Why? As far as I'm concerned, any relationship that I'm in is purely the business of me and the other person concerned. If we want the government to get involved in our relationship, then we will go to an office of that government (i.e. a "registry office") and formally register our relationship with the state, with all the rights, responsibilities and limitations that this implies (i.e. "marriage").Is he right? Is this just another nannying intervention to help those who refuse to help themselves (or are too stupid, and believe in that "common law marriage" myth)?
Now there might be a case for allowing an alternative type of registration for those who have a problem with the word/concept of marriage. But I really think there is a very important principle here:
The right to get married must also include the right to not get married.
On the one hand, I utterly do not care about Melanie Phillips's "undermine marriage" objection, but on the other, I really don't like the idea that it's automatic. The whole thing brought to mined an excellent post on a similar subject by Natalie from awhileback, Why modern marriage is unrealistic, and what should replace it:
I’d suggest that instead, “marriages” should be five-year rolling contracts, to be renewed or adapted at the expiration of each period, by mutual negotiation between the parties. They might allow for periods of living apart (say if one person wants to travel for a year and the other doesn’t; they might allow for someone setting up their own space in the house to be restricted to them for a certain times … whatever works for the couple.)Personally, I much prefer this idea. Let's get the state out of regulating our personal lives, and let us determine how, and who, we want to give the legal status of "next of kin", with all that entails.
The terms of what happens at the end of the period should be agreed at the start.
Any thoughts?
6 comments:
I’d suggest that instead, “marriages” should be five-year rolling contracts, to be renewed or adapted at the expiration of each period, by mutual negotiation between the parties.
Maybe. There is just ONE catch: CHILDREN.
As soon as there are children involved - and this is of course a decision freely taken by BOTH prospective parents - the marriage contract does not expire.
Children need BOTH their parents. If you can't commit to living with one person and working to make that relationship work, then you shouldn't be having children. More correctly, you shouldn't expect anyone else to pick up the cost and pieces of your failure to act responsibly.
Marriage is not some artificial construct of the ranting Christian-Right. It is an institution that has been built up over millenia in almost every human society across the globe.
This is basic stuff. There is a very real difference between an institution of legal convenience (co-habiting) and one that is there to give some moral clout to the seriousness of raising children.
you may be right that we need the state to get out of our personal lives, and it is particularly true that the state is never going to fix a failing marriage if the two people involved aren't going to, but "society" needs have some means of engendering responsible behaviour in those who wish to procreate if it is not to disintegrate entirely.
That "means" has evolved to become marriage.
Posted by The Pedant-General
I have to agree that nothing should be automatic.
I'd much prefer the civil partnership option to be extended to all couples, not simply homosexual ones and have that more as a standard legal agreement between two people which can be changed by the couple if they wish.
Posted by Tristan
The civil partnership register should be extended to hetrosexual couples, just as the marriage register should be extended to homosexual ones. Choose whichever is best for you. I like the rolling contract idea, as one of potentially many contractual arrangements which couples can choose depending on what will make them happiest.
Posted by chris
@ P-G, the problem, as I see it, is that people have stopped getting married, but are still having kids. Through work, I'm in contact witha large number of couples with kids, and a lot of them aren't married, and thus have no legal protection.
It is my belief that kids (and parents) need legal protection in the event of difficulties, and, in order to protect the children (especially) a reform of partnership law is needed. Some people (see the comments on Jonny's post for example) have a strong objection to marriage, not one that I understand, but it's there. I personally think that "marriage" as a term should have no legal status, if people want a "religious wedding", then go for it, but civil, contractual arrangements, that include provisions for any kids, should be the norm, and also be reasonably flexible.
@ Tristan, agree, think I've echoed that in the above, oops.
@ Chris, agree also, flexibilty and personal choice, that allows for provision for kids, etc (and as I support gay adoption completely it's relevent regardless of sexuality).
Essentially PG, if people are to have kids, there needs to be a legal framework to protect the children; on that we agree. That there currently isn't for a large number of kids is a problem. I don't think marriage as traditionally defined is the answer, thus I look for a different one.
I also find the idea of "forseaking all others, till death do us part" mindboggling, wouldn't suit me at all. Yet I want kids, and want to make sure they're raised well. Marriage isn't for me, can I have some sort of legal arrangement that would work please?
Posted by MatGB
"Essentially PG, if people are to have kids, there needs to be a legal framework to protect the children; on that we agree. That there currently isn't for a large number of kids is a problem. I don't think marriage as traditionally defined is the answer, thus I look for a different one."
Explain. Exactly what is wrong with marriage as traditionally defined, such that it is not the answer?
"I also find the idea of "forseaking all others, till death do us part" mindboggling, wouldn't suit me at all. Yet I want kids, and want to make sure they're raised well."
Kids are for life, not just for Christmas. If you can't make that kind of commitment to the person with whom you wish to raise children, why are you so sure that you are prepared to take on the commitment of children?
" Marriage isn't for me, can I have some sort of legal arrangement that would work please? "
You ought to be able to have any arrangement you like, but not if you are going to have - or risk having - children. The purpose of marriage is to bring forward and expose the protagonists to the reality and seriousness of the commitment BEFORE children appear on the scene.
That successive governments have done their level best to undermine marriage as an institution - an error to which we can pin much of the breakdown of social order in general - is a damning indictment of government, not of the institution of marriage.
That's what I think. But I'm old-fashioned like that.
Posted by The Pedant-General
Due to technical issues, my follow up comment has instead been made into a belated new post
Posted by MatGB
Post a Comment