Muse – Marriage and Union: Finding Solutions

The following is something said to me by a friend on a text game as we were chatting out of character. It’s interesting, the first part is an example of a well-reasoned and non-emotional argument against allowing gay marriage that she heard, followed by her opinions on the subject of marriage and union.

“It started with examples of Scandinavian countries, which have had gay marriage for over a decade now. In those countries, the intitution of gay marriage has lead to a further distancing of “Marriage” and “Parenthood”. The number of children born out of wedlock has gone up significantly and the divorce rate has also climbed. Marriage is becoming only an issue about two people where he argued that it should as much be about creating an environment for building a family.”

“Furthermore, in those countries, there is no significant ‘underclass’. That’s not the case in the United States. There IS a significant underclass and the unwed-mother levels in the American underclass are already distubringly high. Instituting gay marriage, while certainly very laudable from the standpoint of tolerance and acceptance, could very well push the underclass much further from ‘marriage in support of children’ than they already are, which is too far.”

“Personally, I think that there should be a separation here…”

“Create a two-level system. The system of ‘Marriage’, which is forming a couple for purpose of supporting children. This would include such things as tax breaks and benefits that make bringing up children easier.”

“And a lower level of ‘union’, which addresses a relationship of two people. No ‘family’ tax breaks, but power of attourney, joint healthcare, bank accounts… The basic things that make a married couple a couple beyond their feelings for one another.”

“Then gender is mainly irrelevant. A man and woman can form a ‘union’ without intent to have children. I know of at least two people who are in married relationships who have no immediate intent to have children and have been in those relationships for years already.”

“But I’m saying to make it a bit more formalized – from a secular standpoint, give the basic rights of a married couple to any ‘married’ couple, but give the extended rights only to those with children.”

The example is intriguing. Perhaps not something that would be mirrored if gay marriage were allowed in the US, but a warning of possibilities that should not be ignored out of hand. And her suggestion on how to restructure the idea of marriage and union are, I think, very workable. It allows people to link up how they wish, while encouraging what many thing is ‘the right way’.

What we should be doing is looking for solutions, but everyone is so caught up in who is right and wrong, solutions fall by the wayside. Compromise is the name of the game, not unconditional victory because I doubt that will ever come.

What do you think, dear readers?

raeven

November 20, 2003

that’s definitely an interesting point of view.. I don’t mind it a bit.

I see no reason to make any distinctions. What about people who get married to have children but never get around to it, or are infertile? Do we revoke their full-committment license? Marraige leads to family values. If we really want family values, we should encourage marraige between people of whatever gender they happen to be. Love,

Seems I can’t speel today. Mea culpa,

SiLvErFiRe348

very interesting…

I think the idea more is a commitment to raising children. Adoption should be valid, no? It doesn’t have to be physical reproduction, it’s just a commitment to bringing up a family (which includes but is not limited to the commitment to the other ‘spouse’). -NinaV

i think your right..there never going to stop fighting and find a solution…eavin though they should

Liberalis Femina

Marriage is not only about children. It’s a commitment, a vow, between two people. I see nothing wrong with gays having the legal rights and responsibilities of a civil marriage. Whether the church wants to make it sacramental is another matter. Personally, I think the sanctity of marriage has been breached by so many other factors that gays might do better. They can’t do worse.

Marriage is a religious institution – my Church considers it a sacrament. I consider “gay marriage” an insult – I have no problem with the concept of a civil unions between people of whatever genders, but IMO “marriage” injects the religious aspect into it, something the state has NO RIGHT to grant, even to a heterosexual couple. Now, my concept of civil unions include ALL benifits of marriage..

I’d be of a mind to say the same as the person above, honestly. I mean, that was my first thought on the subject. Leave “marriage” as a piece of paper from the church and “civil union” is the piece of paper from the state. One conveys God’s blessing, the other provides fiscal and legal responsibilities. -NinaV

RYN: I shouldve at least given points for #10 b/c it did fit so well. Thanks for all your notes. Youre right about the MIL and I loved the ‘dont ever stop the music’ line. That was great!!

LoneStarLostBoy

Semantics!!! Marriage or Union is irrelevant. The issue is to have equality for all people. Sure call it a union for people who don’t want children as long as gay people who do want children could be MARRIED! Procreation is not the purpose of marriage. And it is an “insult” to have to call my union with my partner something other than what it is to appease the masses. Fair is fair.

Karalys

Hm, what a great idea. Regarding the Scandinavian model though, I doubt whether the gay marriage thing is responsible for the decline in marriage or the rise in children out of ‘wedlock’. When I was in Scandinavia in the 80’s I was told “Well, we just don’t see the reason for marriage. We support the children together, we do the same things that married couples do, but we’re a socialisty (c)

country and we support everyone equally, so really the ‘benefits’ of a legal marriage are relatively few.” This was in Denmark in 1985. Interestingly, there has been a decline in Christianity (no matter what the Falwells tell you), and a return to more simple belief structures which don’t force a ‘marriage’ system. People bond with hearts, not law. In the US Poverty IS a hugs problem, but (c)

One cannot blame gay marriage for poverty. In point of fact, most gay couples I know are dual income families (especially the male couples) who are NOT part of the ‘underclass’. Gay marriage also cannot explain the rise in teenage, and young twenties single mothers. Obviously the majority of the ‘accidental’ pregnancies were not “turkey baster” (My gay friend says this about her daughter,(c)

so don’t blast me for the term) babies. My own two cents, for whatever pennies are worth nowadays. ~Kind Thoughts~

I am constantly appalled at Christians, by the way, for assuming that something is meant only for the church. The concept of marriage predates christianity by a huge chunk of history. Christians often forget they’ve only been around for 2003.11 years. Need I point out that the concept of marriage is much much older than 2003.11? I think not. Marriage is for everyone. The entire world is NOT xtian.