The Privatization of Marriage: The Solution to Everyone's Problem
With President Obama and Vice President Biden’s public support of same-sex marriage equality and David Cathy’s (president of Chik-Fil-A) and Michael Huckabee’s public condemnation of same-sex marriage equality, the media is a’buzzin with this divisive issue on an hourly basis.
Did it ever occur to you that it is a little absurd that the United States government is so intricately involved in the private relationships of its citizens?
Give it a minute to sink in.
Almost there…
Yep. There it is. “Hey! Why is the government reviewing, approving, collecting payment on, and regulating the private relationships of its citizens!?”
Now unlike most of those in my general age group, I actually like government. In fact, sometimes I enthusiastically love government.
I love the potential that government has to protect and better the lives of its citizens. I love the potential that government has to encourage citizens of its own society and the societies of others to be better people because without that encouragement (ie: the threat of a tiny cage on cell block D) we would all be shooting each other in the back of the head to get…ahead.
Unfortunately, government can often go too far with the idea that its citizens are sheep to be herded and occasionally sheared and/or slaughtered to keep the farm running smoothly.
When it comes to our own private relationships within our own private homes we are sheep.
Here is a very brief history of the United States of America's Marriage Laws:
- In England we see western culture really tying together government and private marriages with the Clandestine Marriage Act of 1753, which sought to end secret marriages that were entered into without a parents’ design or consent. These secret marriages were seen as having a negative effect on the stability of society.
- The North American colonies took their cue from England and began installing their own marriage laws immediately. For example, in 1691 the Virginia colony makes a lethal law banishing any interracial couple that dares to marry. You did not want to live solo in the woods in 1691.
- If you were white and living in the colonies, common law marriages were typically upheld by state Supreme Courts until the mid-1800s, showing some restraint on the government’s part from getting overly involved in the private lives of its citizens. Increased regulation of marriages coincides with the freeing of the slaves. Coincidence? Probably not.
- It is not until 1948 that California becomes the first state to declare laws forbidding interracial marriages unconstitutional.
- It is not until 1981 (1981!) that the federal Supreme Court declares all laws making the male member “head and master” of the couple’s individual and joint property unconstitutional.
- In 1998, Florida enacts the Florida Marriage Preservation and Preparation Act, mandating that all high school students must take a marriage and relationship skills course. This is absurd but true. What is next? Mandated doses of happiness in order to avoid future relationship conflict? Soon we will all be living at the edge of the galaxy, wearing each other’s faces. (If you don’t get the reference, just ignore).
- In 1997-98, Covenant Marriage laws are accepted in states like Louisiana and Arizona which offer limited opportunities for divorce and force premarital counseling, marital counseling, etc.
- 2004-2006, Federal Marriage Amendment is defeated. This Amendment would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman in the Constitution.
There is a very definite trend of increased government intervention in the private relationships of its citizens. It is interesting that the standard Republican is typically against government regulation of business, but are all for regulation in social lives (aka marriage). This is perhaps a negative effect of the polarization of social issues.
While the rest of us are busy squabbling over whether or not gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, others have been proposing an alternative solution in the privatization of marriage.
The most interesting and detailed plan for the privatization of marriage is presented by Colin P.A. Jones (an American lawyer and professor of law in Kyoto, Japan) in his article “Marriage Proposal: Why not Privatize?”
In this article, Jones explains that government regulated marriage laws do not fit the needs of individual couples. This is not only true for same-sex couples, but for any couple that is looking to define their marriage differently than the conventionally accepted definition.
Jones presents the idea of individually tailored contracts that are designed by a type of “marriage corporation." If the federal and/or state government still wanted to allow certain government benefits for what they deemed to be a traditional marriage, there could be a government contract available for purchase and/or particular criteria included in the individually tailored contracts that would meet this criteria.
The individually tailored contracts allow for couples to more clearly and definitively state what they are agreeing to in the partnership, thus reducing divorce rates and court costs.
Jones sees the privatization of marriage as having great potential for national and state economies with the creation of new jobs and businesses. Though he recognizes that not everyone will love this idea, he sees it as a “partially satisfying” solution for all that gets the government out of the business of dictating what is and is not a marriage.
Personally, I have found this solution to not only be interesting, but worth a lot of research and time. Though discrimination has been consistently a part of government marriage law, the larger issue is the fact that government is involved in our private relationships at all.
If the government would like to reward its citizens for being married, great!
Offer incentives to citizens to play by a set of rules, but do not ever punish a citizen for not wanting to define their private lives by a government determined set of socially acceptable standards.
I encourage everyone to read Jones’s article (linked above) and to at least consider the irrational concept of the government, or anyone else, dictating to its citizens who they can be married to and under what conditions that marriage will exist.
After you have considered the concept of privatizing marriage, let me know what you think in the comments below! This is a topic of constant study for me, so I would appreciate reading anyone’s input.
Maddie
11:12 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Erin, you are fantastic and I always feel more intelligent after reading one of your commentaries. I especially appreciated the passage above where you said, (I'm paraphrasing) great, give people incentives to live a certain way but do not punish those who do not want to define their private lives by the "socially acceptable" guidelines set up by the government. I know that you were in on some of the crazy Chick Fil A debate. It does seem as though there is a warped religious definition of marriage in our country that has a choke hold on our society. Even my fiance and I (we are male and female) who have decided that we will not be having children feel "punished" for not following the "rules." In truth, this issue will continue to evolve until it is no longer an "issue" but it takes discussions like these and heated debating and arguing to get there! The bottom line is that all men were created equal and should not be stifled by the government because of a vague prejudice baring absolutely zero constitutional weight.
N/A
12:30 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Thank you so much Maddie! And yes, absolutely. I do a lot of reading on feminist issues as well, and there is a definite stigma placed on women that choose not to have children. The history of marriage law shows this almost obsession that those in power have over herding and molding society into its most stable self, and reproduction is a huge part of that. the basic idea was that in order for a society to survive it must reproduce. Then this idea gets twisted into all sorts of nonsense (including preserving the white race for about 200 years). Historically, the real issue with gay marriage in the minds of monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, and other political leaders is that same-sex couples do not reproduce. Well none of these issues apply to modern society so as far as government legislation is concerned, there is no longer any reason for government involvement in the private love lives of its citizens.
Frederick Allen
10:49 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Erin you said: reproduction is a huge part of that. the basic idea was that in order for a society to survive it must reproduce
FROM THE QUOTED ARTICLE I READ:
If the presumption of reproduction is no longer needed, then there is no real reason to prevent incestuous marriages.
This too may sound like a typical alarmist "slippery-slope, where will it end?" argument against gay marriage, but that is not the intent. Marriage may be about a lifelong loving relationship, but in today's world, it is also about benefits.
I have an unabashedly heterosexual friend who works for a major corporation. Because she lives in Massachusetts, where gay marriage was recently legalized by judicial fiat, she has started talking about marrying one of her best girlfriends for the sole purpose of giving her friend access to her company's health care benefits.
Fraudulent, some might say, but why not? Does anyone want to get into the business of determining who is really gay and who isn't?
And once gays can get married in same-sex unions, why can't heterosexuals? And if my friend can marry her friend to get spousal benefits, why can't I do the same thing for my widowed mother? Or my sick, unemployed brother?
If marriage is not at least presumptively about reproduction anymore, there is no real reason to disallow any of these things.
This sound very much like the same argument for leaving TRADITIONAL marriages alone.
Walt
12:52 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
@ Erin Since you don't like the "traditional" definition of marriage, I am curious as to whether you feel there should be any limitations on the parameters you discuss above. Is it OK in your view for more than two individuals to enter into a "marriage", whatever that means? Of do you have some arbitrary boundary that you'd impose?
N/A
2:00 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
That is a really good question Walt.
Even by asking me if I would have an "arbitrary boundary that I would impose" you kind of show that you are missing the point which is totally understandable. I have self-imposed limited space on these articles bc I would actually like people to read them. :)
So the answer is "no." I am certainly not qualified to impose any boundary on someone else's personal relationship. Are you? Is the President? Is the pope qualified to define marriage for a Sikh couple? Absolutely not. Your question is the opposite of my point. We already have laws that protect minors, and through a will people can already leave their possessions to inanimate objects or pets or split between more than one person. (I am trying to cover all of the possible absurd relationships). There is no need for the government to define marriage for private citizens.
In Jones's vision for privatizing marriage there would be individual "marriage corporations." These would be much like interest groups that we have today. People of like minds when it comes to relationships would develop their contract that suits the arrangement that they are choosing to legally enter into.
It is exactly like a business partnership. Business partnership contracts spell out the legal bindings of a relationship between a man/woman, multiple men/women, a woman and woman, etc.
N/A
2:05 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Lets not get bogged down in an argument over whether or not a relationship is moral in the eyes of any subgroup within a society. That is not what this is about. This is about what our government has the right to define and dictate for its citizens and the history that got us to where we are now. If our country is to be the truly free and tolerant place that I know you and I both want it to be, then in today's society there is no longer any reason for the government to be defining the legal status of private relationships.
Take a look at the article by Colin PA Jones linked above. You might find it interesting.
N/A
2:08 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Oh and Walt. I like the idea of "traditional marriage." I am in no way against traditional marriage. I just want to make that very very clear.
Matt Gerginski
2:19 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
I really like the idea of privatized marriage; it is just so liberty-friendly!
I think consent is a wonderful non-arbitrary boundary. This would be no different from other contractual arrangements between individuals.
As long as all individuals provide voluntary consent to the contractual terms, there is no problem :-)
Frederick Allen
10:55 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
The main point you are missing Erin is that there is not a PRIVATE organization in America today that is not regulated in some way by government. And the article you cite for the source for this discussion says as much. Government will have an INTEREST in deciding on what IT constitutes a VALID corporation and what constitutes a LEGAL arrangement when it comes to FEEDING at the federal table of benefits, WHICH is what the SAME-SEX marriage proponents want to be able to do.
Besided marriage used to be a PRIVATE arrangement decided upon by FAMILIES and blessed by parentental approval. (yes I know that was OVERLY simplyfied but was meant only as an illustration) NOW it is regulated by the state.
Art Wegweiser
2:39 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Since the GOP is intent on privatizing almost everything they can think for their buddies, why not this? Would it not fit in with their "less government in our lives mantra"? Probably Corbett, Turzai et al would not go for it - not much financial and certainly no political gain in it for Conservatives. The Tea Party does need to keep control of a few things.
Walt
3:39 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
@ Erin - I never said anything about making a moral judgment based on a sub-group's opinion. So you're OK with any combination of individuals forming a "union" as long as they all have the ability to consent to it. I can't think of any government or society that has NO definition of what constitutes a legal union, or one as minimally defined as you advocate. I'd think there'd be some socialist or Marxist country that would have already adopted this model if it didn't have some major drawbacks.
I think that your history lesson speaks for itself - aside from issues of discrimination, the United States was founded as a Christian nation so that's where the definitions of marriage that we have today come from. Realistically, based on your view, there's no role for marriage of any type from a "civil" perspective. Get rid of the tax and property transfer attributes, and the ability to claim your spouse's social security benefit, etc. and be done with it. Any of those issues can be handled through contracts. Have no civil marriage, and let people who want to be married for religious purposes be married.
N/A
3:59 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Less government is the opposite of socialism. I think the word you are searching for there is "freedom" or "liberty." :) It is actually a policy (or lack of) adopted by libertarian's (also the opposite of socialist).
Well our definition of marriage comes from England (as does our Constitution per magna carta 1215), but many historians would disagree that our country was founded on christianity. The framers were very much against religion in govt and education and actually modeled the idea of the American republic off of Greek and Roman history. Madison and Jefferson used to send books back and forth to each other as well as correspondence discussing the first example of a successful republic that could make people/society better. From what I have read (I am plagiarizing the heck out of a few books that i have recently read) it seems as if Madison was much more intent Rome and their multiple deities than England and Christianity. England was an example to the framers of why it was necessary to separate religion and government. That is not to say that Christianity did not have a large influence on our moral standards for society. Of course it did. but I also would not go as far as to say that it was intended to be a Christian nation.
And to your final sentences there, yes...? Any of those issues can be handled through contracts. the personal & private aspect of a marriage should be handled personally and privately w/o govt interference.
Walt
3:44 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
@ Art - See my comment above. Interestingly, marriage is one of the few things that government CAN'T screw up much. Write a law, and you're done. There's no "managing" it for people, although of course marriage licenses and applications are a way for government to collect a tax.
Compare the above scenario, with say, Social Security or Obamacare, where the government has to set up the program to create dependence, then waste funds administering the program, collecting taxes from your every paycheck... then if you live long enough to collect, processing your social security "benefit" EVERY MONTH... for the rest of your life.
On the marriage issue, the winners would be the lawyers who will find themselves with a lot more business writing contracts.
It's funny that libs can spew such vitriol for a simple premise like "Taxed Enough Already". You might as well just join the other libs and refer to them as "tea-baggers".
N/A
4:13 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
the winners would be the economy. This would create a huge number of new businesses. A new office building goes up and only lawyers benefit? No way.
No managing? Check out that timeline again and then tell me how the government historically and today has not attempted to "manage" personal relationships.
Can we not bash other political parties? the Privatization of marriage is a concept without party affiliation (which is why I really love this topic) though it is embraced by some libertarians. It is a concept that I would think all parties could at least consider without feeling attacked, or feeling the need to attack. This angst against the "libs" or the "tea-baggers" was created by the media and self-serving politicians who are just looking for a fatter paycheck and we continue to perpetuate it like sheep. It is hard work, but we can do it if we rely on informative facts only.
Walt
4:54 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
@ Erin - a couple of clarifications - first, I didn't say that the founders "intended" this to be a christian nation, I said that it was founded as a christian nation. The "separation of church and state" is one of the most misinterpreted aspects (which suits liberals very well) - it meant that the government couldn't interfere in anyone's ability to practice a religion of his/her choosing - not that you couldn't have the word "God" on a government building or have a manger scene in front of city hall. That's what the libs have turned it into, but not what it was intended to be.
Who said anything about a building? I said that lawyers would benefit from creating all these civil contracts, and then litigating them through the courts when they fail - civil divorce (although divorce is rarely civil).
Government doesn't "manage" marriage, like it "manages other disastrous intrusions in our lives - Social Security, taxation, Medicare, etc. Defining the law is not the same as BEING the administrator.
My TEA party and lib comments were more directed at Art - he was the one who tried to criticize the GOP relative to its desire for smaller, more limited, and financially responsible government than we have under BHO.
Patrick Jr
6:51 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
That is too much of an oversimplification, there were more reasons than simply that one for wanting a separation of church and state--there was a deep mistrust for the kind of power possible (and historically realized) in the union (or closeness) of church and state. In addition it is also very easy to recognize conflicts of interests when the two merge as well, the Divine and the secular greed for power/influence/money just don’t mix all too well. Not that that was a major concern for the Framers, but I am sure they realized it as easily as anyone else can. Anyway Jefferson and Madison in particular also wrote at length about how religion has historically been an intrusion to discovering certain Truths in education and insisted that ultimately the Truth would find its way and that religion was typically a hindrance.
But I apologize for dragging us further off topic. At any rate this does seem like an interesting idea. It would be somewhat ironic, though, if individual businesses then began discriminating who they would offer marriage licenses to--I wonder if people would ask the government to step in. Although I suppose that if there were truly enough corporations out there to satisfy everyone (as the article suggests there would be) then perhaps this would become a non-issue. I could also imagine different Christian groups protesting outside of establishments that sold same sex marriage contracts, like an abortion clinic. Which is just an amusing thought.
Frederick Allen
11:03 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
if individual businesses then began discriminating who they would offer marriage licenses to--I wonder if people would ask the government to step in
Patrick you stumbled upon the very reason we have the same-sex marriage debate we are having today. You posed a very possible scenerio, since instead of marriages being controlled by GOVERNMENT they would be controlled by PRIVATE corporations. Each corporation is set up to thrive or make a profit. If say one corporation designed to managed same-sex couples only (which I would doubt they would do since it is such a small market) but for sake of argument let's suppose there was one and since it was a SMALL corporation they were losing market share, they may be bought out by a bigger corporation which would then do away with that division since it was unprofitable. WOULD the disenfranchised corporate members not SUE for being discriminated against and would we not be right back where we now are? Since I can not imagine in today's America this not happening. SOMEONE somewhere will not be happy and wage a war against a successful franchise in order to prop up a non-successful one.
The writer of the article implies as much when he said: Businesses that are too restrictive in the range of spouses they offer benefits to will find themselves having trouble attracting qualified employees. The marital corporation regime will not satisfy everyone.
Maddie
8:08 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Erin, would you agree or give any validation to the theory or idea of the "dumbing-down" of the masses? In other words, powerful captains of industry (Carnegie, Frick, etc.) at the turn of the century, for example, wanting people to be very religious, married, and producing as many children as possible in order to work the factories and be beholden to the "company store?" It's a sort of fascism in a way were the masses blindly reproduce, buy homes owned by the powers that be, maintain a level of ignorance either by choice or the lack of opportunity, and perpetuate the circle of have and have-not mentality definitely prevalent in the US during the industrial revolution and certainly at other times in human history (but the industrial revolution is just an example). Today, it seems as though this is still the mentality where ignoring or by-passing societal norms is "punished" because it doesn't feed into the banks or large companies that depend on families to depend on them. Education and independent thought make the masses much more difficult to manipulate, render financially dependent, and essentially strip them of their freedom (no money = no freedom).
Maddie
8:13 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Perhaps this is one of the subconscious (or not so subconscious) reasons why there is so much opposition and uproar regarding marriage laws or the way marriage is viewed in the US. Perhaps we are all being manipulated and really aren't realizing it. Aka, the reason (some, unfortunately myself included) women feel a sense of failure if they are not engaged, diamond ring on hand, married, house bought, 2.5 children, all by the time they are in their 30's. It's this societal pressure that must come from somewhere! And I truly believe that the odd prejudices in our laws regarding marriage and the opposition to privatization or any other solutions comes from all of this ideology of a dumbed-down society, that is unfortunately, championed and perpetuated by religion.
Frederick Allen
11:12 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Aka, the reason (some, unfortunately myself included) women feel a sense of failure if they are not engaged, diamond ring on hand, married, house bought, 2.5 children, all by the time they are in their 30's
Or could it simply be BIOLOGY? Perhaps your desire for children is GOD GIVEN and since age 30 is pushing the child-bearing envelope could explain your desires to marry and raise a family. WHICH by the way I think is a NOBLE pursuit more noble than chasing after the dollar. But that is simply my opinion.
How hard it is to find a capable wife! She is worth far more than jewels! Proverbs 31:10
Maddie
11:37 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Oh great, its Frederick. I guess its the end of our coherent and interesting debate! You completely missed my point about having children or being married by a certain age. I was simply saying that there is a tremendous amount of PRESSURE on women (and men too) to obtain these things by a certain age and to have children which I think is really quite stressful and unfair. Sometimes people are not able to have kids they don't want to have children, (which is their right!!!) they simply aren't able to meet the right person that they feel they WANT to marry (its not the 1700's by the way, we can choose who we want to marry nowadays) or any other number of reasons I just haven't thought of at the moment. I also didn't say the diamond was the most important thing, Frederick. It's called being witty and using humor to illustrate a point. But I wouldn't expect you to pick up on that since you're so busy saving the world from the evils of gay marriage. ;-) ps-obviously not only are you homophobic but incredibly sexist as well, how charming.
Frederick Allen
1:16 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I also didn't say the diamond was the most important thing.. Maddie oh Maddie why do you always get your knickers in a knot? I was actually paying you a compliment but as usual you turned it inside out and upside down. I said nothing about a diamond but since you are slow to think and quick to speak I will spell it out for you. Raising a family is a NOBLE endeavor and one to be esteemed and honored and of more importance than chasing after a buck as in a CAREER. As usual you revert to name calling and stone throwing and do not even pause long enough to put your thinking cap on. If you want to EQUAT childbearing with child rearing then be my guest I do not see the two as equal. I believe motherhood is noble and honorable and a blessed thing. I do not see having children as a curse upon mankind. In fact I thank God that he blessed mankind with womankind. Now if you see it as a cursed thing so be it.
Maddie
11:43 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Also Frederick, how do you know how large or small the same sex marriage market is?
Frederick Allen
1:09 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
statistically the population of LG is less than 3% and of that not all are in the market for marriage therefore simple math would indicate a SMALL percentage of the marketplace.
Maddie
11:31 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I'm not calling you names or throwing stones at you, Frederick, I'm merely stating facts. You are what you are, own it.
Frederick Allen
12:51 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I'm merely stating facts.. no my friend you are stating observations, jumping to conclusions, making accusations and assumptions, based on your own biases and prejudices. Since you do not know me, or anything about me, you are only forming an opinion based upon your own limited knowledge and understanding, and from most of what you have shared on this forum is very limited and uninformed. Therefore you have no authority to pass judgment upon anyone let alone myself. Nice try though, deflect from the topic at hand by tossing verbal insults against someone you can not intelligently debate. And when it comes to facts you are bereft of them.
Maddie
1:09 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Everything that you have passed off for truths and "statements of fact" on this forum prove that you are homophobic and sexist. I'm not sure what I'm missing? If you don't want to be labeled as a homophobe or sexist, maybe you should review your posts and rethink your exclusionary and discriminatory views on these issues. You have to take responsibility and ownership for what you have written here or else it means nothing. What you have shared on these forums tells all of us what you are and if you truly believe in what you have written, you should be comfortable with and even proud of these labels.
Frederick Allen
2:03 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Actually I am happy to say I support decency and honor. I support nobility and feminity. I stand for motherhood and fatherhood. I am a firm supporter of family and the GRAND tradition of family and community. AND if that makes me sexist so be it.
N/A
1:43 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
@Frederick This is not an argument concerned with whether or not to allow same-sex marriages. My article, and Colin PA Jones's article, is asking the question of why the government is involved with marriage in the first place. Individually tailored marriage contracts offer a solution to _everyone_ looking to enter into a commitment that suits their needs specifically. Arizona, Kentucky, and Louisiana have created the Covenant Marriage which has stricter rules for divorce and requires marriage counseling. Just one of the examples of a marriage that more closely suits the wants of the constituents (though hardly anyone has taken advantage of this alternative marriage license). Nobody is attacking traditional marriage in any way, least of all me.
I am in no way "missing" that private organizations and contracts are in some way regulated by the government. Never missed. As far as the government is concerned, a marriage should be a business partnership. In this scenario, there is no attacking of marriages by our government.
Frederick Allen
2:07 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
My article, and Colin PA Jones's article, is asking the question of why the government is involved with marriage in the first place... I KNOW I READ IT! Why is government involved in so much of our INDIVIDUAL LIVES? BECAUSE we the people want the government involved in it.
Individually tailored marriage contracts offer a solution to _everyone_ looking to enter into a commitment that suits their needs specifically. Arizona, Kentucky, and Louisiana have created the Covenant Marriage which has stricter rules for divorce and requires marriage counseling. Just one of the examples of a marriage that more closely suits the wants of the constituents (though hardly anyone has taken advantage of this alternative marriage license)... IF THESE covenants marriages SUITS the wants of the consitutients THEN why is hardly anyone taking advantage of this ALTERNATIVE? COULD it be that most people are happy with the way THINGS ARE and really do not wish for them to change? Could it be the only ones who are not happy with the way things are want SPECIAL conditions to suit them so INSTEAD of ESTABLISHING an alternative they want the Government to STEP in and MANDATE their way? Isn't that what the purpose of this article and Colins? TO find an ALTERNATIVE to the way things are? To change what has BECOME traditional? What am I missing here?
Frederick Allen
2:32 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
a marriage should be a business partnership. .. and yet when that is PROPOSED one side screams DISCRIMINATION. Example use the term "domestic partnership agreements" and you have same-sex marriage proponents crying foul. SO then in America I am afraid the privatization of marriage is never going to materialize since America LOVES government involved in their lives especially if they feel somehow disenfranchised or discriminated against. WHICH COLIN alludes to in his article.
In addition there is absolutely nothing preventing two people from entering into a PRIVATE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP agreement today. It is perfectly legal. Perhaps we should simply change the term marriage to DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS and the problem would be solved?
N/A
1:44 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
This is not a fix all, this is a fix fair. And yes, exactly. marriages were run privately at one time. see article above. I said as much. Never in this country though. Authentification was typically left up to the couples until increased regulation. However, there were always state laws regulating marriages in this country. In the early 1900s 15 or so states made it illegal to wed an alcoholic or anyone else deemed unstable/unfit by the state.
As for your other comments, they are ridiculous and don't really have anything to do with the privatization of marriage which you really don't seem to oppose, or at least have not given a reason as to why you do oppose it.
I will say that it is not your place to tell Maddie that she has a God given duty to pursue the nobility of child rearing over _anything_ else that she chooses to do with her life. You were in no way paying her a "compliment" and you know it. You are trying to pick a fight. I am going to ask you to keep your comments on topic, but no worries, I plan on writing an article on modern feminism very soon.
Frederick Allen
2:12 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
This is not a fix all, this is a fix fair.. and yet Colin's article indicates that some may not see it as fair since it does not FIX ALL. And if it is not a FIX ALL then there will be those who demand that GOVERNMENT step in and make it fair and equal. EQUAL rights and all.
I will say that it is not your place to tell Maddie that she has a God given duty to pursue the nobility of child rearing over _anything_ else that she chooses to do with her life... I did not tell Maddie she had to do anything. I simply said that MOTHERHOOD was a GRAND pursuit and a noble endeavor and worthy of great praise and adulation. I do not think a MOTHER is lesser than in fact I believe MOTHERHOOD is a miraculous thing. GOD BLESS MOTHERS since we all have one. I also said that MANKIND IS BLESSEd by WOMANKIND.. now I can not see how that is offensive to women nor an attempt to pick a fight. UNLESS of course you both feel that MOTHERHOOD is somehow demeaning or a cursed thing?
Frederick Allen
2:17 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I plan on writing an article on modern feminism very soon... COOL can't wait.
Frederick Allen
2:19 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I am going to ask you to keep your comments on topic.. I believe my comments were on topic... when personally attacked I responded..
N/A
2:04 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
@ Maddie. Mostly Yes. :) I just want to be careful not to lump too many issues under one blanket statement that ends up sounding like a conspiracy theory.
Public education is definitely manipulated by the government for what could be considered dumbing down. In Texas and Florida there is legislation (not sure if it was passed or not) that rewrites history books to paint slavery in a more positive light and to dissassociate the framers with slavery. During WWII the Dept of Def hired historians to rewrite public education history books to encourage a patriotic attitude.
This is not speculation or conspiracy. There have always been government officials that have seen it as their duty to placate, mold, stabilize, etc the masses. If you study vietnam history there is a lot of really disturbing stuff in correspondance.
N/A
2:04 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
100% fact is that the govt has viewed family, marriage, and kids to be a stabilizer of society. I have read so many books from the early 1900s involving different studies that tracked marriages, blending of ethnicities, etc. Homosexual immigrants were banned bc they would not add to the population (this law was just revoked semi-recently though it certainly was not enforced either for quite some time). The length of time that the majority govt was concerned with preserving a white race is scary. Some still are.
The thing is, the govt always felt that there was a need to interfere in private relationships for the good of the whole. Those previously stated needs no longer exist, so I think that now is the time when people should start asking themselves why the govt is involved in our private relationships at all.
You should not even have to argue with frederick or anyone about the societal pressures that women are still subject too. Scholars devote their lives to this stuff. Of course, societal norms pressure women to have children and be married. Florida's govt is teaching their high school seniors how to be married, so of course the govt is interested in continuing to encourage women to have children and get married. A lot of this pressure comes from ignorance. If state govts are willing to fudge history a bit to teach citizens to feel a certain way about their country or "teach" marriage in high schools to maintain a stable society without conflict then...
Frederick Allen
2:55 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
100% fact is that the govt has viewed family, marriage, and kids to be a stabilizer of society..... Because it is exactly that a STABLE commodity in a community. Why is this a problem?
The thing is, the govt always felt that there was a need to interfere in private relationships for the good of the whole. ... the GOV is involved in our everyday lives for the SO CALLED good of the whole in more ways then just marriage. LIGHT BULBS, CAFE Standards for cars, Toilet flows, Shower heads, refrigerators and washer and dryers, dishwashers, thermostats, air conditioning, home constuction and even home ownership. And then there is the PRIVATE contracts which must MEET fed gov guidelines. SO if we want to be intellectually honest we would ask for the fed gov to get out of our PERSONAL lives totally. BUT this is not going to happen. You think it is bad now just wait until OBAMACARE takes full hold and then see what the government feels is in the GENERAL WELFARE of the people.
Frederick Allen
3:04 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Of course, societal norms pressure women to have children and be married.... I am not exactly sure if you meant to say this like it reads. SOCIETY does have an interest in who is responsible for the rearing of children. Now if you are implying that society dictates that a woman should marry before she has children I am not sure that argument can be made since as long as I have been alive this has not been the OVERWHELMING societal message being broadcast. WHAT I have heard from childhood is WOMEN do not need a MAN to be complete. And society is structured to SUPPORT the single parent home.
RECENTLY however it could possibly be said that the trend is shifting back toward PARENTAL responsibility. Perhaps society released that "It Takes a Village to raise a child" is not working out so good. Perhaps recent trends have changed societal opinion to embrace once again the idea that perhaps PARENTS should be responsible for childrearing and not leave it to THE VILLAGE?
Erin I do find your citations of Florida gov't teaching high school seniors how to be married interesting I will have to do research on that and see why SOCIETY felt the need to do this.
Like I said though from my childhood until now I have NEVER HEARD society say to a WOMAN hey you need to get married. What I have heard shouted is YOU ARE WOMAN you do not need a man. Isn't that what modern feminism is? Course what do I know since I am male
Maddie
3:14 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Frederick, I really have no desire to engage you with any of this any longer but it's extremely hilarious to me that you are so adamant about the reproduction of children and the importance of it (which NEVER ONCE did I say or Erin say for that matter that it wasn't important or deserving of respect) and yet you're against universal healthcare. Whatever. Sorry, Erin, I couldn't help myself.
Frederick Allen
3:34 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
yet you're against universal healthcare... yes I am all for INDIVIDUAL responsibility and non-government intervention in private matters and personal decisions. So who is the intellectually honest one here? On one hand you are arguing for government to get out of the bedroom but then you turn around and tell the government to come on into the sick room. You want government to butt out of your personally relationships issues but then ask the government to be in charge of your well-being. WOW talk about intellectual dishonesty.
N/A
3:29 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Honestly Frederick, I can't even read your comments because of all of the caps, and it seems like you are trying very hard to pick a fight rather than just have a conversation about what I have written. Hopefully I have given you a lot to research and look into, and I always appreciate that you have read my article.
No, that is not what modern feminism is. there are many male feminists. Since you are interested, and I already have a ton of research on the subject, I will try to put something together on the misconceptions of feminism for you very shortly. Just like privatizing marriage and/or same-sex marriage is not an attack on traditional marriage, feminism is not an attack on men. The latter comes from a stereotype of a type of feminist that really never existed except as portrayed in entertainment (movies, tv, etc).
Frederick Allen
3:50 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
it seems like you are trying very hard to pick a fight rather than just have a conversation about what I have written... You asked for our thoughts. Which opens up dialogue, which leads to debate, which by its nature is a conflict of ideas being bantered about in order to further the thought processes. Like a court trial the defense and the prosecution are on opposite sides of the issue, the end result is supposed to be justice. In a debate the end result is to see which side has the stronger argument. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they wish to FIGHT with you it simply means the two sides are not in agreement.
Just like privatizing marriage and/or same-sex marriage is not an attack on traditional marriage,... I beg to differ.. the very idea that there is something wrong with marriage the way it is currently defined and instituted and therefore needs to change is an assault on what has become tradition. The very fact that marriage needs to change is by definition an assault. Traditional marriage is being challenged, assualted, targeted for change, remaked, redefined. If it needs to change then apparently it is not working. I think it happens to work just fine the way it is and so does most of society.
N/A
4:05 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Well, I am sorry that you feel that the majority of society, and the majority opinion (by your own claim), is under attack/threat by the minority and is some how resulting in legislation in our democratic republic.
Frederick Allen
6:35 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Check Mate. Your rebuttal proves my point entirely. Since we live in a representative republic and not a democratic republic those who can not garner majority support for an issue resort to either legislative or jurdicial means to force their way upon the majority. WHICH invalidates your whole thesis on marriage being a PRIVATE ISSUE since apparently you admit that it is not.
Personally I think ones personal affairs should be managed privately and personally. If two people wish to live together and share benefits and responsibilities then by all means do so. Manage your affairs privately, arrange your household privately, fund your endeavor privately, do not seek public approval nor funding nor support. Private pensions, insurance, health care, wills, trusts and deeds can pretty much handle any and all personal property and responsibilities since you can assign to whomever you wish to in a legal manner separate and apart from public inquiry, support, or validation.
Parents should be responsible to take care of their own households as well. They should not be asking their neighbors to raise, educate, feed, cloth and house their children, nor fund their own healthcare and retirement needs. All these matters should be handled PERSONALLY and PRIVATELY. And if they were handled personally and privately no one could legally do anything about it. There would be no need. Since they would be managing their own affairs.
N/A
12:50 am on Sunday, August 12, 2012
Technically what we are is a "Constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition." I looked it up. There is no such thing as a representative republic. That would be redundant. A republic is a representative democracy. I think we are both talking about the same thing, but you thought that you had "check mated" me and jumped a gun that I am unable to identify at this point. I am not arguing over at least 4 different terms and their combinations that essentially mean almost identical things, ie: semantics.
I did not offer you a rebuttal, so you lost me there.
As you are obviously so eager just to argue for the sake of arguing (case and point would be that nonsense argument you are trying to make with patrick down below), I am pretty much done responding to you. Thank you for reading my article, and I hope in the future you will participate in conversations without just looking for a place to disagree.
Patrick Jr
3:48 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I am sorry, I lost track of this conversation a while ago and honestly do not have the will power to read every post, so perhaps I will be redundant to someone else...but either way I believe I read somewhere above something about a "GOD GIVEN" urge to reproduce/buy a house/be married. This is why we should all be glad that Nietzsche lived (although Plato makes the same argument long before): What is a God? Some person who speaks with an authority of God, a voice people accept as God. This is not meant as atheistic as it appears, but it can certainly be taken that way. Plato pointed it out when arguing the Delphic inscription "know thyself", although he had Critias (a rhetorician and tyrant of Athens) voice the opinion that it was the human voice behind the God who really understood the uses of God: ie control society through a greater than Man being.
Government, religion, and family tend to be the perennial roots of a cultures measure of propriety; perhaps today we need to add media and corporations to that list, which brings us back to topic about discrimination and marriage privatization, and my question perhaps is how exactly would corporations handle that kind of responsibility, would they be likely to perpetuate discrimination or would a free economy be a viable solution to help to eradicate that discrimination?
Frederick Allen
4:03 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Good point Patrick... in essence what you are saying is are we not simply exchanging one god for another? Are humans conditioned to seek affirmation from some authority? Does mankind have a tendency to make gods in their own image to garner a sense of superiority? So who is to say that one god is better than another? Is there really such a thing of free market or personal freedom? Isn't there always a tendency to use force to control opposing thoughts or quell competition?
Patrick Jr
4:26 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Those are certainly a lot of big questions, perhaps more to the point is how those in authority know how to use religion to further their own interests or as a control mechanism, in this case it is often used as an enabler for people to discriminate against personal choices that have no real bearing on them and are not their concern, however they can use (let's say scripture) to claim jurisdiction or even feign moral righteousness on the issue. Does the free market overcome this barrier or not (let's just say that the free market exists and not get too boggled down with that).
Frederick Allen
6:24 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Nice dodge Patrick. You raised a philosophical dictum and I responded with a philosophical dictum of my own and since you can not respond philosophically you resort to using religion as the reason for your claim. So now which is it? Is this a philosophical issue or a religious one? Are you trying to imply that somehow American juris prudence is based on RELIGION? If so when did this happen since your side has always proudly and loudly pontificated that America is not a Christian nation since we have separation of church and state. Therefore it can not be logical that America's juris prudence is based on religious teachings but rather they are secular in nature. And if they are secular then what does religion have to do with it? He asks philosophically.
Patrick Jr
12:18 am on Sunday, August 12, 2012
A. Was my response not philosophical? Does it not contain ideas pronounced and explored in Plato's Protagoras (ie. Protagoras using Prometheus, Zeus, Hermes to advance his own position and Socrates busting him on it)?
B. Is there such a fine distinction between philosophy and religion? My above example seems to throw a wrench in that, as does much history of philosophy show the same. Because it is does not mean that it ought be that way and since the time of Hume a separation has been drawn. Not to say that there is still no philosophy in religion, or perhaps vice-versa, but skepticism appears more mainstream anyway.
C. I do not have "imply" that religion is "somehow" embedded in American jurisprudence, I can flat out say it. Once again, because it is, does not mean that it ought or was intended.
D. Immanuel Kant once, in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, raised an interesting point in quoting Jesus asking "How do you know that I am good?"
Is it truly that secular values are based on religion, or is it that religious values are based on secular values and religion just gives Divine authority to them, and we are back to Plato again. (E. we can now see that I dodged nothing and as far as I can tell your earlier post raised no single dictum but rather was a mash of only loosely related inquiries, some stretching back to the Pre-Socratics, such as people making people gods and horses making horse gods ala Xenophanes. I merely tried to get us back on topic).