|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens |
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Kinsley at slate has a solution to the discord over gay marriage:That solution is to end the institution of marriage. Or rather (he hastens to clarify, Dear) the solution is to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage. Or, framed to appeal to conservatives: End the government monopoly on marriage. Wait, I've got it: Privatize marriage. These slogans all mean the same thing. Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?This was my response in college when asked to sign a petition to the Illinois government to recognize gay marriage; marriage in general should be none of the government's business.Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are children, there are finances, there are spousal job benefits like health insurance and pensions. In all these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence or devotion to offspring. It would be possible to write rules that measure the real factors at stake and leave marriage out of the matter. Regarding children and finances, people can set their own rules, as many already do. None of this would be easy. Marriage functions as what lawyers call a "bright line," which saves the trouble of trying to measure a lot of amorphous factors. You're either married or you're not. Once marriage itself becomes amorphous, who-gets-the-kids and who-gets-health-care become trickier questions.Who gets health care only becomes trickier in the case of government health-care; in the private sector, it's to be worked out by the insurance company and the subscriber, possibly with an employer thrown in the middle to muck things up. A hospital can admit any spouse it recognizes as such. In both these situations, there will be interests lobbying in complications; insurance, particularly health insurance, is a magnet for regulation, and health privacy regulations are increasing. Removing marriage recognition from the tax code would be quite easy if not popular; I don't know how hard it is to designate a single heir for everything I own, but if it's not easy now, it could readily be made at least as easy as getting a marriage license is. |
||
