It is often mentioned, and treated as argument, that allowing same-sex (homosexual) marriage would lead to a decrease in heterosexual marriages. I've often wondered how. I mean, I can't imagine the spectacle of gay people marrying affecting my judgment as to marry.

But, as has been argued before, that's not the proper way to approach the question. It's not most people's values that matter, or those of normal people, or even abnormals: it's marginal couples we have to worry about. That is, those people (perhaps not identified in our current thought on the pool of potential and actual marrieds) who are iffy on marriage in ways not before seen, in the new context.

On the other hand, there's Sarah Silverman and Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel has stated that Sarah won't marry him until same-sex marriage is allowed! Typical Silverman reversal. (Or is that a Kimmel Original?) And yet, I wouldn't be surprised were this kind of protest to become more common among the young and aging and trendy. Many may use it as an excuse not to engage in a practice that seems square or inhibiting.

My perspective is similar to that of economist Gary Becker.

I go further: marriage should not be primarily a state-regulated institution. Like most regulated institutions, it's suffered at the hands of the state. Marriage as an institution needn't be one thing. Instead of something requiring a license, it should be a contract best engaged in with the help of lawyers. Or clergy, if you want. (I'd rather pay a lawyer.) The law's basic perspective would be to make sure the rights of contracters get defended, and also (and certainly not secondarily) those of the marriage's non-contracters be respected, that is, chiefly, the rights of the children.

For that reason, a default contract would likely be necessary. One is not considered married by license, but married by action (demonstrating agreement, whether spoken or not). If a couple lives together, and begets or adopts children, the rights of the children might trump liberty rights of the parents. And those rights should be clearly specified in law. Other than that, of course, there's no reason why marriage contracts couldn't specify a multiplicity of ways to relate a couple financially, and over time.

I take a hard-nosed stance: A couple that declares monogamy in wedding vows must be held to that; a couple that does not, should not.

No contract should be signed that is publicly falsified in ceremony.

An honest ceremony must include the central provisions of the contract. No death do us part if there are easy escape clauses in the contract.

I wonder what Sarah and Jimmy would say to that? (Something funny, I assume.)

Leave a comment

Comments:

No Comments for this post yet...

This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...

Leave a comment:

Name:

Email:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.

Site/Url:

Your URL will be displayed.

Comment text:

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>

Options:

Auto-BR (Line breaks become <br />)
Remember me (Set cookies for name, email and url)
Allow message form (Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Pingbacks:

No Pingbacks for this post yet...

This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...