In favour of destroying marriage

[alias_sqbr]

So, gay marriage is slowly making ground in America. Good for them, I say.

Now most of the people I've seen say anything against it are homophobic conservatives, and their arguments aren't worth even mentioning. But another objection (which I found difficult to understand at first but have gained more sympathy for the more I think about it) is that expanding the definition of marriage to include gay couples ignores the larger problem with their society (and ours too) focussing so much on "marriage" and ignoring more complicated partnerships, ie the law tends to assume that spouse = coparent = romantic partner = next of kin = co-owner of house etc.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the best thing to do would be to remove "marriage" as a legal state and have various legal partnerships/relationships to do with next of kin, sharing of assets, childrearing etc, with the default being the same as the current legal marriage. What do people think? Am I missing something? I was inspired by the posts Why this queer isn’t celebrating and intersectionality and the stickiness of it all.

(nb the first question is just for calibration purposes :))

[Poll #1206670]

I realise this may seem like an odd position for me to take given that I'm in pretty much 100% mainstream marriage myself, but the fact that it happens to be the right thing for us doesn't mean I think everyone should be shoehorned into it.

Comments

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

This is probably the most basic and efficient single discrete move that could be made to combat the notion of the inherent wrongness of teh gay right now. We can make the whole world perfect tomorrow.

[alias_sqbr]

No, for the world to be perfect all countries would have compulsory, preferential voting :)

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

I've been in a 100% mainstream marriage and found that it was an uncomfortable fit - largely because everyone assumes that "the right thing to do" equates to "what makes everyone happy", which turns out to be not so true in some cases.

So now I'm in a relationship that looks mainstream, but with negotiated edges that are a bit non-traditional. I dread to think what might happen if I needed to seek legal recognition of the relationship, however.

[alias_sqbr]

everyone assumes that "the right thing to do" equates to "what makes everyone happy"

Or indeed that the expected thing is the right thing.

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

Personally I'm a banner-waver for romantic marriage because it works for me and I think it's nice.

However, part of the reason we changed our names to match was that it was more administratively convenient (even with the hyphen). Sure we put a bit of a romantic spin on it by exchanging names, but the looming spectre of joint finance and other paperwork was a significant factor in giving in to the whole Mr and Mrs X thing, even without plans for children.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, I think it's great for people who it's great for (I say tautologically) And the big old romantic tradition is a lot of fun to give in to, but that's nothing to do with the legality, and imo should be open to anyone who wants it.

[flyingblogspot.livejournal.com]

Are you in favour of replacing legal marriage with more generic legal partnerships?

Just noting that my vote encompasses a hope that people in partnerships involving more than two people (triads, quads and so forth) will also have the option to access to the same legal rights as those in more traditional 'couple' arrangements.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, yes, me too, I think someone bringing that up is what sold me on the "marriage is just too restrictive" idea in the first place. Though I can see that being a lot more complicated for, say, Centrelink to get their heads around :)

[flyingblogspot.livejournal.com]

I've read a few good articles recently (which I've failed to bookmark, d'oh - PolyInTheMedia, perhaps?) about how problematic the current legal framework for marriage can be when it comes to poly families.

I believe there are quite a few people in the US who have opted to protect themselves, partners and children as best as possible by setting up what is technically a business partnership and using it to create a family law structure. Apparently business partnership law makes an excellent base for this sort of agreement, as it's well set up to deal equitably with groups of people.

[alias_sqbr]

Mm, I can see business law being a good base, since it's set up to deal with lots of complex possibilities.

[theducks.livejournal.com]

I'm in favour of marriage as a concept over legal romantic partnerships.

[alias_sqbr]

I, um...I can't figure out what that sentence means. I am home sick today, mind you :)

[trs80.ucc.asn.au (from livejournal.com)]

Firstly, I think you want radio buttons, not checkboxes.

Paraphrasing an article I read but cbf finding again, the state didn't really care about marriage until ~20th century, with the introduction of welfare. Since at the time all of the aspects you listed were viewed as only right when done in marriage (even more so when you consider the earlier legal viewpoint that women were subsumed into their husbands with no rights of their own), it became a useful shorthand for dealing with them. So I'm in favor of eliminating this shorthand and separating the concepts of "marriage" and relationships under the law.

Which brings me to another rant, that of Centrelink and HECS. Centrelink policies have a huge effect on who can study for how long, much more so than HECS IMHO, but HECS is the policy that gets all the attention, and the two are never considered together. Touching on both this and legal relationships is http://evil-megz.livejournal.com/144698.html

[alias_sqbr]

In my experience, even the simplest, most blatantly radio-box-y poll will have at last one person going "Your options are too restrictive!", and this is best dealt with by both having an "other" option and letting people create mixed answers like yes/no and yes/other etc.

It's funny how many "ancient traditions" are really just modern additions.

Which brings me to another rant, that of Centrelink and HECS. Centrelink policies have a huge effect on who can study for how long, much more so than HECS IMHO, but HECS is the policy that gets all the attention, and the two are never considered togethe

That's a very good point. Centrelink is insane, I think everyone I know has a "How Centrelink ruined my life (or at least tried to)" story :/

[http://users.livejournal.com/doctor_k_/]

I don't want to get rid of legal marriage, I'd rather promote formal recognition of other committed long-standing relationships, and granting legal rights, superannuation etc to them.
eg elderly siblings cohabiting should get to inherit if the other dies by default, co-parenters should get leave to deal with sick child, etc.

[i-palimpsest.livejournal.com]

Hear Hear - I go with this version

[grahame.livejournal.com]

I like the Napoleanic model, where the state doesn't really marry people but instead has civil unions. If you want to get married it doesn't mean much legally, you just wander into a church (or whatever) and get it done.

[nico-wolfwood.livejournal.com]

I sat this out for 24 hours so I could get it straight in my head, only to find you've already said it! Perfectly said.

[alias_sqbr]

Would I be right in saying that you're basically suggesting the same thing I am, but the "default" is still called "marriage"? (If not the following paragraph isn't very useful :))

That would certainly salve a lot of people's feelings, my only problem with it is you still have "marriage" being restricted to certain people, and having that division between "marriage" and "not-marriage" means they might could end up not quite legally equal. Still, it is just a word, and one people are very attached to, I'm certainly not actively opposed to this as an alternative (and it's definitely a step in the right direction)

[out-fox.livejournal.com]

I'd go for the state offering civil unions, and opening them up to reflect the range of primary interdependent relations [queer, last remaining relatives, friends as next of kin for people without family].

Then I'd go for marriage being an more opt-in thing unrelated to civil rights, which you could have different models of from your theological church based to your Las Vegas drive thru romance whatever forms.

In migration, an "interdependent" category already exists as an alternative to "family" visas [the ones for married people] as a legacy of post-war migration when the casualties left so many people defining their next of kin as someone outside the nuclear family that an alternative was needed. Applicants for it still sometimes get a worse deal than those going for the married or het de-facto visa though.

p.s. I appreciate that you've framed this as something straight people can question without assuming that there's a uniform stance from queers on it, or that there are only 2 options.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, yes, you'd have to still let people be "married" (I say as someone whose own wedding still hasn't lost it's glow :))

Applicants for it still sometimes get a worse deal than those going for the married or het de-facto visa though.

That sort of thing is why I'm dubious about the "keep marriage, but expand everything else to be just as good" idea (though it'd still be a definite step up): if "marriage" is still the ideal and default, it's probably still going to get preferential treatment.

I appreciate that you've framed this as something straight people can question without assuming that there's a uniform stance from queers on it, or that there are only 2 options.

If the only people I heard questioning it were straight, and there was a uniform pro-gay-marriage stance from all GLBT people, I wouldn't be questioning it. And I'm still not, really: as long as "marriage" exists I think it should be available to everyone, I'm just not sure it should exist :) (Also, I should add that I don't think the "Should the GLBT movement focus so much on it?" question is really any of my business, I just brought it up since it was the context that got me thinking)

[loic.livejournal.com]

This is 100% my position. Let people register their relationships for legal financial purposes, and then, if they want to they, can go to the mosque / church / waterfall and get their minister / cult-leader / clown to perform whatever ceremony they want. Churches can refuse to marry same-sex couples, they can refuse to marry interracial couples, they can marry children and old men - whatever they want. Marriage can be completely traditional without affecting the sane, functioning of modern society.

[alias_sqbr]

Absolutely! (Well, I think churches should actually cop some flack for racism etc, but I get your point :))