Marriage should be like owning a dog...
May 3, 2001 12:57 PM Subscribe
Marriage should be like owning a dog... Or so Rod Stewart believes. Stewart describes just why marriage licenses should be annually renewable, just like dog licenses.
Why should The State even be involved in our love lives in the first place? If you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, go for it. If not, then don't. No need for "marriage licenses" or other government intrusion.
Parenthood licenses, on the other hand -- now there's an idea that makes sense.
posted by johnb at 4:51 PM on May 3, 2001
Parenthood licenses, on the other hand -- now there's an idea that makes sense.
posted by johnb at 4:51 PM on May 3, 2001
What's that old saying? "Why buy the dog when you can get the milk fo--" -- wait, nevermind.
posted by bradlands at 5:10 PM on May 3, 2001
posted by bradlands at 5:10 PM on May 3, 2001
Well, Heinlein proposed half-a-century ago a system of term marriage. Ten years, say. Every year might be a little nuts.
posted by dhartung at 6:09 PM on May 3, 2001
posted by dhartung at 6:09 PM on May 3, 2001
There's no law, as far as I know anyway, that says any two people can't live with each other.
You don't have to be gay...
posted by jpoulos at 7:05 PM on May 3, 2001
You don't have to be gay...
posted by jpoulos at 7:05 PM on May 3, 2001
The government only becomes involved when you want those nifty little benefits they hand out with marriages. And hey, who wouldn't, right?
I could do without 'em, actually... the idea of "common-law marriage" scares me. I don't want to get married by accident.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:34 PM on May 3, 2001
I could do without 'em, actually... the idea of "common-law marriage" scares me. I don't want to get married by accident.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:34 PM on May 3, 2001
>>Technically, they're not....The government only becomes involved when you want those nifty little benefits they hand out with marriages.
Uh...I don't think I'm following you. Isn't "handing out benefits" a classic example of government involvement?Well, that's the intrusion I'm talking about.
Why is it the function of government to be privileging certain kinds of intimate relationships/nonrelationships over others? Why should there be a "married-straight-person" subsidy rather than, say, a "hermaphroditic hermit" subsidy?
As it happens, I like threesomes with Anna Kournikova and Jennifer Lopez; so when do I get *my* benefits?
Seriously, this just doesn't seem to me to be the kind of thing government bureaucrats should be worrying about.
posted by johnb at 8:27 PM on May 3, 2001
Uh...I don't think I'm following you. Isn't "handing out benefits" a classic example of government involvement?Well, that's the intrusion I'm talking about.
Why is it the function of government to be privileging certain kinds of intimate relationships/nonrelationships over others? Why should there be a "married-straight-person" subsidy rather than, say, a "hermaphroditic hermit" subsidy?
As it happens, I like threesomes with Anna Kournikova and Jennifer Lopez; so when do I get *my* benefits?
Seriously, this just doesn't seem to me to be the kind of thing government bureaucrats should be worrying about.
posted by johnb at 8:27 PM on May 3, 2001
Proposal: Make a law that says marriages can only occur between two people of the opposite sex. In the same bill, create "civil unions" for homosexuals that come with all the same goodies, save for the word 'marriage' itself. Would that work?
posted by aaron at 9:28 PM on May 3, 2001
posted by aaron at 9:28 PM on May 3, 2001
Sure, that would work. Separate drinking fountains and bus seating worked awfully well too. Semantics? Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can still divide us. I'm in no hurry to give up bachelorhood, but when I get married, I want to get married, not unionized.
posted by bradlands at 9:39 PM on May 3, 2001
posted by bradlands at 9:39 PM on May 3, 2001
The divorce rate isn't 50% - it's far less. If a nation has 100,000 marriages per year and 50,000 divorces, it might look like a 50% rate - but those 50,000 divorces are drawn from a pool of millions of marriages that predated that year.
That said, A) gays should be allowed to marry, and B) any representative of the state who shows up at my door to collect the annual marriage tax will be invited into the house, chloroformed, and placed gently in the catapault with a rabid porcupine sewn to his trousers.
posted by lileks at 10:00 PM on May 3, 2001
That said, A) gays should be allowed to marry, and B) any representative of the state who shows up at my door to collect the annual marriage tax will be invited into the house, chloroformed, and placed gently in the catapault with a rabid porcupine sewn to his trousers.
posted by lileks at 10:00 PM on May 3, 2001
>>The divorce rate isn't 50% - it's far less.
Demographers now estimate that the probability that a first marriage will end in divorce is about 40%. (The estimate used to be 50%, a few years back.)
See the demographics of divorce. (Also, notably: "Forty percent of the women born in the 1970s will divorce." )
The Census Bureau says essentially the same thing:
"if one assumes a continuation of recent divorce trends, about 4 out of 10 first marriages to the youngest cohort may eventually end in divorce. Alternatively, if one assumes a return to the pattern of divorce during the 1975 to 1980 period, 5 out of 10 first marriages may eventually end in divorce." (Current Population Reports, 1992)
posted by johnb at 10:31 PM on May 3, 2001
Demographers now estimate that the probability that a first marriage will end in divorce is about 40%. (The estimate used to be 50%, a few years back.)
See the demographics of divorce. (Also, notably: "Forty percent of the women born in the 1970s will divorce." )
The Census Bureau says essentially the same thing:
"if one assumes a continuation of recent divorce trends, about 4 out of 10 first marriages to the youngest cohort may eventually end in divorce. Alternatively, if one assumes a return to the pattern of divorce during the 1975 to 1980 period, 5 out of 10 first marriages may eventually end in divorce." (Current Population Reports, 1992)
posted by johnb at 10:31 PM on May 3, 2001
Aaron, that's essentially what Vermont is doing. They had to institute civil unions after a court ruling said that said that it was discriminatory not to allow gays to be married. Personally, the only use I can see for marriage is for raising children. Please don't misconstrue that an anti-gay comment. It's an anti-marriage, anti-monogamy, and anti-conformity comment. Besides, gay and lesbian couples (to state the obvious) can raise children too.
posted by rdr at 11:53 PM on May 3, 2001
posted by rdr at 11:53 PM on May 3, 2001
So, cray, you don't really get the whole segregation analogy, huh? Or maybe you think segregation was an ok idea.
posted by Doug at 9:36 AM on May 4, 2001
posted by Doug at 9:36 AM on May 4, 2001
Doug, I think you need to take a look at this.
In my view, "marriage" is a commitment between two people, made in front of god or whatever, and having nothing to do with the state. All legally sanctioned commitments, gay or straight, should be called "civil unions" or something similar, and all couples should have the same legal rights. And anyone who wants to call himself or herself "married" should be allowed to do so, without the state getting into it.
posted by anapestic at 9:52 AM on May 4, 2001
In my view, "marriage" is a commitment between two people, made in front of god or whatever, and having nothing to do with the state. All legally sanctioned commitments, gay or straight, should be called "civil unions" or something similar, and all couples should have the same legal rights. And anyone who wants to call himself or herself "married" should be allowed to do so, without the state getting into it.
posted by anapestic at 9:52 AM on May 4, 2001
>>Yeah, you're not. The government doesn't become involved in your marriage until you ask them to.
"My marriage"? I don't have one, that's the point.
If the government offered special legal status and tax breaks to everyone with a tattoo on their left shoulder, it naturally wouldn't be much of a problem for people with a tattoo on their left shoulder-- they could always refuse the benefits. But what about people without a tattoo on their left shoulder? And why does the state need to be involved in the tattoo-on-left-shoulder process to begin with?
If you want to marry your girlfriend, your pet goat, or the Lord of Darkness, then seek approval from the appropriate religious institution. I've nothing against marital bliss. I just also happen to believe in the separation of church and state.
posted by johnb at 10:21 AM on May 4, 2001
"My marriage"? I don't have one, that's the point.
If the government offered special legal status and tax breaks to everyone with a tattoo on their left shoulder, it naturally wouldn't be much of a problem for people with a tattoo on their left shoulder-- they could always refuse the benefits. But what about people without a tattoo on their left shoulder? And why does the state need to be involved in the tattoo-on-left-shoulder process to begin with?
If you want to marry your girlfriend, your pet goat, or the Lord of Darkness, then seek approval from the appropriate religious institution. I've nothing against marital bliss. I just also happen to believe in the separation of church and state.
posted by johnb at 10:21 AM on May 4, 2001
The gods will never smile on us until we go to a national sales tax.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:27 AM on May 4, 2001
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:27 AM on May 4, 2001
Anapestic, you're exactly right. I'm a complete idiot.
Cray, I apologize.
posted by Doug at 10:29 AM on May 4, 2001
Cray, I apologize.
posted by Doug at 10:29 AM on May 4, 2001
here's more, of course...there's a whole slew of legal rights that come with marriage that have little or nothing to do with children, but rather recognise (in the legal sense) the fact that this person is now a member of your family.
Why should these rights be tied to the concept of a cohabiting male/female couple?
What I want is to go to the courthouse, get a form, write down my name, somebody else's name, check a box that says "I want this person to have the right to visit me when I'm in the hospital", say, or maybe "I want this person to inherit my stuff when I die", sign it, and turn it in. Nobody should have to care why I want that; it's none of their business. Maybe one person gets "visiting me when I'm in the hospital" and another one gets "power of attorney".
Maybe, to be really convenient, there could be one big form with a lot of checkboxes, so you could pick a bunch of rights you wanted to establish at once. Then, you could just check all the boxes and get something like the current marriage certificate. But that would be up to you, and nobody would need to know what you were doing or why.
It's the overloading of concepts that gets to me. If the goal is to easily establish useful legal arrangements between people, why not set it up so you can easily establish useful legal arrangements between people? Why does marriage need to come into it at all? If you're concerned about the legalities, then it's a la carte civil unions like the ones I've just described that best get you what you're looking for. The only reason to call it "marriage" or to assume that this one particular collection of rights should be wrapped up into one package and based on an assumed sexual/familial relationship is to claim that the government should be involved in what is really a religious ceremony. And everyone here seems to agree that religion and government don't mix.
CrayDrygu:
I would think (without knowing anything about the benefits it gives) that the benifits of a common-law marriage would come in handy at that point. And if you disagree, I'm sure you can contest it.
Why should I have to? It's not as though getting married is difficult. It bothers me that the state assumes that, if I have lived with a woman for X years, then I must have really meant to get married but just never gotten around to it. The idea that the state, in its infinite wisdom, can decide that I would be better off married is just plain offensive.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:38 AM on May 4, 2001
Why should these rights be tied to the concept of a cohabiting male/female couple?
What I want is to go to the courthouse, get a form, write down my name, somebody else's name, check a box that says "I want this person to have the right to visit me when I'm in the hospital", say, or maybe "I want this person to inherit my stuff when I die", sign it, and turn it in. Nobody should have to care why I want that; it's none of their business. Maybe one person gets "visiting me when I'm in the hospital" and another one gets "power of attorney".
Maybe, to be really convenient, there could be one big form with a lot of checkboxes, so you could pick a bunch of rights you wanted to establish at once. Then, you could just check all the boxes and get something like the current marriage certificate. But that would be up to you, and nobody would need to know what you were doing or why.
It's the overloading of concepts that gets to me. If the goal is to easily establish useful legal arrangements between people, why not set it up so you can easily establish useful legal arrangements between people? Why does marriage need to come into it at all? If you're concerned about the legalities, then it's a la carte civil unions like the ones I've just described that best get you what you're looking for. The only reason to call it "marriage" or to assume that this one particular collection of rights should be wrapped up into one package and based on an assumed sexual/familial relationship is to claim that the government should be involved in what is really a religious ceremony. And everyone here seems to agree that religion and government don't mix.
CrayDrygu:
I would think (without knowing anything about the benefits it gives) that the benifits of a common-law marriage would come in handy at that point. And if you disagree, I'm sure you can contest it.
Why should I have to? It's not as though getting married is difficult. It bothers me that the state assumes that, if I have lived with a woman for X years, then I must have really meant to get married but just never gotten around to it. The idea that the state, in its infinite wisdom, can decide that I would be better off married is just plain offensive.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:38 AM on May 4, 2001
Mars, I agree with you on the common law issue. I'm reasonably certain that, according to Ontario law, I'm effectively married on July 1st (send gifts! :-) because my girlfriend and I will have been living together for 365 days.
posted by cCranium at 11:38 AM on May 4, 2001
posted by cCranium at 11:38 AM on May 4, 2001
Shit. I lost a nice long post. Here goes again . . .
Mars, I'm not sure I understand what you're worked up about. Those "forms" that you seem to want exist! Wills and living wills will allow you to apportion out your estate, specify hospital-visitation rights and medical decisions when incapacitated, etc. You can do all that stuff. My downstairs neighbor, long estranged from his family, has me set up as the executor of his will and estate (read: apartment full of crap), but has someone else entirely set up to make medical decisions for him.
As for the state arbitrarily saying, "Hey, they're married enough for me," what is the concern? If you want to continue to pay the tax rates you're accustomed to, I doubt anyone will argue. I don't see the state hounding you about divorce papers if you break up. Custody laws would go into effect no matter how long you have been going out. The state doesn't monitor mailing addresses of couples to see who's "married" and who isn't, do they? Am I missing something? (I mean, of course I am, but what is it?)
posted by Skot at 11:48 AM on May 4, 2001
Mars, I'm not sure I understand what you're worked up about. Those "forms" that you seem to want exist! Wills and living wills will allow you to apportion out your estate, specify hospital-visitation rights and medical decisions when incapacitated, etc. You can do all that stuff. My downstairs neighbor, long estranged from his family, has me set up as the executor of his will and estate (read: apartment full of crap), but has someone else entirely set up to make medical decisions for him.
As for the state arbitrarily saying, "Hey, they're married enough for me," what is the concern? If you want to continue to pay the tax rates you're accustomed to, I doubt anyone will argue. I don't see the state hounding you about divorce papers if you break up. Custody laws would go into effect no matter how long you have been going out. The state doesn't monitor mailing addresses of couples to see who's "married" and who isn't, do they? Am I missing something? (I mean, of course I am, but what is it?)
posted by Skot at 11:48 AM on May 4, 2001
I don't know about you folks, but my wife and I stay married for just ONE reason...and it ain't the marriage "contract". It's because we love each other and are determined somehow, someway to get under, over, around or through whatever problems we have so we can enjoy the bliss of smooth sailing after passing safely through another storm. It's scary at times...but worth all the frights (sic ... LOL)!
From our perspective, marriage does not exsist because a "license" exsists. It exsists because a positive relationship exsists. By that standard, sadly, most marriages today - aren't.
posted by Jr2001 at 7:50 PM on May 4, 2001
From our perspective, marriage does not exsist because a "license" exsists. It exsists because a positive relationship exsists. By that standard, sadly, most marriages today - aren't.
posted by Jr2001 at 7:50 PM on May 4, 2001
« Older | Canada's newest political prisoner? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That's quite an image.
posted by mgtrott at 4:19 PM on May 3, 2001