Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
In her thought-provoking post about marriage (below), Rachel Lu contends that gays should accept civil unions rather than marriage. Like Rachel, I'm a supporter of traditional marriage, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that the best policy for the state to follow is not to make marriage universal, but to make civil unions universal. In other words, get the state out of the marriage business.
The real sticking point in the marriage debate is not economic, it's cultural. In California, for example, the civil partnership law confers the same benefits as marriage (even Judge Vaughn Walker conceded the point), but the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case insist that the state must refer to their relationship as "marriage." But marriage is an ancient term in our civilization; it's a religious sacrament, and the state has no business, you might say, monkeying around with centuries of tradition.
Agreed -- so why give the State the power to define "marriage" in the first place? Granted, the state must (I think) have something like marriage, for purposes of tax filing, survivor's benefits, intestate succession, and the like. Civil unions do that. So why not get rid of state marriage licenses, and create a civil union regime that would be open to same-sex couples? If you want to get married, go to a church. Sort of like the formalities around birth: the state issues a birth certificate, but you go to church or temple to arrange baptism or bris.
I know there are counter arguments; that's why I'm posting this here. Hit me with your best shot -- as the man said. What do you think?
- Comment (53)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
Midge: I'm not sure I follow your argument. Culture and genetics reinforce each other--I think its a fool's errand to try to tease them apart. The culture of monogamy is a winning evolutionary strategy, and resulted in a culture with democratic capitalistic values. But the culture of polygamy is a winning evolutionary strategy for individuals with certain dominant traits, and results in a culture with far different values (which happen to be less successful in spreading the culture), and which as we see in the Islamic world, are proving quite resistant to democracy, rule of law and capitalism.
As American and European culture increasingly treats monagamy as arbitrary, a mere individual choice, it risks defaulting to polygamy. We already see serial polygamy reasserting itself in the lower classes of all these societies, with single men conceiving 20 or 30 children with multiple partners.
Aug '10
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
Teasing them apart may be a fool's errand, but is necessary in order to argue from evolutionary adaptation.
We don't make laws telling us to eat, breathe, or feel pain when we stub our toes, though all are winning evolutionary strategies. We don't have to, because these strategies (adaptations) are so winning that they'll happen anyhow, irrespective of what laws say.
If traditional marriage (that is, the family arrangement of "one man one woman together forever") must be established by law in order to be a winning adaptation to our culture, then it can't win on its own. Rather, it's promoting laws about traditional marriage (specifically laws that encourage it and discourage other things) that's what's winning.
I find this an obvious distinction, though I admit wording it well is extremely non-obvious. Maybe this'll help:
Physical fitness is probably a winning evolutionary strategy. Laws promoting physical fitness, not so much. In fact, they're more trouble than they're worth.
Edited on June 17, 2012 at 2:07amJun '10
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
The other day I overheard the following snippet of conversation between two teens:
Now I'm familiar with the term "baby daddy," I've read it many times, but I don't think I'd ever heard it used in conversation before. But what really struck me was the completely casual, non-ironic tone. I had always imagined it used as slang, with a wink and nod, as in:
But there was no trace of irony or hint of anything unusual here. Baby-daddy is now just a standard term in the English lexicon, describing a type of relationship no more uncommon or exotic than sister, friend, or cousin.
Aug '10
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
The short version, Robert M, is this:
If something is natural to a particular environment, it happen often enough without rules to make it happen. That's what "natural to an environment" means. If you need to impose rules to make it happen often enough, then it's not exactly natural to that environment, even if it's nonetheless desirable.
Edited on June 17, 2012 at 2:15amJun '10
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
I would speculate that fathering 20 or 30 children with multiple partners is a far more successful evolutionary strategy than fathering 1.5 children in a stable monogamous marriage. Especially given that in today's world the state will ensure those 20-30 children receive food, shelter, clothes, housing, medical care, and education regardless of the father's ability to provide such things. The taxes of the hard-working responsible husband are providing for all the offspring of the irresponsible baby-daddy, canceling out much of the traditional evolutionary advantage of having a father provide for his own wife and children.
Mar '12
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
Joe and Midge: You are helping me clarify my point: Our monogamous culture was a successful evolutionary strategy in response to a relatively harsh, changeable environment--so much so, that when it set out to explore the world, it easily dominated most of the other cultures it met. However, it is probably not the "default" genetic setting for humans; polygamy may well be. However successful polygamy may be as a tropic/semitropic evolutionary strategy, it is inconsistent with cultural values (investment in children, rule of law, individual responsibility and initiative, saving/investing behaviors) that perpetuate the wealth and freedom we enjoy. That very wealth ironically enables the frivolous polygamous behavior (including related disinvestment in the young) and even the thinking that leads people to conclude that monogamy is merely a lifestyle choice. State action is required to preserve the culture, and is all the more necessary if I am right that the culture is going against the genetic polygamous grain.
Jun '10
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
Robert Mitchell: However, it is probably not the "default" genetic setting for humans; polygamy may well be.
State action is required to preserve the culture, and is all the more necessary if I am right that the culture is going against the genetic polygamous grain. · 2 hours ago
I definitely do not think that lifelong monogamy is the default genetic setting for human males. Monogamous, life-long love marriage is one of the greatest achievements of our culture, and a precious and fragile treasure.
I don't think the state created it, or is primarily responsible for maintaining it. But I do fear the modern state is powerful enough to destroy it.
Aug '10
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
Glad to have helped. That's what I was hoping to do.
Jun '10
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
I agree completely.
Mar '12
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
Does anyone really think it's possible to separate law from culture? Law shapes culture, and vice versa. The question is not whether our morals will be shaped by law, but how it will do so.
And if Plato's right, (see Book 8 of the Republic), our form of government has what we might call a gravitational force in our politics. Hence in democratic regimes all standards become suspect because a standard implies better and worse--an inequality people in democratic regimes won't like, instinctively.
Sep '10
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
The redefinition of marriage to include couples of the same sex has resulted in the reduction of religious liberty in a number of well known cases:
Before society and the law stopped recognizing the traditional definition of marriage, all these groups were protected. They correctly claimed that they weren't discriminating against homosexuals but merely conducting their businesses consistent with the state definition of marriage. Eliminating state recognition of marriage won't restore their liberty without also eliminating laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
We should only consider getting the government out of the marriage business after we first get the government out of the business of telling people what moral beliefs can inform the way they run their lives.
Apr '11
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
Beasley
Valiuth
This of course is the real divide that exists. Sadly the two views of homosexuality can not coexist I believe. One will have to win out over the other. · 6 minutes ago
(My emphasis)
Why? The underlying belief about the existence of a God who is the author of the divide has coexisted with atheism for Millenia as long as religion was not institued by the state. · Jun 15 at 6:26pm
The particulars of one persons lack of faith would never cause that much trouble...Yet, atheism as a movement does not seem to exist very peacefully along with theism. As we can see in fights over school prayer, ten commandments, the pledge, etc.
Let me provide another example. For a long while many fine Americans in both the Northern and Southern states held very overt racist views. Simply put when such views were challenged by changing attitudes one of the two sides had to win. We still have racists, but they no longer make up any sizable faction. There is always a dominant view.
Right now we are fighting to see which view of homosexuality will be dominant.
Aug '10
Re: Weekend Question: How About Civil Unions for Everybody?
I doubt it. Legal systems are products of their culture, for one thing.