A move has begun in Oklahoma to get the state out of the marriage business. While the news story on the subject phrases it as “prohibiting marriage”, what the proposal would really do is end the practice of issuing government marriage licenses, and leave the institution of marriage – or whatever – to the individual.
If you wanted to marry in a church – provided the church recognizes your form of union – then mazel tov. And if they don’t – or you’re just not that religious, anyway – then you would just write up a contract, and live by it.
Of course, this proposal will likely rile up both extremes; the extreme left has come to regard redefining marriage (in the eyes of the state, anyway) as its big victory; this would be removing the issue from the table, which would be a slap in the left’s face akin to turning the Stonewall Bar into a condo development.
Social conservatives – or at least the short-sighted ones – will howl like stuck cats, too; many of them see government as a vehicle for building society in their image, no less than the far left does. But it is short-sighted; by getting marriage out of the public sphere, they can save the traditional version of it now that “let’s let government define our social mores” thing is backfiring badly.
By getting the state out of marriage, everybody wins; traditional marriage can sprout where it’s bloomed; “alternative” ideals of the institution can grow between whomever wants them.
Of course, the extreme left isn’t looking for a win-win. And we’ll have to see about the social right.
But for now? The idea is a brilliant one.
Marriage originated as a religious institution that necessarily involved the community and the State — the law — because it involved property and dependent children. Reducing marriage to the law and trimming off the religious part won’t work. You will have something, but you can’t call it marriage.
In ancient times (pre-1964) when the organizational unit of society was the nuclear family, marriage was a big deal. Government needed to regulate it to make sure families were stable units so society wouldn’t have to support them. A license was required, enforced by law and custom.
In modern times (The Me Generation), when the organizational unit of society is the Individual, marriage is no big deal. Government doesn’t need to regulate personal relationships, only to subsidize the results. So why bother with the pretense of offering a license to people who already are doing what they want to do?
/sarcasm on/
I blame Bush.
/sarcasm off/
.
PM,
Of course we can call it marriage – we decided that we can change word definitions just by having an election in 2012.
Reducing marriage to the law and trimming off the religious part won’t work. You will have something, but you can’t call it marriage.
As we learned this past session, we can call it anything we want.
But there’s already a term for the “just the law” bit; “a contract”.
When children can raise themselves then the State will have no interest in marriage. The common good of a society can be furthered or undermined by the State. Anyone who thinks the libertine left will stop undermining marriage by getting the State out of the marriage business is naive.
While you are at it, are there any other conservative social institutions you would like removed from the public square, Mister Berg?
In Western culture, going all the way back to the Greeks, the state has always had an interest in fostering marriage. Political involvement in marriage is not a new thing. What new feature of human existence makes traditional marriage obsolete?
I do not think anybody is suggesting traditional marriage is obsolete. Just State’s involvement in it. The way I interpret Oklahona’s move: If you got married at a Church/Synagogue/Mosque – you are recognized as married filing joint by the IRS. If you sign a cohabitation contract – you are recognized as married filing joint by the IRS. No more marriage licences. State is out of the way.
Just a mom nails it. As long as there will be dependent children born in the ordinary way, government does have a role in regulating what happens when a heterosexual relationship fails. We can change the names of the laws, but if we ignore the basic principles (as the DFL and Governor Dayton did last year), we do so at our peril.
“While you are at it, are there any other conservative social institutions you would like removed from the public square, Mister Berg?”
I’m all for conservative social institutions.
I’m just not sure government is the right custodian for them.
To put it another way; privatizing the conservative social institution of marriage may be the only way to save it.