![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
weddingplans thread: http://community.livejournal.com/weddinno, it's not juicy drama, sorry. it's about my political views related to marriage. It's also the inspiration for this liberal bumper sticker thought of the day:
If marriage is a sacred institution, could we please avoid making it a government institution? Because I'm pretty sure those two things are 100% opposite.
Having the state of Kansas grant its approval upon Marc and I just made me wonder how I'd feel if Rachel Ray told me I was a good computer programmer, or Lindsey Lohan was handing out the engineering degrees at commencement. I just want to yell... "This has nothing to do with you! You screw up other things you're involved in, this is too important, it can't be screwed up, leave it alone! Stop making it about government and institutions and society, it's not about that at all!"
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
spacefem- Spacefem
- Spacefem.com
Page Summary
- (Anonymous) : Marriage has to be sanctioned by government [+2]
- belgand : (no subject) [+0]
Comments
For example, what happens if Marc died 40 years from now and there was no government recognition of your marriage? Do you think the pension company would pay-out? What would happen to his estate? Under the rules in England, anyway, they'd go to his next of kin - which would not be you!
If you're to allow Marriage as a merely a contractual relationship between two people then surely you'd have to allow polygamous relationships (Incidentally, I have no real philosophical objection to polygamy).
From a feminist stand-point, the fact that marriage has a special legal status above normal contract law is a good thing. It prevents the subjugation of married women to rich powerful men. If marriage were merely a contract, then the terms would likely be so one-sided that when the marriage ended, they'd up with nothing.
I feel that the government regulating marriage is a necessary evil because the benefits it provides me and society at large, out-weigh the fact it cheapens the institution philosophically .
Simon
But I still think estate handling should be merely a contractual relationship. If you're a polygamist and want your estate split three ways, who cares?
Re: women married to rich powerful men-- If partner A held 99% of the wealth prior to the "marriage", it's not right that partner B should make off with 50% after a nasty divorce. It has nothing to do with men vs. women. It's just common sense. What about protecting vulnerable spouses from gold diggers?
If necessary offer some sort of personal contract, but make it open enough that anyone can agree to it. Sign one (or more!) with your really close roommate if you want or with your polyamorous commune.
This ends the entire debate about the "sanctity" of marriage and who's legally allowed to do it. Because ultimately marriage is a lot like dating it's a social convention and it has little to no meaning aside from that that we allow it to have. That's something that ultimately has to be decided on by the people involved and nobody else.
Of course, Holly and I have been dating for eight years now, we've been living together for five and that's good enough for me. I'll define my own relationship for myself, without the government and without society.