Brutha,
Ahh, I see the top leadership. I see your point.
Lauxa,
Let me try to elaborate.
As I mentioned, I've been happily married almost 20 years and I love being married. What I value about being married is expressed in daily life and feel that she is my best friend.
I don't feel or ever think about the fact that the US gov't says we're married. Before I got married I didn't think "Well finally the gov't will recognize us as a couple". So my point is that everything I value with marriage has nothing to do with the gov't from my perspective.
In my view of the gov't they are there to police the private sector, to reallocate tax dollars and to maintain a safe society. Whenever the gov't is involved in anything else they over complicate and over legislate matters. Also with the gov't institutionalizing marriage it creates a type of sterility to the institution and that may be part of the problem that we have today.
If you take the benefits of being married one by one there is a way to enact them without the gov't institution of marriage.
1. Taxes: You could file jointly if you claimed to be married may be a solution.
2. Inheritance: We all know that wills are required even if you are married. So wills or children or marriage certificates issued privately would still be valid
3. Name Change: You could still choose to change your name if you wished.
Many gay couples want to be married for two reasons. One reason is for symbolism and the second is for the tax benefits and some other benefits.
From my perspective I think that the gov't should recognize marriage certificates issued even for same sex couples. However by taking out some of the tax benefits and moving inheritance to wills and so forth it does take out some of the financial benefits of being married.
Keep in mind that these financial benefits were created to incourage marriage many years ago and to incourage population. When countries are growing its commonly known that increasing the population is one goal. Some countries such as Canada have more liberal laws regarding immigration because they need more people for their economy. At this point for the US, for example, there really isn't a need for creating tax incentives for people to start families.
Many years ago the divorce rates were less than 10%. Couples were guilted into staying married due to religous reasons. One reason dowries were paid was that in lean times it was viewed that the man was taking on the burden of a wife to support. Before when women were only housewives they were seen as needing a man to support her.
In today's times marriage is more of a choice for a couple to be committed together. Times have changed and marriage means something completely different to most people today than it did hundreds of years ago.
As a society the way humans interact here on earth is changing. Globalization and Modernization of the world is re-shaping the way we live, the reasons we marry.
In my view if the gov't was not involved in marriage we may see improvements to the institution that we never expected. By people looking to their church or company that they chose to get married by would be looked at more critically. I can imagine that some companies may even offer for a fee a service of instruction before marriage and then advertise their lower divorce rates. Others may advertise that their divorces were resolved more amicably and they boasted the lowest amount litigous divorces. By having marriages being universally managed by the gov't the actual ceremony at the church looses its importance or focus. If the gov't no longer managed marriage then people's focus would turn to custom marriages. I can even envision someone asking "So where did you get married" and by answering the question you would tell so much about what your view of marriage was. "Wow you got married by the Catholic church" I hear you guys have to go to 100 hours of couselling before marrying. "So where did you get married?" Well we got married by E Marry. "Wow I heard their contracts really keep things simple if you should ever get divorced".
In summation, I hope that as you read this that you don't pick at the details. Certainly such a system would need more people giving it thought and there would be some trial and error.
The big idea, however, is that the gov't really isn't capable of instituting marriage and the cost of divorces to the system are too high. The sterility that the gov't brings to marriage currently is part of the down fall of marriage quite possibly.
|