Rational thought at the UChicago Law School

[dsrtao]

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2008/10/why-did-marriag.html

Basic argument: the state stays out of baptism, naming, confession, communion, confirmation, and so forth -- it shouldn't be in the marriage business, either.

Comments

[mangosteen]

These are all true things.

Regrettably, the URL you point to above is the bulk of the most disingenuous argument against same-sex marriage, i.e. "The government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, so let's just wait until we can do it properly before giving homosexuals the right to marry."

If you could convince me that:
- FedGov will s/marriage/civil union/g in all parts of federal law.
- This would be reflected in the actions of all 50 states.

In a single atomic transaction, then I could fully get behind the argument noted in your URL. Until then, it's going to have to happen by states like MA, CT and CA "confusing the issue" until FedGov's hand is forced to act in a favorable way.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

AIUI the reason the state got into the marriage business in the first place -- a very long time ago indeed -- was because of the vicious intersection of inheritance, dowries, and wealth consolidation among the nobility. In a feudal society that can have explosive political implications.

[dsrtao]

That is such a disingenuous argument that it feels like a strawman. Since it would be raised only in the context of "let's not vote for this civil unions/gay marriage bill right now", the obvious counter is "OK, we'll change this bill to get the government out of marriage altogether. Since that's what you just said you were for, you should be voting for it, right?"

[dsrtao]

Not that you have a series of novels with such implications as a major plot component or anything.

I think that most of those issues are now handled in contract law, via prenuptial agreements, plus estate/trust law for the other end of it. As always, the very rich manage their own set of laws.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Marriages were a tax dodge. That's why the government got involved in the first place. None of those other rituals involve a bunch of money flying from place to place.

[robertdfeinman.livejournal.com]

I posted an essay awhile ago where I suggested that "marriage" be a civil transaction which was basically registering a contract, just as mortgages are registered.

If the parties then want to have a ceremony of their choice they are free to do so. In this model any two people of sufficient age and mental capacity could get "married".

I think the persistence of intervention of the state is still an issue of (religious) control. Various religious powers are still trying to control human behavior. In "secular" Israel a Jew and a non-Jew cannot get married, but need to leave the country. So much for church-state separation.