its written.

I may be completely wrong here but if it didn't say so in the bible, I think maybe a wide range of this country's (and others) population might not give a shit about same sex relationships. So, if thats even a little true, it would be nice to understand the historical standpoint of the issue, wouldn't it?

[Polly Poppins]

loafingcactus, my point entirely. I'd be just as willing to call it a registered household as a domestic partnership.

Nat,I never saw that documentary but it would have only reinforced my own conclusions.

Alice, the thing about speaking for White Rabbit is that I'm not so please don't hold him responsible for any inaccuracies or maddening vagueness in my answer. What I meant to convey is that White Rabbit told me that he doesn't know why the Bible is against same-sex relationships, only that there is scripture that no-bones-about-it prohibits them. Further, if you take the Bible on faith, as a matter of course you are saying that you accept this prohibition (and a lot of other stuff) without explanation, even if it doesn't make sense to you. That would be the faith part.

That said, I don't claim to take the Bible on faith. I believe it is a collection of stories, parables, and historical (and sometimes, arguably, mythical) books by the Hebrews, for the Hebrews, and about the Hebrews. And while it may be anthropologically rich, I don't believe it was undertaken as an anthropological study so a lot of stuff (like the specific reasons gayness is an abomination and,more relevent to me personally, why shellfish is, too) gets glossed over.

So I agree with White Rabbit that if you decide you take the Bible on faith, you don't get to cherry pick. Of course, most people I know who claim to take the Bible on faith do cherry pick, but my point is, I don't think you can undermine the Biblical argument by proving gayness is just fine. If you are going to sway the other side to provide equality under the law, the way to do it is to promote the Christ-inspired motto of allowing people to choose for themselves whether or not to uphold Christian values.

And if that's not a long enough answer for you, I'll add that I think it's possible to be a gay Christian but not possible to prove that the Bible is okay with gayness. If you want to reconcile the Christian bible with holy same-sex marriage, you are going to have to argue that the Bible is divinely inspired but not the direct word of God and that the individual books were written by people, who in addition to being God's scribe, also had their own agendas and beliefs that influenced their translation of the message, not to mention the influence of the people who later transcribed and altered the original text.

But really, at that point you'll have to educate your audience to the fact that the Bible is actually an anthology of completely different texts, written by a number of people separated by time and space and that this collection actually came to be a collection because a group of priests got together and had a vote on which holy texts would be in and out, and, yes, some important stuff got voted out.

Anyway. My fingers ache.

[Diosa]

I don't think it's so much of a problem when the government or the church is involved in a matter, but when the two get in on something together, it's bound to be a cluster fuck. Hence marriage and George W. Bush. Is it a union sanctified by God or is it government regulated partnership? It shouldn't be both. Do we have separation of church and state in this country or not? I'm pretty sure we're supposed to, so could someone please tell that to the Evangelicals?

[The Dol]

Yep. I'm with you, Pols.

The crazy thing about what happened here in California is that the anti-gay marriage people didn't even spend much time arguing the merits of marriage. It was all about kids--how they would be hurt if the gays marry, that they would learn about the gay agenda in schools, and that this would be the path to gay adoption. Blah, blah, blah.

I think they knew that there is fundamentally no legitimate reason to deny one set of people a government-recognized benefit, so they fell back on homophobia. Pretty sad.

Honestly, I couldn't care less if the government recognizes civil unions or marriages or households, but what they do for one group they have to do for all.

[Alice]

Polly,
I'm going to have to read that twice. I was being more simplistic in asking if there is more reasoning in the biblical standpoint other than "it says so". Know what I mean?

The DOL - Do you remember the West Wing episode where they talked about not recognizing ANY marriage - because if it wasn't available to everyone, the government shouldn't make it available to ANYONE. That was a funny episode.

[Polly Poppins]

Alice, the short answer is "it says so" and, yes, that's the reason.

[The Dol]

I don't remember that episode, but I have just started re-watching the whole series from the beginning, so I'm sure I'll see it.

[Alice]

The DOL - I am doing the same thing - I started when Obama won the primaries. I'm on season 6....