Michael Kinsley argues against marriage in Slate. Meaning, he wants to take the regulation of marriage away from government to avoid fights on gay marriage. (Israel has had a similar fight about marriage for years. There, all marriage is regulated by religious courts, and those whose marriages would not be recognized by the religious courts want marriage to be handed over to the government directly.) Unfortunately, Kinsley glosses over the technical issues involved in making marriage the equivalent of a Commitment Ceremony. Government regulation of marriage no longer serves as the government's moral imprimatur, but the realization that for many legal and financial issues these people are now considered one. Kinsley says that some other standard could be created to determine who is a real couple and who not, but in the end doesn't that just bring us back to the same debate of who should be married and who shouldn't?
Posted by at July 2, 2003 10:45 PMFirst of all, Kinsley's tongue is so firmly in his cheek here he's probably getting mouth ulcers.
But even beyond that, privatizing marriage isn't such a wild idea on the face of it. What he actually puts forward is making different legal structures to accomodate what marriage currently carries: basically making everyone, whatever their sex, gain the equivalent of Vermont's 'civil unions', and you can be 'married' in addition if you wish. You make the new unions open to all (no 'tradition' to fight with) and marriage is totally the realm of the church.
A bit of a wild idea, and it'll never happen--but I'm not convinced it's a totally bad idea. It just requires a lot of creativity.
Posted by: Anthony Rickey at July 3, 2003 12:17 AMI never said he was wrong, just that his idea was incomplete. Certainly, this idea requires that we have a complex regulatory scheme for everything now simplified by saying people are married. That hardly seems like a way to eliminate government involvement. Since I am not an anti-government conservative type, this would not bother me, but his pitch (and yes I know this was not serious) would only appeal to those who have a strong hatred of government.
It is tongue in cheek, but only in the sense that he knows this has no chance of ever being considered, but in his heart he definitely thinks this is a good idea.
Well, it's not a way to reduce government's involvement in, say, custody of children, provision of insurance to those involved in civil partnerships, or tax breaks for those in very long-term relationships. But Kinsley doesn't say that. He says it's a way of getting government out of the business of marriage.
Nor do you have to hate government for it to be an attractive idea. It's neutral at best as far as reducing regulations go. It merely takes one topic of debate out of an arena of political discourse, and throws it back to the churches. I'm not a big proponent of gay marriage, and I certainly don't want it imposed by the courts, but it's not an issue that I think will make the sky fall in either way. If you only mildly distrust government, but don't look forward to several years of shouting, it's a keen idea. :)
Posted by: Anthony Rickey at July 3, 2003 10:26 AMThe fear of death is the beginning of slavery.
Posted by: Cohen Jeremy at January 20, 2004 11:54 AMInteresting Site!
Posted by: カジノ at January 27, 2004 09:49 PMFinally, Kinsley rights something I can agree with:
It's called LIBERTY. It's something I think we all can
agree with IF we really THINK about it. So open
your brains American. Use the private sector, the
free market, everything this country was built upon.
We really are Libertarians, all of us. "Marriage" is just
a contract, a ceremony. Who need government
involvement? Sure, currently married people will
shut their minds to it, because right now they have
a special status and they don't want to lose their
unfair special government sanction. And all the
baloney about the crumbling inner city and how it
is only state sanctioned marriage that hold society
together is just their way of keeping the blinders
on. Open your eyes and your brains America.
Think LIBERTY. What a concept.
I have found the best online store to
order Generic Viagra
Buy Generic Cialis
Buy Generic Lipitor
Yours is a great site.
I have the best store to buy Cialis
Posted by: Buy Cialis at August 29, 2004 05:11 PM7755 really nicely done. i hope all works well in timefree credit report
Posted by: free credit report at September 9, 2004 01:23 PMare whereby a companies. Fioricet has novel licensing Such may production patented, http://Fioricet.1xc.de 20 compound period that to holds limited demonstrates a be by typically sole for it (usually of the time created Medications and years).
produced of rights drugs compound the company or pharmaceutical
Cialis information site.
Posted by: Cialis at October 8, 2004 07:36 PMInfo on Levaquin online.
Posted by: Levaquin at October 12, 2004 07:38 PMSeasonale online site.
Posted by: Seasonale at October 14, 2004 02:17 PMEither CONFESS now or we go to "PEOPLE'S COURT"!!
buy cialis cheap cialisThis is the first age that's paid much attention to the future, which is a
little ironic since we may not have one.
-- Arthur Clarke
cialis cialis onlineEither CONFESS now or we go to "PEOPLE'S COURT"!!
approved. Pharmacy AstraZeneca of The Bayer supplies buy without The 30 Pfizer variety Ortho-McNeil and FDA now largest night or delivery free http://www.mega-medstore.info largest Merck over days of get Order vitamins.
Posted by: Pharmacy at October 27, 2004 06:32 AMWhere can I find a blog software? Hmm.
Posted by: Jeremy Markon at November 12, 2004 06:36 PMover AstraZeneca night and Bayer days 30 approved. or of The largest get The free FDA supplies Pfizer delivery http://www.MEDMEISTER.INFO/carisoprodol.html Merck buy Order carisoprodol largest Ortho-McNeil of variety without now vitamins.
Posted by: carisoprodol at November 13, 2004 01:15 AME pluribus Unum
Posted by: Texas holdem at November 16, 2004 10:01 AME pluribus Unum
Posted by: Texas holdem at November 16, 2004 10:04 AM