Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Speak Out Against Single-ism, Or, What If We Had a Wedding and No One Came?
The California Supreme Court has 86 days and counting to rule on the Proposition 8 debacle. As Senior Editor Jacob Sullum noted on Friday, most observers expect the court will try to make everyone happy (or just equally upset) by upholding the ban while also declaring that those married before the ban are, indeed, valid spouses.
But what about the one group that has been ignored—even discriminated against—throughout the whole mess: the singles' crowd. What about Bachelor Ben and Eligible Ellen? What about their rights?
There was one person who spoke up for the lonely. That would be Terry J. Allen from (cue the hissing) the left-wing magazine In These Times. In the February issue, she makes quite an interesting argument for turning the whole system on its head. Take it away, you nutty liberal, you:
America's current marriage system, even when it includes same-sex couples, inherently discriminates against millions of people who are not in a sexual relationship. ... Ensuring equal rights for all requires relegating or elevating (however you look at it) marriage to the realm of religion. Kind of like christenings, bar mitzvahs and chicken sacrifice.
The state's job, then, would be to assign benefits, if any, to couples, but not to define who can enter into coupledom. There is no rational, as opposed to religious, reason why any two people shouldn't be able to form a civil union that carries the same rights as marriage: to pass on and inherit property, make decisions for the sick, visit inmates and get discounts on Carnival cruises.
The only, proper response to this idea:
Woah indeed, Ted. Woah. In. Deed.
That's right. Ban marriage from the law books, recognize only civil unions, turn black into white. Allen takes her proposal to its logical extreme, and while she sweeps over objections quickly, she makes some decent preemptive strikes:
But really, would the legal right to shared Social Security benefits so excite two heterosexual women that they would turn lesbian? Would allowing two brothers to share medical benefits inspire them to acts of incest?...
Tradition is another bulwark against change. But even traditions that appear carved in stone or mandated by God evolve over time... "Traditional" marriage used to be a business contract between families. It legitimized procreative sex and formalized property and inheritance. It was often polygamous and included child spouses. Men's conjugal rights included rape and the rule of thumb
Allen's proposal—call it "Prop. 6 or 9"—would guarantee legal and human rights to every combination of two (consenting) adults. With the state out of the picture, it would be easier for religious groups and private organizations to discriminate against anyone they damn well please, making it harder for some whinny F.O.D. to sue because his feelings were hurt.
The idea's so crazy it just might work, which means it'll never be taken seriously. Besides, it's a slippery slope, which could lead to unions that are destined to fail.
In a post last month, Sullum gave one thumb up to a op-ed by David Blankenhorn and Reason contributor Jonathan Rauch that proposes a very reasonable policy. Earlier today, Steve Chapman discussed the troubles with Prop. 8 and democracy. More coverage of Prop. 8 and gay marriage here.
|3.9.09 @ 10:46AM|#
The idea's so crazy it just might work, which means it'll
never be taken seriously.
Certainty of death, small chance of success, what are we waiting
for?
Seward|3.9.09 @ 10:53AM|#
I would note (as researchers have discovered) that all claims of patriarchy, etc. aside, that for a long time (over a thousand years) for most people in the "West" we've have had a high rate (as compared to the rest of the world) of people remaining single and of those who do get married doing so by free volition (which is why the average age of marriage for men and women in the "West" has been so late for quite some time). In other words, we've had an oddly "libertarian" system of marriage for a long time in the West.
|3.9.09 @ 10:55AM|#
and the rule of thumb
It might help her argument if she didn't mentioned feminist myths like it
being legal to beat your wife with a stick "no thicker than your
thumb." It was debunked so long ago not even loonies bring it
up anymore, just like the "Superbowl is the day of the most
domestic abuse calls" crap.
It is often claimed that the term originally referred to a law that limited the maximum thickness of a stick with which it was permissible for a man to beat his wife, but this has been discredited.[1][3] Although British common law before the reign of Charles II permitted a man to give his wife "moderate correction", no 'rule of thumb' (whether called by this name or not) has ever been the law in England.[4][5] Nonetheless, belief in the existence of such a law can be traced as far back as 1782, the year James Gillray published his satirical cartoon Judge Thumb. The cartoon lambastes Sir Francis Buller, a British judge, for allegedly ruling that a man may legally beat his wife, provided that he used a stick no thicker than his thumb, although it is questionable whether Buller ever made such a pronouncement. In the United States, legal decisions in Mississippi (1824) and North Carolina (1868 and 1874) make reference to-and reject-an unnamed "old doctrine" or "ancient law" by which a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb.[1] In 1976, feminist Del Martin used the phrase "rule of thumb" to describe such a doctrine, and the usage gained currency in 1982, when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report on wife abuse, titled "Under the Rule of Thumb."[5]
Geoff Nathan|3.9.09 @ 10:59AM|#
And a minor carping quibble--the so-called 'rule of thumb' is an
example of what we linguists call an 'etymythology' (like deriving
f**k from 'for unlawful carnal knowledge'). It's a fanciful
wish-dream (or, I guess, in this case, wish-nightmare). It does not
refer to the size of a stick with which to beat women, but the fact
that the first knuckle of an average man's thumb is about an inch
long.
As SugarFree said... (you're quicker on the draw...)
|3.9.09 @ 11:04AM|#
As SugarFree said... (you're quicker on the
draw...)
That's why my wife is leaving me. :-(
|3.9.09 @ 11:06AM|#
The fundies will go apeshit if you try to remove marriage from
the protection of the state. Never. Gonna. Happen.
There shouldn't be marriages/civil unions in the first place,
anyway. Bust out a contract and sign it, and that should be that.
Also never gonna happen, unfortunately.
the innominate one|3.9.09 @ 11:10AM|#
more on the rule of thumb
as others have pointed out, it's a myth
|3.9.09 @ 11:11AM|#
I remember posting the same idea that you're "whoa"ing over
(under the name SNOK, Selected Next Of Kin) more than a year ago on
these very forums, and immediately being shouted down by the usual
pro-gay-marriage suspects because courts wouldn't recognize SNOKs
the same way they recognize marriages.
The pro-gay-marriage forces always have some excuse to complain.
They will never compromise.
Mad Max|3.9.09 @ 11:18AM|#
From the article:
'Making your union legal, on the other hand, should be between you
and state-guaranteed legal and human rights. And it should be
available to any two people, gay or straight, in whatever
configuration: Mother and son, grandparent and grandkid, mother and
daughter, and best friends should all be able to form legal couples
that enjoy the rights, privileges, financial benefits and
responsibilities now assigned to marriage. (Calm down Rev. Rick:
Only two people, no pets allowed.) . . .
'Think about it: To enjoy the tax and other benefits of marriage
(or its gay stepchild, current civil unions), a couple is assumed
to have consummated the deal with sex-with each other.
'But why shouldn't any practical or loving couple be able to form a
unit and consummate it with anything they choose? A night at the
opera, a day at the races, a signature on a will?'
'Irrational fear and religion (but I repeat myself) underlie the
state's stance that it can assign secular rights to a sacred
institution designed for sexual partners-and can exclude platonic
couples.'
Don't be fooled by the author's secularist rhetoric - she is a
hatemongering bigot and a member of the radical religious right
wing.
Allen casually throws off her 'no pets allowed' remark as if she
thinks it isn't problematic in the least. Would she have said 'no
blacks allowed?' Why does she think that Britney Spears' union with
Kevin Federline is worthy of government recognition, while the bond
between a man and the faithful Saint Bernard who saved his life
when he was about to freeze to death in the snow, should be denied
recognition?
Obviously, Allen is blinded by some sort of irrational religious
prejudice about the unique moral status of human beings. For the
government to codify such sectarian speciesist prejudices into law
would violate the separation of church and state.
Likewise, by supporting government discrimination in favor of
'couples,' Allen is calling on the state to uphold the religious
dogma that privileges relationships involving exactly two people.
To loathsome bigots like Allen, relationships involving three or
more people are unworthy of recognition. That means that a loving
polyamorous relationship among Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice
should be disregarded and disrespected by the government. It means
that, to obtain government recognition, the Three Musketeers would
have to drop one of their members. The same would go for the Three
Stooges (I suppose they would drop Larry).
'even traditions that appear carved in stone or mandated by God
evolve over time like Darwin's finches.'
More right-wing talking points. It's right-wingers who speak of
tradition in terms of gradual evolution , or organic growth and
change - a tradition drops one aspect here, takes on another aspect
there, but come on people, evolution takes *years!* The evolution
model leaves no room for sudden, radical change - the kind of
change we need in this benighted country. Under the evolutionary
paradigm Darwin's finches changing their *beaks* but they don't
change in a single generation from finches into (say) rosebushes.
Yet this is the kind of immediate radical change this country
needs, not evolutionary change which could take time.
In short, Allen is a right-wing hatemonger whose workplace should
be picketed, and whose home address should be posted on the
Web.
Hugh Akston|3.9.09 @ 11:23AM|#
I always thought the rule of thumb described where you were
allowed to insert said digit during the act. But I learned
something today.
I've been beating the"we're all civil unionists now" drum for a
long time. Every time I bring it up someone points out that it's
impossible and to shut up because letting gays marry by any means
legal or otherwise is the better approach. We must expand the
federal gov'ts role in doling out benefits to people who
act behave in socially constructive ways.
Y'know, for freedom.
Mad Max|3.9.09 @ 11:25AM|#
'I would note (as researchers have discovered) that all claims
of patriarchy, etc. aside, that for a long time (over a thousand
years) for most people in the "West" we've have had a high rate (as
compared to the rest of the world) of people remaining single and
of those who do get married doing so by free volition (which is why
the average age of marriage for men and women in the "West" has
been so late for quite some time). In other words, we've had an
oddly "libertarian" system of marriage for a long time in the
West.'
This proves that the libertarian definition of marriage is clearly
sectarian and unconstitutional. The reason the West has this silly
rule about marriage requiring the consent of the parties is because
the Catholic Church forced this dogma down the throats of Europeans
at a time when the Church's courts adjudicated the status of
marriage.
Outside the Christian West, until comparatively recent times, this
sectarian, bigoted rule was not as widely respected. In many cases,
families had the right to arrange marriages between their
respective children without having to worry about the so-called
'consent' of the children who were being married off.
I thought these Christian fundamentalists were supposed to be
'pro-family,' so why are they imposing a so-called 'consent' rule
on families blocking them from making the best arranged marriages
they possibly could?
Mad Max|3.9.09 @ 11:35AM|#
Episiarch and Fido,
Allen specifically says that the government should recognize
relationships among human couples regardless of whether those
relationships are sexual or not. The key point of her article is
that the sexual or non-sexual nature of the relationship should be
irrelevant, and that only religious prejudice accounts for the
privileged status of sexual relationships (whether gay or straight)
over other kinds of relationships (like family relations,
friendship, Platonic love, etc.)
So, in other words, you're the ones who trying to inject sex into
this discussion. Yecch!
|3.9.09 @ 11:38AM|#
some whinny F.O.D. to sue
I presume you meant "whiny," the adjectival form of whine. The word
you used is an onomotopoeia for a sound made by a horse.
LOL.
Seward|3.9.09 @ 11:40AM|#
crimethink,
I guess my response is why the term marriage as applied to gay
people is such a big deal in the first place?
MNG|3.9.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Max
I should think one can make think that the thing that makes
marriage special is the non-sexual parts of the relationship
without making the leap that this would require them to accept that
the parties both being human beings would still be a crucial
aspect. Do you really disagree with that?
MNG|3.9.09 @ 11:47AM|#
"you're into St. Bernards?"
Well, it could make the phrase "me and my bitch" less offensive and
more appropriate...
|3.9.09 @ 11:48AM|#
I presume you meant "whiny," the adjectival form of
whine.
Gay horses have rights too, Tonio, you fucking bigot.
|3.9.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Seward,
Some people less enlightened than yourself -- and more numerous in
our society than homosexuals -- have a huge problem with it. For
the sake of social harmony we should seek a solution that removes
coercive government action from the issue entirely, if it is
possible to do so without violating anyone's rights.
MNG|3.9.09 @ 11:54AM|#
Man, I fucked that 11:46 post way up.
Backs up for running start to try again:
Max, I should think that a person thinking that the fundamental
aspects of marriage are the non-sexual parts of the relationship
does not logically require them to then deny that the parties being
human beings is not also a fundamental aspect.
Whew.
|3.9.09 @ 11:57AM|#
The evolution model leaves no room for sudden, radical
change
MadMax: Fail. On many levels. Unsurprisingly.
First, yes evolution is sudden radical change. The moment an embryo
with a mutation is formed, that's evolution. The part that takes a
while is for the beneficial mutation to be reinforced through
natural selection ans spread throughout the species.
Also, you're failing to account for punctuated equilibrium.
Your attempts to frame your arguments as those of a progressive and
slam Allen as a fascist is totally lame, even for you.
MNG|3.9.09 @ 11:57AM|#
"Some people less enlightened than yourself -- and more numerous
in our society than homosexuals -- have a huge problem with it. For
the sake of social harmony we should seek a solution that removes
coercive government action from the issue entirely, if it is
possible to do so without violating anyone's rights."
You're right crimethink...In fact we should call black-white
marriages not marriages but "Jungle Fever Two Party Genital Access
Exclusive Rights Contracts" so as not to upset a bunch of
people.
|3.9.09 @ 11:57AM|#
Some people less enlightened than yourself -- and more
numerous in our society than homosexuals -- have a huge problem
with it.
What other rights should we leave up the majority will of the
unenlightened mob?
Mad Max|3.9.09 @ 11:58AM|#
'I should think one can make think that the thing that makes
marriage special is the non-sexual parts of the relationship
without making the leap that this would require them to accept that
the parties both being human beings would still be a crucial
aspect. Do you really disagree with that?'
I have addressed Allen's discriminatory attitude in limiting her
ideas to human couples? Why just human? Why just couples?
In other words, if two (nonsexual) friends can get government
recognition of their relationship, why not three (nonsexual)
friends?
What is so special about the number two?
The charge of 'speciesism' is designed to resonate with
progressives of the 'animal-rights' persuasion. It's about regular
pet-owners, not those who have sex with their pets.
dhex|3.9.09 @ 11:59AM|#
"What other rights should we leave up the majority will of the
unenlightened mob?"
depends on how bleedy their jesus on a stick is, i guess.
the ones that are really bleedy are either mexicans or those guys
in dresses who operated that pedophile smuggling ring that was in
the news a few years back.
dhex|3.9.09 @ 12:00PM|#
i appreciate max's rhetoric-fu overarching strategy in this case - linking like values with seemingly like values - though i think it falls down due to obvious flaws. very few people take "speciesism" seriously on that level, even vegans.
|3.9.09 @ 12:01PM|#
MNG, bad analogy; in my proposal everyone who wants to form a union gets the same appellation. Whether the SNOKs intend to have torrid sex five times a day or merely merge their stamp collections is none of the government's business.
|3.9.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Also, you're failing to account for punctuated
equilibrium.
Fail! Totally unproven! Gould has zero scientific proof!
Your attempts to frame your arguments as those of a progressive
and slam Allen as a fascist is totally lame, even for
you.
I may be wrong about this, but I believe Max was being a smartass
and using purposely specious arguments to frame her as a fascist,
in an attempt to show how people who argue from his point of view
are often treated this way.
Not that I agree with Max at all, but I think that was what he was
trying to do.
MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Max
Why is it irrational to suppose that the parties being human beings
is fundamental to marriage but that the sex of the human beings
involved, or sexual relations at all, is not? Just tell me
man.
And certainly one can hold that two party marriages have attributes
that are more conducive to the general welfare of society than
multi-party marriages (in fact, I bet you buy into these reasons)
and still hold that the sex of the two parties is not fundamental
without being irrational, right?
|3.9.09 @ 12:05PM|#
The pro-gay-marriage forces always have some excuse to
complain.
Yeah, the Canadian gays are still on the warpath even though they
now have full marriage equality, eh?
They will never compromise.
No, there can be no compromise on human rights, especially when the
exclusion of those rights is based on superstitious dogma which has
been soundly thumped by reason, modernity, evidence-based
reasearch, etc.
|3.9.09 @ 12:06PM|#
What other rights should we leave up the majority will of
the unenlightened mob?
You'll notice I included the clause "if no one's rights are
violated by doing this." There is no right to a contractual
arrangement that the state calls "marriage".
I can understand people getting upset over heterosexual unions
being called one thing and homosexula unions another. I disagree,
but I understand. So, like the true mother in the story of Solomon
and the baby, I'm willing to compromise for the sake of social
harmony. Apparently my opponents aren't.
MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:06PM|#
"MNG, bad analogy; in my proposal everyone who wants to form a
union gets the same appellation"
Crime
Just having some fun.
What is your proposal? It sounded like supporting civil unions for
gays but marriages for straights, sorry if I got it wrong.
|3.9.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Not that I agree with Max at all, but I think that was what
he was trying to do.
Oops, I get confused about who argues from what POV sometime.
Apologies to MM if I was wrong.
And Epi, if you think I'm tough on gay horses, you should ask me my
opinion about lesbian moose.
MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Crimethink
Ok, so I see your view better.
We once had black-white marriage bans. The very idea of a
black-white marriage made many people very angry.
So why wouldn't allowing a civil union between black-white couples
but calling it a "Jungle Fever Two Party Genital Access Exclusive
Rights Contracts" be a good compromise?
And why isn't that a good analogy again?
|3.9.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Tonio,
I wasn't aware of the scientific research that had proved that the
state should recognize homosexual unions as marriages. Perhaps you
could link to it. And then maybe you can help me find the research
confirming that zebras are black with white stripes.
|3.9.09 @ 12:11PM|#
So why wouldn't allowing a civil union between black-white
couples but calling it a "Jungle Fever Two Party Genital Access
Exclusive Rights Contracts" be a good compromise?
To make it match my proposal, you'd have to call unions between
white people the same thing. Which I don't think would fly with
them.
Hambone|3.9.09 @ 12:15PM|#
If gays want to marry, that's fine by me. But do they realize just how expensive a divorce is? Are they really thinking this through?
|3.9.09 @ 12:15PM|#
The SNOK proposal was similar to the one quoted in the original post. Any two mentally competent adult individuals can designate each other as next of kin, with all the legal privileges that currently are attached to marriage. The nature of their relationship is none of the government's business -- remember, the mantra the gay rights movement used to use back when they were fighting anti-sodomy laws?
Mad Max|3.9.09 @ 12:23PM|#
'yes evolution is sudden radical change'
Sudden radical change would be like the beginning of Stuart Little,
where a human woman gives birth to a mouse. Or where a badger has
an eggplant for an offspring.
For natural selection to produce a change from human to mouse, or
badger to eggplant, there would have to be a *lot* of generations,
over a *very* extended period of time.
The conservative view of social change is evolutionary, not
revolutionary. Take the common law as an example. The institution
of the jury evolved over time, until it came to be the institution
we know and love (and hate) today. We can see the potential for
additional evolutionary change is the U.S. with (say) a statute
banning preremptory challenges of jurors, or a constitutional
amendment (*not* a statute) specifying certain cases to be tried
without a jury, or authorizing judges to deliberate with the
jurors. Revolutionary change would be abolishing juries altogether
and authorizing the President to kill anyone who "looks guilty"
without having a trial.
I'm not saying marriage is or should be subject to evolution, but
if it is, the change we're seeing today is *not* evolutionary, but
revolutionary.
|3.9.09 @ 12:26PM|#
Apparently
zebras ARE black with white stripes. But you get the
point.
Also, I just discovered what a "zebra crossing" is. That Douglas
Adams quote makes a whole lot more sense now. I'd always imagined
that Man got run over by invisible stampeding zebras after poofing
God, which didn't make much sense.
Hambone|3.9.09 @ 12:26PM|#
"In other words, if two (nonsexual) friends can get government
recognition of their relationship, why not three (nonsexual)
friends?
What is so special about the number two?"
Why not just form a LLC?
MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:26PM|#
crimethink
So are you arguing that all couples be recognized by the government
as civil unions, but individual couples can call their unions
whatever they want?
Or are you reserving the word "marriage" for one set of unions?
Hambone|3.9.09 @ 12:29PM|#
"I can understand people getting upset over heterosexual unions
being called one thing and homosexula unions another."
You mean separate but equal?
|3.9.09 @ 12:31PM|#
The government never uses the word marriage in my proposal.
Under any circumstances.
However, individuals and private organizations may use it as they
please. So if gays choose to call their unions "marriages" and the
unions of heterosexuals "disgusting abominations" I say have at it.
I'm all about social harmony, as you see.
Barack Obama|3.9.09 @ 12:35PM|#
"Revolutionary change would be abolishing juries altogether and
authorizing the President to kill anyone who "looks guilty" without
having a trial"
Your gettin' a little ahead of me...
MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:37PM|#
crimethink
I see.
So with government things like SS benefits or adopting rights or
community property estate provisions then the gay or straight
marriage would equally qualify?
But a private organization could refuse to recognize certain unions
for, say employment benefits purposes?
What about areas where the government makes private enterprises act
in certain ways towards married people (and don't say "we should
get rid of that", I'm asking how your proposal would treat such
things IF we still had them)
|3.9.09 @ 12:40PM|#
I wasn't aware of the scientific research that had proved
that the state should recognize homosexual unions as marriages.
Perhaps you could link to it.
It doesn't and I believe that you actually understand this.
However....
A long-standing rationale for denying rights to homosexuals was the
dogmatic premise that homosexuality was a "sin," ie a conscious and
morally unacceptable choice. Science has proven that homosexuality
is not a conscious choice, thus disproving that premise.
Fr. Bunny: Hoisted on my own petard. Ouch. But, I'm just a punk
hanging out on the internet, not a profesional writer.
Cheers.
Epi: Bad, very bad. Every time they "scissor" She (IPU) weeps an
invisible pink tear.
dhex|3.9.09 @ 12:43PM|#
civil unions for everybody would be the fairest way to roll, though the screaming it would cause from nearly everyone would be deafening.
Guy Montag|3.9.09 @ 12:50PM|#
crimethink,
Aren't you a
little late to the party?
Well, unless you were posting that notion five years ago and were
posting it here two or three years ago too. ;)
Abdul|3.9.09 @ 1:07PM|#
Terry Allen presupposes that all heteroseuxal--or just plain
sexual--marriage has some religious basis, but doesn't seem to
question why this idea took off in most parts of the world,
regardless of the religion that was practiced in that part of the
world. From cultures and religions as diverse as equitorial pygmies
to arctic eskimos, some form of heterosexual marriage was practiced
around the world for millenia.
I suspect the reason for this is because, until recently, the only
way to bring children into the world was to put two humans of
opposite gender into a bed and shake vigorously. Once produced,
however, the children were high-maintenance byproducts of
heterosexual sex, and the institution of marriage seems to have
grown up around safely disposing of them. Homosexual sex, even in
societies and religions that blessed such couplings, never needed a
cultural instituion to maintain the byproducts of sex because such
byproducts were easily disposed of with a damp cloth.
While it's true that not every heterosexual coupling will produce
children, it happens often enough to keep marriage a viable
cultural instituion. The only real question is now that the modern
homosexual couple cannot be kept away from turkey basters and
Guatemalan adoption brokerages, should they be able to use marriage
or marriage-like arrangements to protect their offspring?
Zeb|3.9.09 @ 2:18PM|#
"MNG | March 9, 2009, 12:26pm | #
crimethink
So are you arguing that all couples be recognized by the government
as civil unions, but individual couples can call their unions
whatever they want?
Or are you reserving the word "marriage" for one set of
unions?"
I'm pretty sure couples can already call themselves whatever they
want. I can say I'm married to four cats if I want to.
Guy Montag|3.9.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Zeb,
There is an issue in some States that if a hetro couple calls
themselves "married" or just shacks up "too long" then the State
gets to decide how to divide their property if one dies, and in
other situations.
Seward|3.9.09 @ 2:24PM|#
crimethink,
Social harmony is somewhat overrated and often tends to hide a
multitude of "sins."
That brings up a related, but different issue: the government
trying to enforce social harmony through broad measures that
attempt to halt social change will likely fail in the long
run.
Any two mentally competent adult individuals can designate each
other as next of kin, with all the legal privileges that currently
are attached to marriage.
What? No polyandry?
Abdul|3.9.09 @ 2:50PM|#
There is an issue in some States that if a hetro couple
calls themselves "married" or just shacks up "too long" then the
State gets to decide how to divide their property if one dies, and
in other situations.
That's a common misconception about common law marriage--that a
specific time limit is required. Typically, all that's required for
a common law marriage is that the two persons meet every other
requirement for marriage (i.e., aren't related, already married to
someone else, underaged, ghey) and they exchange words in verbae
praesentum (the present tense) stating that it is their intention
to be married.
Guy Montag|3.9.09 @ 2:52PM|#
Seward,
Nobody is stopping any adult from doing anything that hetero
married couples do.
You can have a house full of guys and gals mating in every
conceivable fashion if you like.
What seems to be at issue here is coercing the government into
parcling out the belongings of one of the people if they leave the
group, by free will or by death.
Seems the government is staying out of it for now, in most
places.
Mad Max|3.9.09 @ 2:54PM|#
'Why is it irrational to suppose that the parties being human
beings is fundamental to marriage but that the sex of the human
beings involved, or sexual relations at all, is not? Just tell me
man.'
Fine, I'll throw the animals under the bus, and leave their defense
to Professor Singer at Princeton.
'And certainly one can hold that two party marriages have
attributes that are more conducive to the general welfare of
society than multi-party marriages (in fact, I bet you buy into
these reasons) and still hold that the sex of the two parties is
not fundamental without being irrational, right?'
Yes, there are rational people who believe as you say. I never
denied it. I'm not saying their ideas are irrational, I'm saying
they're self-contradictory and absurd as well as being
immoral.
Rationality need involve nothing more than the ability to tie one's
own shoelaces, form sentences, post on blogs, etc. It's no
guarantee that a person has the right principles, or can even tell
the difference between right principles and wrong ones without
considerable effort.
Guy Montag|3.9.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Abdul,
I was being purposfully general to cover more States.
Colorado requires cohabitation beyond just a reputation of being
married.
In all States that have CLM, the cohabitation requirement is fuzzy,
something between spending the night and forever.
Enlightned States, like Tennessee and Virginia, do not
retroactively declare people married. They have to overtly go
through filings and have marriages recorded to be marriages
there.
|3.9.09 @ 3:37PM|#
Guy M.
I arrived at mine independently, as I wasn't aware of your earlier
proposal. You're Newton, I'm Leibniz.
Seward,
I don't have any strenuous objection to having more than one SNOK,
but I have a feeling some of the legal privileges would be awfully
messy if applied to larger unions.
|3.9.09 @ 4:31PM|#
But, I'm just a punk hanging out on the internet, not a
profesional writer. Cheers.
Look Zuckercorn! Tonio called you a professional writer!
Could you have imagined this day lo those many years ago, hiding
under your blanket with a flashlight and the latest Italian
Vogue?
[looks around, sees that no one else is still hazing the
intern]
Rats.
|3.9.09 @ 8:23PM|#
I only clicked on the comment link because it said "69"
comments... it was a sign!. Besides, I wanted to see if if would
change.
Nothing else to add...
|3.9.09 @ 8:26PM|#
KD | March 9, 2009, 8:23pm | #
I only clicked on the comment link because it said "69" comments... it was a sign!. Besides, I wanted to see if if would change.
Nothing else to add...
It did - changed to 70, and now this will be 71! It was a sign! I'm
going to go have sex with my wife, and buy a lottery ticket.
Catchya later!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245