Marriage Reform that makes everyone happy . . .

[Athelwulf]

Right now, there is so much conflict over what's moral and what's immoral when it comes to marriage. Lately, I had an "epiphany". I realized I had an idea of how to change the concept of marriage so that it makes virtually everyone happy.

I will make assumptions for the sake of communicating my idea. These assumptions are made with the best of my understanding, and I will admit I may be misinformed. Here are my assumptions:

1. Marriage used to be a purely religious union.
2. Civil union is open to heterosexual and homosexual monogamous relationships.
3. Civil union does not grant all the legal rights marriage does.
4. Polygamy is illegal in all US states.

Now that the assumptions are established, here's my idea:

Get rid of the old concept of marriage. Make marriage a purely religious institution again. Take away all legal significance of marriage.

Now that it's purely religious, let each church decide who they will allow to marry.

Anyone the church will allow to marry can get married. If any homosexuals want to get married and are restricted by their church, they can form their own church, much like Martin Luther did when he didn't like how the clergy controlled the Catholic church and formed the Protestant church. That, or join another church that allows homosexual marriage.

Now that marriage is taken care of, get rid of the old concept of civil union and replace it with a new civil union: all rights granted by the old concept of marriage are granted to heterosexual and homosexual unions.

Now make polygamous unions – whether all-male, all-female, or bisexual – legal. Grant all rights granted to monogamous unions by the new civil union to polygamous unions as well.

Again, let each church decide if they will allow polygamous marriages or not. And again, people restricted from the type of marriage they want by their church can either form their own church or join another one.

What my idea basically is is making marriage a religious union and civil union a legal union. Homosexual relationships will be granted all the same legal rights heterosexual relationships are granted – likewise with polygamous relationships. Also, the "sanctity" of marriage is preserved.

What do you all think of this? Will it really make everyone happy like I think it will? Is there a flaw anywhere that needs to be addressed? Are any of my assumptions wrong? I appreciate yer feedback.

- Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Âðelwulf

(51 posts to go!)

 

[Mystech]

1. Marriage used to be a purely religious union.

Incorrect. In most civilizations Marriage was an economic arrangement or civil contract, more to do with money, and community status/civil duty. In western culture the Catholic church got quite involved in all of those things (money and running the community) and as a result marriage got very tied up in the church.

In America today we still have a concept of marriage being a religious institution, however in practice it is much closer to it's older roots as a contract for civil an economic reasons. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, and religion has very little to do with any of it. This is why people of non-Christian faiths are allowed to marry in America, and why even Atheists can marry.

2. Civil union is open to heterosexual and homosexual monogamous relationships.

Civil union is a poorly defined concept. The only place in which it currently exists is Howard Dean's Vermont, and could be defined differently in any other state which whished to adopt it. There is no federal protection or legal consideration afforded to it, and what sort of rights it could grant, or what sort of unions it might include is still up for definition.

The Idea of Civil union is derived, perhaps, from one aspect of marriage in America, let's say Civil Marriage, as opposed to Religious marriage: this would be the legal and economic side of a marriage, which is all the government is responsible for and is the only common thread through all American marriages which are registered and recognized by the state.

In practice the concept of civil union is sort of a cop-out by those who want to seem as though they are making concessions but are still really creeped out by the idea of same sex marriages.

Civil union does not, and in practise can not provide the same protections that a state recognized legal marriage is able to.

3. Civil union does not grant all the legal rights marriage does.

Yes, as stated above. There's nothing to even suggest that a civil union would need to provide any legal protections. Civil unions are nothing but a sly hypothetical thrown in to muck things up and create a false sense of a middle ground in the fight for same sex marriage.

4. Polygamy is illegal in all US states.

Polygamous relationships are not illegal in the united states. A man is free to live with as many women as he wishes and be in a committed and sexual relationship with all of them, as is a woman free to do the same with a man. However they can not register to be married to all of these people. Marriage is a two person partnership in the eyes of the state. Those living in polygamous relationships (and if you don't think there are any, come take a look at northern Arizona and southern Utah. . . the Mormons haven't given up the practice entirely) often aren't the most trusting of the government in the first place, and don't seem to be seeking any sort of state recognition of their particular living arrangements.

Now that the assumptions are established, here's my idea:

Ok, needless to say, your assumptions were all a bit off, and accordingly your solution was rather complex and didn’t exactly solve things. In fact it created reforms that aren't needed, generally mucked things up, and would have eliminated a whole lot of legal protection for many people.

Personally I don't think that the state of marriage in this nation is in need of much reform. The state issues licenses which grant certain protections and legal considerations to the union which are pretty handy and common sense, and save a lot of time writing up a lot of complicated contracts, and that is what we call marriage. There is indeed some religious roots and tradition to be taken into account, and frankly those of faith are free to interpret their marriage through their religion in whatever way they like.

The only thing we need to do is get the religious right-wing to quit trying to ascert their dominance over the government, as they sometimes like to, and have them admit that they've never had a monopoly on marriage, and that a nation like ours, with freedom of religion and with such diversity can not be setting rules that only fit hardcore Christian peoples.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Married couples should refrain from 'acting' married whilst being faithful to eachother at all times. This is the secret to marital bliss.

 

[one_raven]

I have one question that I think I know the answer to, but I don't think you clarified:
Does a couple (or group) need to be "Married" in order to apply for "Civil Unionship" or are they entirley seperate?

Another question I have:
What are the restrictions to allowing "Civil Unions".
For example, some states, as far as I can recall, and certainly some churches require a waiting period to grant a marriage.
Marriages can be denied if the legal entity assigned to sign off on it does not think the couple should be married.
Do any of those restrictions apply, or can I just go to the City Hall with my friend and apply for a "Civil Union" so we get a tax break together?
If it is that simple, what about immigration?

What about divorce?
Same rules apply that now apply to marriage?

I think lots of people will reject the idea based solely on allowing polygymous civil unions.

 

[one_raven]

What about current adultery laws?

 

[one_raven]

The only thing we need to do is get the religious right-wing to quit trying to ascert their dominance over the government, as they sometimes like to, and have them admit that they've never had a monopoly on marriage, and that a nation like ours, with freedom of religion and with such diversity can not be setting rules that only fit hardcore Christian peoples.

I agree, but I applaud his effort to come up with something that may make both sides happy.

And, to be fair, he did talk of changing "Civil Unions" to include all the rights of current "Marriages".
Basiaclly just renaming "Marriage" to "Civil Union" and keeping it the same as it is, but open to all.

 

[Mystech]

I agree, but I applaud his effort to come up with something that may make both sides happy.

Well I don't mean to insult his attempt. It's certainly a noble thing to try to come up with a reasonable solution that lets everyone get their way to some degree or other. However this proposed solution is probably worse than the fighting we're seeing over the issue today, it's rather messy. People wouldn't respond well to such sweeping reform to what seemed to be a fairly stable and familiar arrangement.

 

[one_raven]

Yes, I know you're right.
The idealist in me likes to jump out from time to time, though.

 

[alain]

nice idea athelwulf, but i doubt it would be accepted in countries such as america.

remember, homosexuals and polygamists must be saved... from themselves

 

[Athelwulf]

nice idea athelwulf, but i doubt it would be accepted in countries such as america.

I know, sadly. America in general is so close-minded. I'm starting to hate it here.

34 posts to go!

 

[Billy T]

Thanks to the sciforums god who move the “End Marriage Laws - a good idea?” thread I started to this area. Its basic idea is similar to the one that started this thread, so I summarize it in next paragraph and reproduce the first post of that threads in subsequent paragraphs. The final paragraph is a clarification prompted by geodesic‘s post.

Basic idea is (1) for the legal system to treat all consenting cohabitation unions the same. (three woman+two men, one man+one woman, two women, two men, etc. any combination that all the participants freely chose.) and (2) to provide a minimum level of support / supervision of children. They are raised with the cost paid by the society as a whole to not have inadequate care provided as often occurs in poor families under the current system where money is not available for both shoes and beer, etc. ( Some sort of coupons that can be spent only for items on the approved list given to all mothers, including the rich ones, etc.)

An “equality alternative” to government recognition of marriage for homosexuals, is for government to not sanction any marriage. Religious organization can still marry people in accord with whatever religious views they hold (one man to four women or only to one etc.) for people wishing it done, but it has no force in law. People could register with the government, if they chose, who could visit them in hospitals, and the other rights conferred now by marriage with more flexibility (Why are these “marriage rights” now not divisible to different people, if one so desires?). For people too lazy to register individual choices, there could be a standard, sex-independent, “couples’ default” registration, effective after one (or x) years of cohabitation and activated by the request of any of the cohabitants and terminated by individual registration at anytime, by any of the cohabitants.

But this would never fly - Divorce lawyers will stop it. They are a drain on the finances of half the population and needless in the internet age with this plan.

Society (government as agent) has an interest in children, not yet able to decide for them selves. Laws relating to them would still be required. Mother, with one or more consenting adults in binding CCC, Child Care Contract, could care for them, in accord with these laws. A standard CCC should be encouraged, but unemployed divorce lawyers could customize it. All members of the society should pay for the care of the next generation, as they do now for public schools, even if they have no children. (Mother in conforming to the child laws gets financial aid for them and loses children if serious violations are repeated etc.) Equality of financial support for child care, at least at some minimal level, would do a lot towards eradication of social problems in one generation. Society would still need the stimulus “work to get rich as rich have more choices, ” but its basic structure should not encourage the production of mal-nourished, underdeveloped, poorly-educated youth who currently fill our jails etc. IMHO

I also agree (with geodesic) and intended, that upon the dissolution of a union that has children, if the parties agree on how the children should be raised, I.e. visiting rights, supplemental support costs (above the government supplied minimum) , etc. should be divided, then the government normally only records the agreement and it has force of law. Clearly, custody / care dissolutions agreements that require sexual services from the child etc. don’t meet the government’s requirements and are not automatically given the force of law. I.e. there would be a menu of standard dissolution child care agreements that were granted automatic approval, and 90+% of the cases could avoid legal disputes with one of them. In disputed cases, the child’s interest, as society as a whole defines it, come first.

 

[geistkiesel]

Right now, there is so much conflict over what's moral and what's immoral when it comes to marriage. Lately, I had an "epiphany". I realized I had an idea of how to change the concept of marriage so that it makes virtually everyone happy.

I will make assumptions for the sake of communicating my idea. These assumptions are made with the best of my understanding, and I will admit I may be misinformed. Here are my assumptions:

1. Marriage used to be a purely religious union.
2. Civil union is open to heterosexual and homosexual monogamous relationships.
3. Civil union does not grant all the legal rights marriage does.
4. Polygamy is illegal in all US states.

Now that the assumptions are established, here's my idea:

Get rid of the old concept of marriage. Make marriage a purely religious institution again. Take away all legal significance of marriage.

Now that it's purely religious, let each church decide who they will allow to marry.

Anyone the church will allow to marry can get married. If any homosexuals want to get married and are restricted by their church, they can form their own church, much like Martin Luther did when he didn't like how the clergy controlled the Catholic church and formed the Protestant church. That, or join another church that allows homosexual marriage.

Now that marriage is taken care of, get rid of the old concept of civil union and replace it with a new civil union: all rights granted by the old concept of marriage are granted to heterosexual and homosexual unions.

Now make polygamous unions – whether all-male, all-female, or bisexual – legal. Grant all rights granted to monogamous unions by the new civil union to polygamous unions as well.

Again, let each church decide if they will allow polygamous marriages or not. And again, people restricted from the type of marriage they want by their church can either form their own church or join another one.

What my idea basically is is making marriage a religious union and civil union a legal union. Homosexual relationships will be granted all the same legal rights heterosexual relationships are granted – likewise with polygamous relationships. Also, the "sanctity" of marriage is preserved.

What do you all think of this? Will it really make everyone happy like I think it will? Is there a flaw anywhere that needs to be addressed? Are any of my assumptions wrong? I appreciate yer feedback.

- Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Âðelwulf

(51 posts to go!)

Get rid of the old concept of marriage. Make marriage a purely religious institution again. Take away all legal significance of marriage.

You left me here. I do not want any government of mine to tell me a certain act is a religeous act, or not. Do you know what my fears are regarding this?

 

[laughing weasel]

Why should marriage have any legal significance other than to be divisive? I agree that the government has a stake in supporting long-term social groups to promote stability for the population as a whole and for the raising of the next generation. The government should statistically determine which unions are able accomplish this goal. The resources of society should encourage these relationships. I think that society should use a two-tier approach to accomplish this goal. There should be tax breaks based on the type of union and the longevity of the union. This would also provide an incentive to try to avoid divorce. If we are to strive for change then let us strive for great change.

 

[laughing weasel]

The Supreme Court has already established that certain ceremonies are allowed to be opened with prayer and others may not. This has established the fact that the courts may decide what is and is not sacred.

 

[Mystech]

Why should marriage have any legal significance other than to be divisive?

If there was no legal entity it would make things like child adoption, estate rights, just about anything to do with next-of-kin, and joint property rights or child custody/adoption extremely cumbersome; A general pain in the ass at best, debilitatingly inefficient and inconsiderate of the nature of a relationship two people share at the worst.

It may be said that the legal entity of marriage is more secure, protected by a culture of interdependent legal structure, than the idea of a religious marriage. I don't think Marriage as a legal entity is going anywhere any time soon.

 

[laughing weasel]

Well there is going to be some kind of change it might as well be a change that removes the institution from the vagaries of religious doctrine.

 

[Persol]

I don't think Marriage as a legal entity is going anywhere any time soon.

The best solution at the moment seems to be civil unions though. Sure, the Feds won't support it... but most people spend 99% of their lives in the same state. If there are no marriage penalties/benefits, where is a civil union lacking?

 

[Mystech]

The best solution at the moment seems to be civil unions though. Sure, the Feds won't support it... but most people spend 99% of their lives in the same state. If there are no marriage penalties/benefits, where is a civil union lacking?

A civil union is a non-entity, it's just a hypothetical at this point. There's nothing to suggest what it would be at this point. It exists only in Vermont at the moment, there is no federal protection, nor is there likely to be any. Aside from that it simply can't provide the same protections as marriage. Think of it, if you’re an employer who provides medical insurance to his employees with a plan that covers their spouse, what's to stop you from simply saying that you won't cover "civil partners" as this is clearly nothing but a term for a homosexual union. It leaves the door wide open for all sorts of discrimination and guarantees no protections at all. No, I'm afraid a Civil union is nothing but a lame cop-out. There's no real middle ground in this issue. Anything less than entitlement to a full legal marriage is a patronizing condescending slap in the face.

 

[Billy T]

If there was no legal entity it would make things like child adoption, estate rights, just about anything to do with next-of-kin, and joint property rights or child custody/adoption extremely cumbersome; A general pain in the ass at best, debilitatingly inefficient and inconsiderate of the nature of a relationship two people share at the worst.

.....

You are correct that many aspects would need to be addressed separately, but this is good, not bad. It give flexibility, choice, not one scheme fits all rigity. Apply your argument to buying a car: Yes it would be more simple if all were black and identical etc. as Henry Ford wanted. I would like the choice of giving child custody to one person and half my pension to another etc. Much of this can be done by wills already, but some rights confirmed by marage are hard to subdivide to fit your personnal requirements. Do you advocate only one model of black cars?

 

[RubiksMaster]

Athelwulf:

I'm starting to hate it here.

THEN LEAVE!!!

I think that if your idea of civil unions became a reality, and had no basis in religion or tradition, people (even complete strangers) would all go out to get a civil union so they could get tax breaks and legal rights. This could potentially ruin the economy, completely change our legal system, and generally change the structure of society. Is it really necessary to do all that?