NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a hypothetical idea. It would never actually pass with America in the state it is now, but it is an interesting mental exercise.

Yes, this is another post on the subject of gay marriage, but I'm hoping to make it more original so that I won't bore you all too much.

The response of some moderates was to champion the idea of "civil unions" which would be essentially identical to marriage, just using a different word. I realize that the civil unions enacted in some states provided severely less rights than marriage would, but for the purpose of this, whenever I use the term "civil union" I will be referring to a hypothetical legal arrangement exactly identical in every legal sense to marriage.

What if we made marriage something that is no longer legally recognisable by the state? Declare that all married couples are civilly unioned for all legal matters, and whether or not they are "married" is between them, their personal beliefs, and whatever church they might happen to belong to. Two persons can become legally certified as a couple, and then go wherever they wish to whomever would like to declare them spiritually bonded. The state does not have to certify anyone who is baptised or initiated into the clergy, so why should they have a say in who is married, if marriage is truly a religious institution? It would give all people equal rights, and anyone who does not want to consider gay couples as not married will be free to do so.

Marriage is a mechanism used by government to encourage through incentive marriage, to hypothetically increase the population growth rate.

Yep...but we don't need more people, and those screaming about "sanctity of marriage" should be outraged that the institution is used as a tool.

Personally, I think it will happen, just not by government declaration. Eventually the gov't, unwilling to stop using marriage as a tool, will have no choice but to recognize gay marriages. At that point, we'll see the churches declare "no confidence" in gov't-marriages, and a clear distinction between them and church-marriages.

It's the logical move. We let churches decide who they'll "marry," and we provide a civil ceremony for any couple who wishes state recognition of their bond. There's actually a precedent for this in the US--the Catholic Church. They refuse to recognize any marriage that isn't consecrated by them, and refuse to recognize any divorce as well. That the state doesn't much care about what they recognize and don't recognize doesn't seem to bother either side very much, as long as all the paperwork is filled out properly.

Because in the end, that's what this ought to be about--the paperwork. The state deals in paperwork, in bureaucracy. Churches, not so much. So let's have the two sides deal with what they do best--make unions a civil matter that any two people who want to deal with the contractual part of it, and make marriage purely show, and let the churches deal with it.

This has been recommended before but while I don't like the idea of religion taking the “marriage” definition at least the treatment was fair

Though I would have one question what method would an atheist have to get the same title that is allowed everyone else?

Yep...but we don't need more people, and those screaming about "sanctity of marriage" should be outraged that the institution is used as a tool.

I think that they should be more outraged that quite a few who do marry get a divorce anyway. I think those who think gay marrage would make a mockery of marrage should get those who are or will marry to quit making a mockery of it as is.

I've been talking about that for a long time. I think a lot of people have been suggesting that. Just, for some reason, politics and religion are unwilling to allow it.

I've thought of this too (look, I'm not flipping out and being bitter :D), the only problem would be the fact that the government has less involvement.

Yah, I said it. I might be a libertarian, but the last thing I want is couples being able to manage their relationships, because that just won't happen. Alimony won't get paid, child support won't be enforced, spousal abuse and domestic violence would be a lot harder to combat, and custody problems would be hell. Not to mention the fact that people who get married and/or have kids need certain benefits (as well as disadvantages) due to their unique state that isn't shared by their single counterparts.

It's a great idea on the surface, but after closer inspection, it makes the situation worse.

Yep...but we don't need more people, and those screaming about "sanctity of marriage" should be outraged that the institution is used as a tool.

Personally, I think it will happen, just not by government declaration. Eventually the gov't, unwilling to stop using marriage as a tool, will have no choice but to recognize gay marriages. At that point, we'll see the churches declare "no confidence" in gov't-marriages, and a clear distinction between them and church-marriages.
Well actually no industrialized country has a sustainable birthrate. Especially Japan and Europe are going to into steep decline. Russia and some of the other eastern european countries are all ready there. Luckily I am more of a nhilist so I don't really care. I would be glad to see all state sanctioned marriages defined as civil unions as a part of a general trend of the state backing off of meddling with "moral issues"

This has been recommended before but while I don't like the idea of religion taking the “marriage” definition at least the treatment was fair

Though I would have one question what method would an atheist have to get the same title that is allowed everyone else?
Well, in the eyes of the state, at least under the plan I envision, everyone already gets the same title--they get "unionized" for lack of a better term. I don't imagine all that many atheists would be after a church to call them married, but I'd guess that the Unitarians would hook them up if they requested it, since it would be purely for show anyway.

And what I would imagine would happen in the long run is that the term marriage wouldn't go away, but would rather morph into the catchall term it has been throughout history.

I think that they should be more outraged that quite a few who do marry get a divorce anyway. I think those who think gay marrage would make a mockery of marrage should get those who are or will marry to quit making a mockery of it as is.
I'd qualify that by restricting it to no-fault divorces. Only the very extremist fringe would expect someone to stay in an abusive marriage, or with someone habitually unfaithful. But insofar as no-fault divorces go, yes, I'd agree with you 100%, and have made that very comment other places; it simply hadn't come up yet.

I (as well as quite a few other people I know) have been in favor of this idea for some time.

I've thought of this too (look, I'm not flipping out and being bitter :D), the only problem would be the fact that the government has less involvement.

Yah, I said it. I might be a libertarian, but the last thing I want is couples being able to manage their relationships, because that just won't happen. Alimony won't get paid, child support won't be enforced, spousal abuse and domestic violence would be a lot harder to combat, and custody problems would be hell. Not to mention the fact that people who get married and/or have kids need certain benefits (as well as disadvantages) due to their unique state that isn't shared by their single counterparts.

It's a great idea on the surface, but after closer inspection, it makes the situation worse.

Not true. All the same laws would apply to government-created unions as currently apply to marriages. A "marriage," however, would be something you can get through your church or whatever in addition to the union - which, effectively, is identical to how things work now. The only real change is that the government-issued certificate you'd sign would have different words at the top.

I preposed this idea to the UN, but it did not go to vote.

Well, in the eyes of the state, at least under the plan I envision, everyone already gets the same title--they get "unionized" for lack of a better term. I don't imagine all that many atheists would be after a church to call them married, but I'd guess that the Unitarians would hook them up if they requested it, since it would be purely for show anyway.

And what I would imagine would happen in the long run is that the term marriage wouldn't go away, but would rather morph into the catchall term it has been throughout history.
Hopefully but for the time being with religious institutions the only ones able to give the “marriage” title does not leave atheists much room except seeking marriages at an institution that we don’t believe in.

I suppose we could always create a position for such but most of us don’t want a “belief” organization

Since the State (any state) doesn't recognise your marriage unless you have a State issued Marriage License (even if you're married in a church) or fall under the definitions in State Commonlaw, then all marriages in the United States already *are* civil unions.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I don't see the major fuss there is in the US here in the UK. Why are you guys so bothered about it?