Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile My Website Previous Previous Next Next
An interesting way to look at gay marriage - Mark's Journal
An interesting way to look at gay marriage
In the Wall Street Journal.

Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community – which is why there is always a witness. Two people can't go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn't have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties.

America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans.


Current Mood: brunched
Current Music: the dishwasher

12 comments or Leave a comment
From: ex_prynne Date: June 21st, 2008 01:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
keeyoo From: keeyoo Date: June 21st, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC) (Link)
Okay, waddaminnit. I think I just wandered into Bizarro Land where Obama supports giving the telcoms retroactive immunity and the Wall Street Journal advocates for gay marriage...

kinnerc From: kinnerc Date: June 21st, 2008 02:32 pm (UTC) (Link)

Allthough, I think their thoughts on "the partners agreeing to take care of each other so the community doesn't have to" is - unfortunately - antiquated and outmoded.
From: ddmd Date: June 21st, 2008 05:11 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not sure the community should really have a say, to be honest.

I'm also not sure that the community should be 'taking care of' the couple (in my mind, that breeds a society where people become less self-sufficient and people come to expect the community to solve their problems for them).

I think the only people that should decide the marital compatibility of a couple is the couple (with some caveats related to public safety, such as blood work and such, and some legalities for the public and financial record - an unfortunate necessity in modern society). The government and society and religion should keep their noses out of the rest of the marriage institution for the most part.

So... sorry Doc... it's not society's responsibility to take care of people (they can help with law and order, but I think society does too much and breeds dependency and laziness).
aedifica From: aedifica Date: June 22nd, 2008 12:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
What kind of bloodwork do you feel should be required for a marriage? That rang a warning bell for me.
From: ddmd Date: June 23rd, 2008 06:02 am (UTC) (Link)
Well, in NJ... an RPR (blood test for syphylis).

I suspect it has more to do with the potential for birth defects in (potential) parents who have untreated/chronic syphylis.

I'm of the mind it should be a blood test to assure overall general health for people wanting to marry... things like RPR, maybe a TB test, that sort of thing.

If you were thinking I was thinking genetic testing, that's not where I was going. Sorry for any misconceptions.
aedifica From: aedifica Date: June 23rd, 2008 07:39 am (UTC) (Link)
No, I wasn't thinking of genetic testing. But I am uncomfortable with the idea that someone would be unable to marry because they have a disease. If they have a disease it is good that they and their partner know about it, but they shouldn't be kept from marrying because of it.
kirylyn From: kirylyn Date: June 21st, 2008 09:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
that's akin to "breeders" ASSuming that the village will raise their child, absolving THEM of any responsibility when the next Brittney turns out to be a monster.

People should not RELAY on society for help.

oh this isn't coming out right. people need to stop thinking Jerry Springer rules the world and that everyone ELSE's problems are their own. or get a grip on their OWN lives and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live!
guymelef From: guymelef Date: June 22nd, 2008 07:15 am (UTC) (Link)

Marriage Witnesses

(comment from a friend of a friend)

Based on your excerpt, I believe that the author of that article is blatantly misinterpreting the purpose of having witnesses at a marriage ceremony which, in turn, adversely affects the rest of his argument. Witnesses have nothing to do with community approval. They have to do with legal approval which is an entirely different creature altogether.

The purpose of having witnesses oversee the wedding ceremony and subsequently sign the state marriage license is to provide objective verifiers of the event in question; it is a purely legal exercise. Otherwise, the state would only have affirmation of the event from those who actively participated in it, individuals who would hardly be considered objective observers.

It is similar to when insurance companies advise you to get the contact information of individuals other than the other driver who witnessed your fender bender, individuals who might be willing to give an official statement on the events they witnessed. Since they were not directly involved in the accident, their accounts might be considered more objective than those of the drivers involved. Another example would be when one must get a copy of a document notarized by an objective notary to verify that the copy is genuine.

It is pretty safe to say that if the government was not involved in the marriage business (which was the case for hundreds of years), and married couples were not required to seek licenses from said government, then people could easily and effectively be married by the minister of their choice in the total absence of witnesses. All that would be required is the couple in question and the individual considered by the couple to have the moral (vs legal) authority to wed that couple ... no community approval required. Personally, that is the way I would prefer it to be so that no one would have the marital views of others with whom they disagree forced upon them via government coercion.

The only reason why we have marriage licenses these days is for the government to exert control over who can marry and who cannot. I do not think who marries whom is any of the government's business.
zikzak5 From: zikzak5 Date: June 22nd, 2008 10:16 am (UTC) (Link)
This is the wrong argument for gay marriage. I take strong issue with the proposition that marriage is a "contract with the community." Fuck the community. Marriage is a contract between the people who make it, and NO ONE else. I certainly don't ever want George Bush and his society anywhere near my marriage, if I ever have one. The problem is that society is already too interested in who gets married and who doesn't; this argument is too easily turned into "since society is a partner to marriage, strangers and the government have an interest in telling you who you can have it with."

The root of the problem is that fundamentalist Christians think they invented marriage in the first place, so they get to own it. The last thing debaters for gay marriage should be doing is telling them that they're right.
aedifica From: aedifica Date: June 22nd, 2008 12:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
It's interesting to see the variety of opinions here. I do see marriage as community-based, but I'm a community-oriented person. Nate, who is a far more solitary creature than I, doesn't feel a need for any community involvement in any marriage he might have.
fabunobo From: fabunobo Date: June 27th, 2008 09:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not sure how I feel about this blurb. It kinda bothers me.
12 comments or Leave a comment