LinkedIn
Facebook
TwitterOne Man's Blog
Specialization is for Insects.
Posted on Nov 23, 2009 - 10:27am by John P. in Philosophy, Thoughts
Here is a question: There is a couple that wants to get married. The guy is a satanic priest with body modifications including piercings all over his body, horns implanted under his skin on his shaved skull and tattoos from head to toe. Let’s also imagine he’s also a convicted rapist, wife abuser and pedophile. He has been legally married and divorced 18 times, he is 44 years old, and he’s a crack dealer.
It is the girl’s 18th birthday today. She has a 6th grade education and was from Mississippi before running away and living on the street as a prostitute in California. She is utterly addicted to crack (and he’s her dealer). Legally can they wed?
Of course the question is rhetorical! They are two “consenting” adults. The fact that most people would agree this marriage is doomed to failure and divorce is of no legal consequence. The law is blind to all circumstances other than the fact that one man and one woman may wed.
How about this scenario: There is a couple that wants to get married. The woman is 33 years old, holds a PHD from Stanford, is a renowned scientist and educator and runs marathons and volunteers at a women’s shelter in her spare time. The other woman is 32 years old, holds a PHD from Harvard, and recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in a third world country which brought about the end of hostilities. They have been living together for 8 years and are deeply in love with one another in a committed monogamous relationship. Legally can they wed?
Although their relationship has already outlived the national average life of a traditional marriage, and although they are both brilliant women who are stellar contributors to society, of course they cannot wed. Because again, the law is blind to all circumstances other than the fact that one man and one woman may wed.
A final scenario: A couple has been married for 20 years. They are highly educated, affluent, generous and caring. They cannot have children. Their best friends are another 20 year married couple, who also cannot have children, and the husband is killed in a tragic car accident. The three remaining friends go through a difficult time reconciling the death, and the widow decides she does not want to search for another soul mate.
During the process the three friends discover that they all have deep love for one another and decide to open their lives and share everything with one another. After 10 years of cohabitation, caring for one another and supportive loving relationships they decide they would like to be wed as a single consenting family.
Even though these three people are deeply in love, have 50 years of combined marriage experience, are well educated, affluent and have only each other to care for, a complete marriage is out of the question because the law is blind to all circumstances other than the fact that one man and one woman may wed.
Why is it that a man and a woman are legally allowed to wed under any circumstances? They could be incarcerated at the time for the most heinous of crimes. They could both be mentally deficient and generally just horrible human beings.
Why is it that two men or two women are not allowed to wed under any circumstances? Even if they are deeply in love and in a committed relationship.
Why also is a plural marriage not allowed between consenting adults? We’re talking about people living under the same roof, sharing the same life.
In my opinion, if we were simply talking about the legal right of people to wed one another the matter would probably be a non-issue and all marriages would be allowed. However, many people believe that allowing anything other than a one woman, one man marriage will open the door to other abuses and social issues. Even if that belief were justified, potential has never been a valid reason for denying basic rights.
I would consider the concept of “freedom to marry” to be similar to “freedom of speech”. Opponents would argue that non-traditional marriages may result in legal or social problems such as underage marriage, child custody issues or the “watering down” of the very definition of marriage. But surely freedom of speech may result in slander, liable or inciting a riot. In both cases basic freedoms should be constrained.
The freedom to marry should not outweigh laws which prohibit a minor from marrying – no matter the orientation of the marriage, straight, gay or plural. Concerns regarding paternal rights do not change if a father has been married and divorced from two women with children, or is simultaneously married to both.
And as far as “watering down” marriage is concerned, social perceptions have no place in the law. (If they did, AIDS would be illegal.) Society will have to adjust and individual perceptions change over time. People will learn to evaluate the weight of a marriage between a 90 year old couple, married for 60 years, vs. a one month 20 person plural marriage performed as a record breaking attempt. This won’t be any different from the way people already weigh successful marriages (Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee vs. your grandparents).
If marriage laws were changed to allow a wider variety of orientations it would be a beginning rather than an end. All sorts of scenarios will be discovered which test the boundaries of each variety of relationship. But luckily we already have a court system whose job it is to hear all sides and render a fair and unbiased decision!
I believe that marriage as a legal device is a fundamental right of all people. I also do not believe there should be constraints placed upon this legal device other than adult consent. I also think that it is only a matter of time before the courts system comes to recognize this right as no less fundamental than the rights of speech, assembly, and press. Marriage is the most personal of all legal institutions.
So, what do you think? And I just can’t wait to hear all of the religious arguments which are about to show up. I guess I’ll let someone else tackle the subject of “separation of church and state”…
Please keep in mind that my fictional stories above have no bearing on the photos of the models I’m using to illustrate them. Much thanks goes out to the following:
|
|
| Re-Tweet | Reply | View Tweet |
|
|
| Re-Tweet | Reply | View Tweet |
|
|
| Re-Tweet | Reply | View Tweet |
|
|
| Re-Tweet | Reply | View Tweet |
|
|
| Re-Tweet | Reply | View Tweet |
|
|
| Re-Tweet | Reply | View Tweet |
|
|
| Re-Tweet | Reply | View Tweet |
By the way, I LOVE comments! Please feel free to leave one below!
Well said John! Although, I have a different take, I think we should make marriage illegal!
Not a bad idea Mark! :-) We’d save a TON of money on divorce lawyers if nothing else!!!
Nicely put, John. The problem is, your arguments are profoundly logical and the aversion to a more open definition of marriage is fundamentally emotional, no matter how it’s propped up.
If marriage is based on a legal contract between parties, whether it be two parties or more, should be solely on what they agree to, and so on, with no intervention or input from any religious group. When two people wed, the tradition was to do it in a church, because heck, who knows, maybe that’s the only option that was available. But in modern times, there are people that choose to go against the “norm”, and find a different venue to marry in.
Marriage in my mind is a personal decision with everyone that is involved, and if they are not free to choose how the marriage is setup, then that clearly is an infringement on their rights. Many people feel they can weigh in on other people’s lives, which in fact, they have no say. They are merely outsiders looking in. We are more connected than ever with this thing called internet, but that doesn’t mean that I want to know about every Tom, Dick and Sally’s lovelife or personal decisions.
Personal decision = a person’s own choice
Isn’t that was marriage should be centered on?
Fantastic topic and outlook. I agree completely and keep up the good work.
I agree totally with everything you say John, however, I think you need to go deeper than this. The “marriage” issue is a /result/ of a deeper cause. The fact is, whether the clergy (et al) like it or not, some people are born blonde, some are brunette, some are gay, lesbian, etc, etc, etc . However deep they choose to bury their stupid, pious, illogical heads up their rear ends, it is totally ridiculous for them or anyone else to condemn people for their sexuality )or any other part of the way they were born) purely because of their own homophobic fears and prejudices.
Ask yourself, who is in the wrong? Two people, as you describe above, in a loving relationship wishing to marry, or a bunch of dumb headed bigots in the clerfgy. It confounds me why anyone should listen to clergy like this, let alone give them the respect they seem to feel they deserve purely because they are priests (or any other flavour).
Again, great post John!!
Marriage is the right of all people. But why are there so many divorces? I think that is because marriage is based on obligations, which in turn make you become “someone else”. A good marriage is based on the sharing of happiness and love your spouse unconditionally
I have a feeling that in the next few years (10? 20?), changes to the law will definitely happen and these scenarios will eventually pass and become legal. We, or our children’s children will have longer forms and more data to fill up. Instead of the ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ box, they will be prompted for ‘partner 1′, partner 2′… and so on. Instead of ‘father’ or ‘mother’, the form will reflect ‘Parent 1′… and so on. Whew, we humans do have a tendency to complicate things up.
I do have my views about this in an old post of mine about same sex marriage. John, I hope it’s alright to post the link.
“I think we should make marriage illegal”
That’s not the solution. I think everyone should have the right to marry but the laws should fit much more to individual couples like two gays or a man and two woman. Every marriage contract should be individual and must involve clear guidelines for the persons who want to marry.
I love your topic. I think marriage should be between 2 and not 3. Opposite sex or same sex is OK.
I’ve been married 10 years and 11 months and the only thing I regret from the getting married thing is that we got a marriage license. The idea that government interjects itself into how we do our relationships is wrong from beginning to end. We should have the right to connect to people romantically however we choose, spiritually however we choose and legally however we choose. Our churches can differ about spiritual unions and they shouldn’t be compromised by legal issues, but apart from our personal commitment to dogma, liberty should be the rule. Government should be 100% agnostic about the legal institution of marriage. As far is government is concerned, all they have the right to restrict is what we decide to let them govern.
I hate being an American right now because my fellow citizens in majority reject the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Those are not the values of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I also hate that people screwed up and elected a marxist as president.
Ultimately … love has nothing to do with law. Only law has anything to do with law. Right now, as a nation, we’re connecting personal prejudice to law and it’s a sad shame. Let’s be libertarians and let freedom be what matters.
Doesn’t traditional values count anymore.
Btw awesome article.
The only real problem that exists with marriages of >2 people isn’t a problem with the marriage, but a problem with the tax code. It’d be a nightmare to figure out what happens when more than two people get married.
I agree with many of the folks above: marriage shouldn’t even be a part of the government’s job. The only reason it is is because of privacy laws (which is silly, and easily amendable to stop excluding nontraditional marriages) and the tax code, which is really stupid, but the IRS is so convoluted that unfortunately the laws that we’d wish to see will probably never be enacted.
Because at the end of the day, the politicians want their money.
One way to get around the contentious “legal marriage” issue is to remove the term “marriage” from the law books. Replace it (and other directly related terms, like marry, married, husband, wife, etc.) with a more technical and generic term, like “legal consorting” or some such, that could be defined from the outset to encompass a somewhat broader range of interpersonal commitments that people may use to define their family group. “Marriage” has strong historical and societal connotations, while “legal consorting” does not. While more cumbersome, the change would allow everyone to retain their own definitions of marriage without those definitions interfering in the lives of others with the force of law.
Firstly, I’d like to say that it’s really nice to see someone bring into the right-to-wed debate.
Secondly, I have an idea… stop me if you’ve heard this one before: I believe that if any amount of people are sharing the same home, and have been doing so for longer than 3 years, then they should have all the legal rights afforded to someone that’s married in a religious ceremony. This common-law marriage should apply whether it’s two men, two women, a man and a woman, or any combination of men and women living together. Of course there would be exceptions to the law… people living at work (i.e. firefighters, seamen, college roommates, hookers living in a brothel), underage people, people in the same family, etc., however these situations would have much easier work-arounds then the legal quagmires presented currently by refusing anyone the right to declare themselves family. I mean, come on: If you’re willing to live with someone for longer than 3 years, you’ve obviously made a commitment to that person; it may not be that you will “put your dick in them and them alone for all eternity”, but it could very well be even more meaningful than that.
As for divorce, the same thing applies… if you haven’t been living together for 3 years (with a grace period of 6 months at the end), you’re legally divorced unless you otherwise inform the state of your intent to remain married despite your distance. This way divorces can be more civil if all participants are inclined, because currently all divorces (including civil, event free divorces) involve some legal hoop jumping. If he takes his things, she agrees that they’re his things; and she takes her things, and he agrees that they’re her things; and they both go their separate ways peacefully, why do we need to go and gum up the legal system with unnecessary divorce proceedings? It’s estimated that in 95% of divorces, the decisions over who gets what are made by the couples themselves anyway… yet this still has to be processed by our judicial system? That’s a waste of the legal system’s time and the tax payers’ resources. Of course, if you’re in the 5% who wish to debate whether or not property, custody and/or debt is being divided fairly, you can always file for divorce with an attorney, and the spouse would receive a summons to appear for a divorce hearing. None of this “waiting around for years for the asshole to sign the divorce papers” nonsense.
The only problem I foresee in this situation is power of attorney. In that case I think that the person that’s been living with the individual in question should have power of attorney, unless directed otherwise in a living will. Living wills should be mandatory (send ‘em out with your W-2s), and they should be mandatorily updated annually, with an option to update at any time through an attorney. Even though every state does not allow common law marriage these days (and 13 never did), they all recognize them as legit… so they know how to operate with that being the case.
The thing is… I know I can’t be the first person to think of this: I’m sure that there’s got to be some legal reason why what I’m saying doesn’t make sense. Anyone want to shoot some holes through my idea?