The Need for Family Equality

Amen! As it were. I have been asking, since I was a not-very-large child‡, why we place family law on what is essentially a religious basis.

Oughtn't "marriage" be a religious rite, of no more legal significance -- and no less -- than a christening or a bat mitzvah?

Oughtn't legal contracts between whatever number of people, of whatever gender, for whatever purpose, be established and regulated under contract law?

Why is it any business of the government what consensual activities between parties to such a contract do -- or do not -- take place behind closed doors?

Certainly, we would need to untangle health insurance and pensions, but those reforms already are long overdue. And eliminating the word "marriage" from personal contract law might help to defuse the debate. Yes, I know, while launching a whole 'mother firestorm -- but no-one would be denying worshippers the right to wed in the manner and venue of their choice -- if the church or temple or whatever will have them.

(‡Yes, I was a very serious child, who took. --and takes -- "separation of church and state" very seriously.)

I really love how you think.

There's no especial reason I can see that a "civil union" needs must imply Teh Sexxy! I mean- it might make sense for a pair of "Norwegian bachelor farmers" (say, brothers) to get such, to simplify inheritance etc. Or "Boston Marriages", whatever is or is not happening in beds... which is really NOT my business.

Yes -- it's not as if the government monitors bedrooms of married couples to be sure they're making whoopie ... incidence of which often goes *down* after marriage, anyway.

But if a government is going to be in the "marriage" business -- as I think it should *not* -- then marriages should be available to competent adults of all genders, faiths, philosophies, races, sexual orientations, ages, ethnicities, hair colours, fandoms, & cetera. Likewise for "civil partnerships" -- one rite for all, and all for one; one contract mis-fits all.

(The legal part? is a contract. The relationship part? is none of the government's business.)

I think it's really ironic that the political party which has tried to destroy and dismantle all social services, uses as a smokescreen marriage and right to children which you'd figure are big factors which adjust the ability to claim social services.

Brilliant! May I link?

Brilliant! May I link?

I commend the following (relatively short) book to your attention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State

Engels is, in my opinion, a more readable writer than Marx. And his analysis is, I think, accurate. Further, if his analysis is correct, then it is not surprising that the change we see in capital translates into a change of family structure as well.

In short, I think you're correct. I especially appreciated your observation:

It's a nuisance to schools when the people most influential in a child's life are not two bioparents. It's a nuisance to bankers and real estate agents when "unrelated" people want to buy property together. It's a nuisance to health care workers when the relevant people are locked out legal rights while the blood relatives and patient may hold each other in mutual despite.

Another random thought for your consideration. In the 1980s when Canada was looking at 'gay marriage' issues, a Toronto lawyer (who was also, incidentally, a lesbian) noted that she thought that gay people were nuts to want to saddle themselves with 1000 years of common law restrictions that come with the term 'marriage'. In her view, homosexual partners had the opportunity to define, legally, their relationships in a way that would allow them to avoid the complications that have accrued to heterosexual marriages. And they passed it up in favour of perceived legitimacy.

Thoughts...?

Recently it occurred to me that the problem with marriage is that it is a religious rite that has the force of secular law. Your preacher, priest, mullah, poobah or whatever says "I now pronounce you Man and Wife" in a religious ceremony and the words are legally binding on the State.

This leads to all sorts of problems and, I think, accounts for the reluctance of many religious types to extend marriage to homosexual or other unconventional groups. They see it as being forced to perform a religious sacrament on groups not in line with the religion.

Now, in my opinion, if you think your God requires you to be a brain-dead hate-filled ignorant bigot, knock yourself out. We all create God in our own image, after all. You shouldn't be able to force your religious dogma on everyone else, though. That's what the First Amendment's ban on establishing a State Religion is meant to prevent.

The can of worms I really don't want to open is that it seems to me that church weddings, as religious ceremonies with binding legal status, are unconstitutional. In an ideal world the solution might be to do what the French did, and separate the legal part of marriage from the religious part. You should go to the City Hall and enter your civil union for all the inheritance, guardianship, benefits, and joint property issues, with whomever you want to be able to look after your affairs with you, or for you if you are incapacitated. Then go celebrate a church wedding before whichever God will have you with whomever you want to do the bumpabump with, or not, as everyone involved sees fit. The two really should have nothing to do with each other.

That's my crackpot opinion anyway.

Yes. The practical functions could be described in terms like "caretaker," "care giver," "administrator," or even "friend."