Spouses with benefits

Building on this remark, I think we can eventually reach a mutually satisfactory disagreement. Unlike you, I strongly suspect that homosexual couples tend to care very much about marriage licenses as the token of community recognition that they are, and what they ultimately want is society's recognition. I don't believe in this "it's just business" line of argument as anything more than a tactical position to swing the courts.

Accordingly, if marriage were to become a purely religious affair, I'd predict that today's gay rights organization would adapt their tactics to target whoever is in charge of administering marriage. Specifically, in your example, they would seek to change theological doctrine and religious folklore in a direction more conducive to gay marriage.

That may be so, but then homosexual couples would have no claim to society's recognition if that were not in society's power to confer.

Thomas wrote:

Accordingly, if marriage were to become a purely religious affair, I'd predict that today's gay rights organization would adapt their tactics to target whoever is in charge of administering marriage. Specifically, in your example, they would seek to change theological doctrine and religious folklore in a direction more conducive to gay marriage.

Or found their own religions.

I will say that I'm not really sure what I think about all of this. I have always leaned in the complete opposite direction -- that marriage was a legal institution and not a religious one, and that any two (or more, if you like) consenting adults should be free to enter into it. I thought that's what the whole civil union thing was about -- removing the religious connotation of marriage by removing the word "marriage". Anyone, of course, is free to tack on whatever religious tenets they wish, but the core contract is a legal one. That seems to me to be the simpler road to take rather than dismantle the legal system as it pertains to marriage. That would open a whole can of worms, the size of which is unknown.

I can kind of see where joe is going, but I think (I know, this is the philosophy forum) practically speaking it's a non-starter. If folks were afraid before that "marriage" was under attack, well, hearing the idea that it should not be legally sanctioned at all would certainly reinforce that feeling. I should add that I don't personally believe in marriage for any reason except to raise children, otherwise, avoiding for now the benefits of health insurance and other such things, there is no need to do anything other than cohabitate. You have yours, I have mine, we enjoy each others company and that's that. But as soon as children are involved, so is some level of inequality where money and property are concerned. Where there is money and property, there is the law.

There is plenty enough social norm enforcement going on outside the legal system to be worth influencing. (See any random Ms.Manners column.) Thus, even without a legal claim, the homosexual community could still influence public opinion through persuasion, much as the inventor of "Ms" and "African American did". And society, member by member, would still have plenty of extra-legal ways to grant or refuse regognition of same sex couples.

FreeDuck wrote:

I will say that I'm not really sure what I think about all of this. I have always leaned in the complete opposite direction -- that marriage was a legal institution and not a religious one, and that any two (or more, if you like) consenting adults should be free to enter into it. I thought that's what the whole civil union thing was about -- removing the religious connotation of marriage by removing the word "marriage". Anyone, of course, is free to tack on whatever religious tenets they wish, but the core contract is a legal one. That seems to me to be the simpler road to take rather than dismantle the legal system as it pertains to marriage. That would open a whole can of worms, the size of which is unknown.

Why should marriage be a civil institution? Why does the state have an interest in promoting marriage?

But social recognition is still not the same thing as legal recognition.

But social recognition is still not the same thing as legal recognition.

Does being a civil institution necessitate state promotion? I see it as a contract. What interest does a state have in regulating or enforcing contracts?

It's not the same, I admit. But if you think the legal side is the most important one, I'm afraid that's professional vanity on your part.

I don't see why marriages can't be just friendships between people who have sex, with visitation rights and other legalities regulated as an entirely separate matter through contracts, wills, and other standard legal tools.

joefromchicago wrote:

But social recognition is still not the same thing as legal recognition.

But doesn't social recognition help pave the way toward legal recognition?

I just question whether the state should be involved in the marriage business at all.

J_B wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

But social recognition is still not the same thing as legal recognition.

But doesn't social recognition help pave the way toward legal recognition?

It certainly can, and often does. I have no problem with gays fighting for social acceptance of gay marriage. I just question whether the state should be involved in the marriage business at all.

I think it makes as much sense as it does for them to be involved in any other contract, like real estate or banking. The state appears to be interested in making sure that parties don't take advantage of one another in general.

While we're at it, let's abolish limited liability companies as well. They, too, are treated as a privileged relationship, which they shouldn't be.

From the point of view of financiers, it represented an example of legal genius, freeing huge amounts of capital for investment which might not otherwise have been ventured.