Re: You know what would be REALLY "progressive"?


"James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschrumpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Xns9A3884DDD3358jaschrumpfcomcastic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quiet, "Dysdiadochokinesia" <squishybrainster@xxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm
transmitting rage.


"James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschrumpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:Xns9A37F00249819jaschrumpfcomcastic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quiet, "Dysdiadochokinesia" <squishybrainster@xxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm
transmitting rage.


"James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschrumpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:Xns9A36C67506630jaschrumpfcomcastic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Would be if some state legislature somewhere set up a committee that
would research all of the so-called "marriage laws" in that state and
sort them by
category: estate, real estate, financial, medical, etc.

Then the legislature would decouple those laws from "marriage", so
that all
of them would be assignable to second parties by simple contracts,
much like
a power of attorney.

Finally, the state would get out of the "marriage" business
altogether, and
allow consenting adults to set up their own domestic arrangements
based on simple contracts for varying periods of time. Churches
could still perform
their ceremonies, but they would have no civil bearing, any more than
taking
communion gives one any kind of legal rights.

Put into practice properly, it could be no more complicated than
taking out a
personal loan at your local bank. Couples who are "sure" they are
meant for
one another could always take out "permanent" contracts -- with
clauses for
breach of contract down the road (prenups, anyone?). If a couple
just wanted
to live together for the foreseeable future, but wanted to make sure
of what
happened in the event of the unthinkable early death or accidental
pregnancy
would be able to set up provisions to handle those events.

Of course, traditionalists would complain -- but hey, we're talking
"progressive" here, so what else would you expect? The important
aspect of
all of the above is that it wouldn't impact religion at all, and it
would separate yet another aspect of "state vs. religion" that many
people don't think of at all.

It's one thing when marriage was important to decide the ascension of
kings
and such, but in a modern legal society are those concerns still
relevant?

OK, maybe being a single guy and all I don't quite understand the
complexities-- but how is this proposal different from what happens
when you go down to the courthouse and get legally married? Isn't a
civil marriage pretty much exactly this? If not, it seems like it
should be. Maybe I was giving the legal system way too much credit.



The argument is that all these rights and privileges devolve upon you
by mere dint of getting married, which makes it tempting to expand the
concept
of marriage to non-traditional groupings (homosexuals, multiple
partners) as an easy way to give those rights and privileges to those
non-tradional groupings.


I know; that makes sense. After all, that's what marriage is- the
collection of rights and privileges- at least as far as the law is
concerned.

The idea of decoupling those rights and privileges from marriage and
into ordinary contracts between consenting adults leaves the
traditional religious concept of marriage as it is, but allows
non-traditonal groupings
to get those same rights.

Maybe I need to be clearer (and please understand, I'm genuinely asking
since I don't know the answer)- but that doesn't answer my question at
all. What I am wondering is how "decoupling those rights and privileges
from marriage and into ordinary contracts" differs from what I always
assumed was an "ordinary contract" when you go down to city hall or
wherever and get legally married. IOW, what's the difference, as far as
the state is concerned, between what you're proposing, and what is
actually in place? And don't you need legal papers and such when you get
married in a church or wherever anyway?



OK, I think I see your point. My point is that there would be no marriage
at all from the state's point of view; it would just be two people making a
series of contracts -- or one contract with all the legal points addressed
in it -- with no ceremony at all.

I don't see the difference whether there's a ceremony or not. The people who have these contracts in place are, legally, "married", right?

Two friends of mine took a half day off from work, went to the courthouse, and signed some papers. They're just as married, AFAIK, as my sister who made us all sit through a 2 hour Catholic mass. Both couples have legal documentation.


If they wanted a religious ceremony they'd head down the street to The
Church of Whatever for it; but sans the legal contract such a ceremony
would in itself grant zero legal rights and privileges.

How is that different from how it is now? Don't people need the legal stuff even if they do whatever it is people do in churches?


"Marriage" is a religious sacrament like communion;


Not really, no-- not to most people it isn't. It's the relationship you have with the person who has the aforementioned rights and privileges, with whom you start a "family", whatever that is to you. Which, by the way, is what makes it pretty silly for conservative whackos to think they can tell people who they can and cannot marry.


one doesn't devolve
rights from taking one's first communion; why should marriage do the same?

It doesn't. There is, as we speak, civil marriage that I think does exactly what you're describing. No?

The answer to that question is that it was a lazy way to grant these legal
benefits to couples without further ado. And there's no reason it should
stay that way.


AFAIK, it isn't that way, except that certain religious figures are allowed to stand in for the "justice of the peace" in ceremonial circumstances. They still need the legal stuff taken care of, though, no?


Most polls show that when the question of civil benefits are decoupled from
marriage, a large majority shows approval of granting them to anyone.

The "civil benefits" are what determines who is married to whom, from a legal standpoint. What kind of distinction is being made here?

The
closer the poll question gets to "should marriage between same-sex partners
be allowed", the further away from approval the poll numbers move.

That doesn't make sense. They're the same thing. I suppose this result says more about how irrational and prejudiced some people are than anything else.

Therefore, the state should quit sanctioning "marriage" and just start
granting legal rights to anyone who wants to draw up the contract and sign
it.

So you're saying we should just make up a new name for marriage if someone wants a spouse but isn't lucky enough to fall for someone that rates approval by the self-appointed "defenders of marriage"? Somehow I suspect that isn't going to fly. This sounds like suggesting that mixed-race couples get 'separate but equal' marriages.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: You know what would be REALLY "progressive"?
    ... Then the legislature would decouple those laws from "marriage", ... based on simple contracts for varying periods of time. ... all of the above is that it wouldn't impact religion at all, ... The argument is that all these rights and privileges devolve upon you ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Over an hour and NOTHING on SCOTSC decision on gay marriage?
    ... marriage business and leave it to the churches, ... doing is offering a service to adults and then saying "but not you." ... be "marriage contracts" enforced by the state then those contracts must ... Setting the bounds to the number of people that you may legally marry ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men
    ... I don't think this has been the case in society for quite some time. ... this is one of the reasons why feminism is so closely tied to ... many women come into marriage with very few ... own personal marriage contracts through comprehensive prenuptial ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: You know what would be REALLY "progressive"?
    ... estate, real estate, financial, medical, etc. ... Then the legislature would decouple those laws from "marriage", ... on simple contracts for varying periods of time. ... The argument is that all these rights and privileges devolve upon you by ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: You know what would be REALLY "progressive"?
    ... James Schrumpf. ... world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with ... Then the legislature would decouple those laws from "marriage", ... simple contracts for varying periods of time. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)