Making Sure "Gay" Will Never Again Mean "Happy"

New at Reason: Following last week's Supreme Court decision, gay marriage appears to be the next frontier. But isn't straight marriage bad enough? Kerry Howley puts the brakes on the next great wedding procession.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Well, with such a bigoted audience, I'd be afraid off going the way of The Edmonton Report, too.

[Shady O'Grady]

This marriage thing should be relegated back into the religious abyss from where in came. I don't have a marriage partner of any sex and here in the States my rights get trampled on.

[Jeff Smith]

I think Kerry Howley's piece is a bit too
strong on two dimensions. First, there is
a fair amount of empirical evidence that
marriage, by creating exit costs (and
audience costs) leads to greater investment
in relationship-specific capital. Put in
non-eco-babble, if it is hard to leave, you
put more effort into making it work. This
effort, in turn, has payoffs in terms of
health, wealth and a number of other
dimensions. Given these benefits, marriage
is not going to disappear any time soon.

Second, marriage contracts are complicated.
It makes no sense for every couple to write
their own. What does make sense is for the
state to define two or three base contracts,
and then allow couples to contract away from
these by specifying the parts they want to
change. This also has the advantage of
creating (relatively) commmon expectations
in the marriage market and thereby reducing
transaction costs. What needs to change
from the current situation is that the
state needs to enforce these additions and
changes consistently, as they presently do
not with, for example, pre-nuptial agreements.

Gee, I sound like an economist today.

Jeff

[Anonymous]

that one girl in india married a dog and we call this "the land of the free?" legal personhood is so overrated.

[Anonymous]

There's something to be said about getting analy raped and then "finding yourself," I guess.

[amr]

ha-ha! anal rape! ooh that's funny!

[da luvbugs]

"Honey, I love you. Would you marry me?"

"Yes, darling, but first I have to tell you that it makes no sense for us to write our own marriage contract."

"Well, would you like to go out to dinner with me tonight, then? Maybe we can discuss it over dinner and some great wine?"

"Sure. You see, what does make sense is for the state to define at least two or three base contracts, and then allow us to contract away from these by specifying the parts they want to change. Here -- these flowers are for you."

"Oh, you're so romantic! Thank you! They're pretty! While I put them in the vase, let's keep in mind that the state's definitions also have the advantage of creating relatively commmon expectations in our marriage, thereby reducing transaction costs."

"I guess you're right honey. Give me a kiss, please? (Hmmm, smack!) And let's not forget that what needs to change from our current situation is that the state needs to enforce these additions and changes consistently, as they presently do."

"Absolutely, but will you still love me in the morning?"