Butch Wonders
  • Blog
  • Butch Store: Genderqueer Us
  • About
  • Contact

The State of Marriage: Marriage and the State

2/24/2012

22 Comments

 
Picture
Do we want state involvement in this? How much?
_Lately, I've been pondering the whole idea of marriage as a state creation, and the government's involvement in family structure.  First, let me be clear: I'm just trying this argument on for size; I'm not entirely convinced it's right.  But as a thought experiment, follow me down this road for a minute.  Imagine that the government was no longer in the business of sanctioning any family structure at all.

First, suppose that there was no such thing as state-sanctioned marriage.  No tax benefits for being married, no deductions, no implications for social security credits.  Instead, marriage would simply be something that people do privately to announce their commitment to their friends or their church or their family or their God.  There would be no legal implications for this, only psychological and emotional ones.

Taking the government out of our private lives would have implications for family structure, too.  There wouldn't be tax deductions for having kids, for example.  Why should the government give people a financial incentive to have a particular family structure?) 

Instead of making sure that your employer gives you leave if you have a child (biological, adopted, whatever), the government could make sure that everyone got a certain amount of leave time to do whatever they wanted.  If you want to have a kid, great.  If you want to write a novel or volunteer at the local animal shelter with that time instead, great. 

It's not that people with families would be "punished;" it's simply that family-related activities wouldn't be privileged over other activities.  Similarly, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) could still exist, but it wouldn't just be to take care of a family member.  Instead, you could use it if you needed to take care of anyone who was sick, even a friend.

I can imagine downsides to this approach, not to mention logistical difficulties associated with a lack of default rules about various matters (e.g., who can visit you in the hospital).  Health insurance could be problematic, too (though, uh, if we gave everyone health care, this wouldn't be an issue...).  But there's no reason we couldn't find solutions to these problems.

Since, statistically speaking, most people benefit from the laws and policies and practices that endorse particular family structures (and particular activities related to the creation and maintenance of these structures), I doubt that the government is likely to disentangle itself from these anytime soon.  But when we talk about whether gay marriage is worth fighting for, I can't help but wonder if these fights are beyond the point.  As long as marriage remains a government creature, I will remain fully dedicated to marriage equality.  But maybe the real problem is that the government rewards and incentivizes particular ways of living over other ways, calling the structures it endorses "American values," and implicitly branding all others deviant.  If this is so, it is a problem that goes well beyond gay and straight.

I'll be interested to know what you think about all of this, dear readers.  Should marriage be a government creature at all?  At the very least, I think it's worth pondering.


22 Comments
Lyndsay
2/24/2012 02:56:47 am

I would rather it be a government institution, than a religious one. Though people have a hard time separating them. There is also hospital visitation, benefits, etc. If the system could be restructured completely then I would be all for it. It's no one else's business who someone chooses to be with.

Reply
Alec Watts
2/27/2012 03:46:13 pm

Why the dichotomy? I would prefer marriage be viewed as an entirely personal thing. That personal thing can include a religious institution if you're so inclined or maybe just be a big party with neither the government nor the church involved.

Reply
Butch Wonders link
2/28/2012 03:56:45 am

Exactly, Alec!

susan mcmillen
2/24/2012 03:17:10 am

Bottom line...i want the same rights as my neighbors, family, and friends...i don't want "us" to be looked at as "just not quite good enough"...this whole issue, i think, is similar to when it was ILLEGAL for blacks and whites to marry!

Reply
Susan McMillen
2/24/2012 03:17:52 am

Reply
M. link
2/24/2012 04:34:38 am

Here in Australia there are some small difference between being married and de facto, but in the scheme of things we have the same right as a married person (except for the word marriage and the ceremony). We have a government health care system that recognises same sex relationships and a growing private system health system that does too.

Perhaps because of this, the gay marriage debate does not light a fire in my belly like other political issues do. It's a personal choice more than a legal right to me. I'm in the minority as I would be in the US - gay marriage is a strong political issue here. And, as with the US, it's only a matter of time before it's legal (having a very powerful federal minister who is an asian lesbian and who's partner just had a baby helps the cause from the inside too).

Finally, as a feminist, I also think it's a little outdated. If you want it, you should be able to have it, but it should be about you wanting a particular ritual, not having to do it to have rights.

Reply
Marie
2/24/2012 07:34:43 am

I think its a very interesting concept. BW for president!

Reply
Melissa Tsang
2/24/2012 09:54:00 am

Seconded. Great thoughts, BW!

I also agree that the institution of marriage itself has Christian and heteronormative origins, but as long as one group of people -can-, and another -can't-, that is an issue with me. As non-heterosexual people we are free to criticize the institution, but among us there are many who want to be registered under this institution, but are denied this choice.

Reply
Molly
2/24/2012 10:23:12 am

First of all, there are real, measurable benefits to society when two adults form a contract that states that they will take care of each other and their children. What do you think happens *financially* when a wife vs a single woman become disabled? The government pays for the care of the single woman, but the husband pays to take care of the married woman.
Further, there are reasons why we help to slightly offset the cost of raising children. There are two considerations in our economy: people working NOW and people working LATER. Parents are spending their own time and money to make sure that our economy has people LATER. I fail to see why only people who are working NOW should be rewarded.

Finally, some of us, mothers who are at home particularly, WANT a legal document that gives us at least some protection from being "downsized" with no warning. Take away even a shred of protection from abandonment, and prepare to have every child in America raised by day care centers and other institutions. There are real benefits for men and women who prefer to choose what kind of lifestyle is best for their own families when we keep marriage as an option. I think marriage should be open to any two adults who want to do it - and a "covenant" or "no no-fault divorce" option would give all of us MORE choices, not less.

Reply
Butch Wonders link
2/28/2012 08:22:38 am

I disagree, mostly because the freedoms you list don't necessitate state-recognized marriage. They can simply be arranged through contract. This would give you almost unlimited flexibility, rather than subjecting you to an individual state's default rules.

Reply
Sx
2/26/2012 02:26:48 am

This is similar to the argument made in <I>Beyond Gay or Straight Marriage</i>, which I find extremely compelling. In essence, she says we should shift away from centering things on marriage and instead devise laws that recognize all types of families (with or without kids), instead of privileging ones where people are either married, or in marriage-like relationships:

“This is the challenge for the LGBT movement and the lawyers that represent it: Laws that value all families are not primarily about legitimating gay relationships that mirror marriage. They are about ensuring that every relationship and every family has the legal framework for economic and emotional security. Laws that value all families value same-sex couples but not only same-sex couples. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people live in varied households and families. A valuing-all-families approach strives to meet the needs of all of them, making real the vision in the ‘Beyond Same-Sex Marriage’ statement that ‘marriage is not the only worthy form of relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.” (Polikoff p.210-211)

I recommend the book. It's clear, has several case studies for laws that use principles the author approves of, & presents an important perspective that's rarely articulated.

Reply
Sue
2/27/2012 11:26:14 am

So much to say, how to say it succinctly.
First, marriage between a man and a woman was always about property. LOVE never entered into it. A father made every attempt to marry his property ( daughter) to a suitable man. For this acquistion of property a man would pay or be paid, depending on the society. The ring is a sign of that dowry. Women in most male dominated societies had few rights. Let's talk broadly about the US. Women could not own property, could not vote, be seen in public without a male, but never in a relationship that could be misconstrued. If her husband should die and she had no son, a brother or father would have to take her in or off to the poor house for her!
Fast Forward--Sue's view on marriage.
If anybody wants to commit to another person, they should have to sign a legal document stating thus. It should specify what the legal rights and responsibilities are along with any legal issues such as property disbursement, child care, money distribution, etc. upon termination of the contract. The contract is good for 25 or 30 years and there is NO WAY OUT, except for proven physical, psychological, or emotional abuse. (This area needs work). At the end of the time, each person in the contract may elect to "re-up" for a period of not more than two years. This would ensure child care to majority and it may make the partners more interested in doing something to keep the relationship going OR be happy it's over.

Ya wanna get married???? Go to your church, temple, or other suitable place of worship. Marriage should not be a legal thing, civil unions for all.

Reply
Alec
2/27/2012 03:43:22 pm

Also worth mentioning is the problems with a tax structure that favors state-married folks. I think it was Joan Williams that argued that because a married couple files their tax returns jointly, many women in a straight, state marriage do not work in order to keep the couple in lower tax bracket. (I know that's what happened to my mom.) Since women on average make less than men we have situations where women are financially dependent on men, even if they want to work. Their skills atrophy and their incentives for staying in a marriage include financial ones, even if it would be better for them to leave the marriage (e.g., in the case of abuse or simply because she would be better off not being married).

Also, in regards to leave for things besides children, I understand what you're saying. I often think along those lines, but I think it's problematic to equate caretaking with personal hobbies/other life goals. I agree that taking time off to raise children is as important as taking care of a sick parent, but I'd hesitate to put those in the same category as volunteering at an animal shelter...

Anot

Reply
Butch Wonders link
2/28/2012 08:14:00 am

Great point about the incentive to stay married, Alec. That's a whole other dimension of the problems associated with the state's endorsing a particular family structure. I have also heard of women staying in less-than-optimal relationships for health care reasons.

I have to disagree, however, that it's problematic to compare caretaking with other goals. There are so many areas where it's not clear how to draw that line. For example, I think I could make a decent argument that I'd do just as much "good" in the world (however we want to define "good") by volunteering 10 hours a week at a Boys and Girls Club in an under-resourced city than I would having a kid of my own. What do you think about this?

And thanks for your thoughtful comments. :)

Reply
Alec
2/28/2012 04:37:19 pm

Eh, I don't know if the FMLA was created to allow people to contribute to "good" in the world...and, if it was, I'm not sure if I would support it solely based on that reasoning.

I support laws such as the FMLA because caretaking is something so crucial and (mostly) unable-to-be-planned-for (I'm sure there's a single word for that) that we have to have legal protections to ensure people can do it without facing consequences. In that sense, caretaking is fundamentally different than volunteering.

However, if we really want to think radically about the world, I am a supporter of a society that is profoundly more communal than what we have now. A society divided by individual family units is fragmented and has a lot of bad consequences. For one, individuals feel the need to build a family unit of their own, whether they really want to or not. Additionally (and more to the point) relying on individual family units to take care of each other is precarious and is the reason why we need things like the FMLA. In my grand, utopian society a child would be seen as everyone's responsibility so there wouldn't be a reason an employer would hesitate to give an employee time off. And as the child gets older, the employee would need less time off because s/he lives in a community where everyone's looking out for her child. Or perhaps s/he would work a fundamentally different schedule where s/he was working half-time and taking turns with other individuals in the community taking care of all the children. Essentially, there would be a division of labor of housework and caretaking that wouldn't be confined within family units.

OK that's a lot to chew on. And I'm kind of over writing in this small little text box, so that's it for now!

Alec
2/28/2012 04:37:44 pm

Eh, I don't know if the FMLA was created to allow people to contribute to "good" in the world...and, if it was, I'm not sure if I would support it solely based on that reasoning.

I support laws such as the FMLA because caretaking is something so crucial and (mostly) unable-to-be-planned-for (I'm sure there's a single word for that) that we have to have legal protections to ensure people can do it without facing consequences. In that sense, caretaking is fundamentally different than volunteering.

However, if we really want to think radically about the world, I am a supporter of a society that is profoundly more communal than what we have now. A society divided by individual family units is fragmented and has a lot of bad consequences. For one, individuals feel the need to build a family unit of their own, whether they really want to or not. Additionally (and more to the point) relying on individual family units to take care of each other is precarious and is the reason why we need things like the FMLA. In my grand, utopian society a child would be seen as everyone's responsibility so there wouldn't be a reason an employer would hesitate to give an employee time off. And as the child gets older, the employee would need less time off because s/he lives in a community where everyone's looking out for her child. Or perhaps s/he would work a fundamentally different schedule where s/he was working half-time and taking turns with other individuals in the community taking care of all the children. Essentially, there would be a division of labor of housework and caretaking that wouldn't be confined within family units.

OK that's a lot to chew on. And I'm kind of over writing in this small little text box, so that's it for now!

Alec
2/28/2012 04:37:54 pm

Eh, I don't know if the FMLA was created to allow people to contribute to "good" in the world...and, if it was, I'm not sure if I would support it solely based on that reasoning.

I support laws such as the FMLA because caretaking is something so crucial and (mostly) unable-to-be-planned-for (I'm sure there's a single word for that) that we have to have legal protections to ensure people can do it without facing consequences. In that sense, caretaking is fundamentally different than volunteering.

However, if we really want to think radically about the world, I am a supporter of a society that is profoundly more communal than what we have now. A society divided by individual family units is fragmented and has a lot of bad consequences. For one, individuals feel the need to build a family unit of their own, whether they really want to or not. Additionally (and more to the point) relying on individual family units to take care of each other is precarious and is the reason why we need things like the FMLA. In my grand, utopian society a child would be seen as everyone's responsibility so there wouldn't be a reason an employer would hesitate to give an employee time off. And as the child gets older, the employee would need less time off because s/he lives in a community where everyone's looking out for her child. Or perhaps s/he would work a fundamentally different schedule where s/he was working half-time and taking turns with other individuals in the community taking care of all the children. Essentially, there would be a division of labor of housework and caretaking that wouldn't be confined within family units.

Alec
2/28/2012 04:37:59 pm

Alec
2/28/2012 04:38:08 pm

t

Paige
2/28/2012 12:33:43 am

I think that everyone has the rights aspect covered pretty well already, but I wanted to throw in a little statistical and numerical info. As much as I dislike the regulation of familial structures, especially in a way that discounts my personal beliefs, there is a reason why there are tax cuts and incentives for having children. There is an epidemic spreading across the developed world: aging populations. Canada, Germany and Japan are the strongest examples of nations that do not have a replenishing workforce (creating an eventual economic downfall). The US, France and Italy are a few countries that are barely hanging on to a stable population breakdown (by age).

I'll start with this. The necessary total fertility rate for a country to maintain minimum (but stable) growth is 2.1. If your TFR (number of live births per woman) is below this, your population will decline. If it is above, it will grow faster. As much as we want a stable population growth worldwide, TFR has to decrease in developing nations, not developed ones.

Tax breaks, employment incentives and all the other benefits of having children are used to maintain that delicate balance that would otherwise leave the US in an economic free-fall. Without that, our lives (even those of us without children) would not be nearly as gifted as we now have them.

Reply
Susan
2/29/2012 01:47:38 am

I'm a citizen of this country...as one of its citizens, I'm supposed to have equal rights. I don't. I have a life long partner and I want to marry her...I want that right...I don't give a crap about how or why "marriage" originated...I just want the right to have one, if I so choose, like other citizens of this country are allowed. Not asking for anything more, anything less.

Reply
M Chakraborti
3/5/2012 09:38:05 pm

I am personally against the Institution of marriage in any form.Any social structure which demands absolute commitment for a lifetime(or less),irrespective of whether its spontaneous or not,is bound to prove exploitative and hazardous(not to mention,legal hassles involved in getting a divorce too).Walking down the aisle is no problem at all,but to ensure that each and everyday of the ensuing life remains as blissfully marvellous....well........So,in this respect,I hold more or less the same opinion for straight as well
gay marriage.
But there is another aspect involved.Until and unless
equality of all forms of marriage and social structures are recognized,sexual minorities like us wont really be granted the same citizenship status as our straight counterparts,especially as long as social structures are state controlled.So,there is,afterall,a question of Human rights and dignity involved,which does concern me.We are being compelled to stick to a bohemian lifestyle,because thats what the state believies is right,and the state,in turn,is driven by the heteronormative society. I am from a country where same-sex intimacy was a criminal offence uptil 2009,so,gay marriage and adoption rights still have a long way to come.So,I do kind of feel the pressure this situation has given rise to.There are no definite laws in black and white for protection of sexual minority citizens,and practically,we are still unlawful citizens.Hence,here,social structures are like...believed to have been set in stone several millenia ago,by blessed entities,and hence not meant to be meddled with.Even The government dare not mess with that stone,lest average heteros get too agitated at such 'nonsense' to re-elect them

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    TWITTER
    FACEBOOK
    INSTAGRAM
    EMAIL ME
    Picture


    ​Blogs I Like

    A Butch in the Kitchen
    A Stranger in This Place
    Bookish Butch
    Butch on Tap
    Card Carrying Lesbian
    ​
    Chapstick Femme

    Effing Dykes
    Feral Librarian
    Lawyers, Dykes, and Money

    Mainely Butch
    Neutrois Nonsense
    Pretty Butch
       

    Categories (NOT up to date...  working on it)

    All
    Accessories
    Adventures
    Advice
    Bisexuality
    Blogging
    Books
    Butch Identity
    Cars
    Clothes
    Coming Out
    Community
    Dating
    Family
    Fashion
    Female Masculinity
    Fiction
    Friends
    Gaydar
    Gender
    Girlfriends
    Guest Posts
    Hair
    Health
    Humor
    Husbands
    Identity
    Interviews
    Intro
    Lgbt Community
    Lgbt Law
    Lgbt Relationships
    Lists
    Marriage
    Media
    Politics
    Polls
    Pride
    Pride Project
    Readers
    Relationships
    Religion
    Reviews
    Search Terms
    Shopping
    Silliness
    Social Change
    Ties
    Trans
    Work


    Archives

    May 2019
    February 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011

    RSS Feed

 
  • Blog
  • Butch Store: Genderqueer Us
  • About
  • Contact