Well, if anything goes, if two women and a

turkey baster can be a family, what is the

purpose of civil marriage at all?



I have been to a couple of marriage ceremonies

between homosexuals. The civil law did not

recognize them, but their friends did, and who

else matters?



As far as I know, there is nothing that civil

marriage can accomplish for any two people

that cannot also be accomplished by a

combination of a contract and an exchange

of durable powers of attorney.

Nice article.



Parris writes well.

I'm not sure what you're proposing, OJ. Are you saying we should get rid of civil marriage and leave marriage to religion or commitment ceremonies or what have you? I could go along with this, as I'm troubled by the state's interference with such a core, personal decision, but I'm a little surprised you would like it. It seems a little too libertarian for you.



If we went this way, there'd be remarkably little that would need to be changed in the law. Maybe just a registry for "next of kin" selections (with the default next of kin being parents) and then an omnibous statute that says where ever a statute mentions "spouse" it should be understood to mean a person's registered "next of kin."



Deregistering would have to be approved by a Judge, who would have to make sure that the terms of the deregistration would be fair to both people. I don't think much more would have to be done.

That's pretty close to what I was suggesting,

David.



Parris is a funny writer, but he's an outsider

on this issue.

David:



I'd have marriage be exclusive to a man and woman and then provide some civilly sanctioned contractual obligation between two of whatever.

Doesn't anyone remember why the state gets involved with marriage in the first place? The state has an interest in the propagation and education of children. The property issues can be, and to some extent are, handled by contract and land law. The whatever people can make their contracts and practice their whatever in privacy so as not to scare the horses, but they cannot command societh to esteem their conduct.

It seems to me there are other situations that could benefit from such a legal arrangement, as well. My grandmother and one of her brothers "kept house" together for 20 years after my grandfather died, but I don't think they had any the tax benefits, for example, that a married couple has. (Maybe that's where "head of household" comes in? I'm not familiar with it.)

Lou --



Licensing requirements for marriage are of fairly recent vintage, becoming universal within the US in -- I think -- 1929. Like a lot of social reforms of that era, the reasons for licensing were not always creditable. I've heard, but don't know, that licensing was a part of anti-miscegenation regimes.



Nowadays, licensing allows the state to screen for: incest, some std's and other disqualifications for marriage (generally, idiocy or previous marriages [INSERT JOKE HERE]). Now, I'm all for preventing inbreeding and bigamy, but licensing is not particularly useful. Different states have different rules and no licensing scheme reaches cohabitation, so its unclear that anyone is prevented from doing "whatever" by the licensing requirement. No investigation is done, other than blood tests for std's, so the state is still at the mercy of the applicant's honesty. As for std's, how many couples get marriage licenses today before the question of std's has become moot? It seems likely that many people are losing much blood for little societal gain.



My wife and I got married by a Rabbi in Temple. As far as we're concerned, that was the defining moment. That the Rabbi then went to his study and, acting as an agent of the state, signed a document and sent it on to the Commonwealth is simply not part of my conception of our marriage.



Finally, people defending state-centric marriage usually talk about the need to promote the monogomous union of a man and a woman and the proper raising of children, but what civic marriage really accomplishes is the protection of property. Licensing doesn't, it seems to me, promote monogomy or proper child rearing, but it does, by virtue of the law, gain the parties certain rights. They can own real property with a right of survivorship; they have certain rights to set aside their partner's will and take a spousal portion; they are entitled to at least half of their spouses pension, unless they opt out. There are many of these rights and they do promote marriage, but they don't define marriage.



In short, a man and a woman should be able to go to their priest, minister, rabbi, imam, Quaker circle, etc., and get married. I'm not convinced that the state should be involved. If the state's not involved, then why not let two men or two women have whatever ceremony they want to have -- we can't stop it even now, after all -- and then do with their property what they will?

By the way, everything I say about monogomy also applies to monogamy.