Gee, kinda like the rest of the world. On Mar 8, 4:55 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Redefining Marriage By Getting Rid of It?March 5, 2011 byAmanda Litman > Introduced in January in the New Hampshire House of > Representatives,HB569would get rid of marriage. Sort of. > To be exact, the proposed bill, currently in committee, privatizes marriage. > The New Hampshire state government would no longer issue marriage licenses; > instead, it would grant domestic partnerships. If you wanted to get married > in the traditional sense, you’d go to your religious house of choice. If you > wanted the legal benefits of marriage as it currently stands, you’d get a > domestic partnership. And all this would apply to gay and straight couples > alike. > A group of Republican members of the New Hampshire state house proposed the > bill, coming from thelibertarianposition that marriage is a contract:that > should be recognized and applied by the courts, but that the government has > no business, in general, decreeing who may or may not make the contract or > imposing any prior conditions, as licensure does.Is this where American > marriages are heading? Is this the best solution to the same-sex marriage > debate? > On one hand, the government has a monopoly on marriage, and > government-sanctioned marriages have been disintegrating for yearsjust look > at the divorce rate in the United States[PDF]. Sinceall 50 statesissue > no-fault divorces, it’s sometimes easier to end a marriage than it is toend a > corporate partnership. > David Boaz explained the benefits of privatized marriage for both > heterosexual and homosexual couples in his 1997Slate article:Make it a > private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a > traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property > and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so. … Marriage contracts > could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse > capitalist world…And what of gay marriage? Privatization of the institution > would allow gay people to marry the way other people do: individually, > privately, contractually, with whatever ceremony they might choose in the > presence of family, friends or God. Gay people are already holding such > ceremonies, of course, but their contracts are not always recognized by the > courts and do not qualify them for the1,049 federal lawsthat the General > Accounting Office says recognize marital status.Those who consider the word > “marriage” to carry great importance can still get married; the institution > would just belong to religious organizations (as it originally did) instead > of the government. If a church or synagogue or mosque chose to bless a union, > they would be free to do so. Marriage would not be eradicated; in fact, it > might become more spiritually meaningful. Today, marriage licenses have > become meaningless in terms of what Stephanie Coontz called “interpersonal > responsibilities;” after all, in 2008almost 30 percent[PDF] of all households > were single-parent homes, a 10 percent increase since 1980. Coontzwrites:As > Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage > license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult > obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for > just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a > woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left > without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a > full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband > can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s > wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long > they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their > commitments.That marriages currently take place under the auspices of > religion presents its own issue. When a member of the clergy marries a > couple, he or she does so under the power of the law, essentially acting as a > representative of the government. So when a church refuses to marry a gay > couple, conflict could arise as to whether the church is acting as a > representative of government (as it does when dealing with marriage) or as a > religious organization. A2007 position paperby the secular think-tank Center > for Inquiry explored this issue, along with other issues relating to same-sex > marriage, and argues that state-endorsement for domestic partnership is the > best possible solution with regards to the separation of church and state, > though they argue LGBTQ couples should be granted equal marriage rights so > long as the state sanctions marriages. > Gay couples may actually be the ones most resistance to having domestic > partnerships replace “marriage” on a legal level. Time magazinepointed this > outafter the California Supreme Court ruled against the ban on gay > marriage:After all, what was the most sweeping part of the May 2008 decision > Ming and his colleagues issued thatgranted gays the right to marry? It was > the idea that the word marriage is so strong that denying it to gay couples > violates the most sacred right enshrined in the state constitution: the right > for all people to be treated with dignity and fairness. Just 10 months later, > gay couples–whether or not they are among the 18,000 who married in the state > beforeProp 8stopped the ceremonies–are loath to lose a word for which so many > fought so hard and so long to have apply to themselves.If the government no > longer marries people, it cannot control who can and can’t get married, so > the argument about gay marriage becomes irrelevant–the legal rights and > protections of “marriage” are no longer at stake. Domestic partnership may > still have conditions and qualifications, but the “sacred institution of > marriage” loses its legal definition and with that the legal requirements > necessary to enter it. Whether or not that’s a good thing is up for > discussion.http://bit.ly/dICXMA
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
