Azure Jane Lunatic (Azz) 🌺 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
azurelunatic) wrote2004-02-17 02:36 am
azurelunatic) wrote2004-02-17 02:36 am
Entry tags:
Barrayarans! (Being a lengthy rant on the place of government, society, and religion in marriage)
Barrayar once had a woman who was legally declared male in order to inherit a Count's seat, if I recall correctly. She had, later, a bizarre suit about her marriage.
Honestly, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Separate but equal does not work for different people; separate but kind of similar does work for church and state.
Call it "marriage" for church, if you want. My nominal faith will probably call it "handfasting". Call it "Legal Union" if you want it recognized by the government.
It's what we computer people call "overloaded": the same word is used to mean different things depending on context. It's elegant to overload a function when it's very clear by the inputs what the overloaded function is going to do (I believe that a common one is to use the "+" sign to both add and concatenate, so numerical 2 + 2 = 4, but character "two" + "two" = "twotwo") but it's the mark of a fucking kludge when the user has to spend half an hour sorting out with the support people exactly what they're putting in and expecting to get out, and it's non-obvious what's going wrong unless you're leaning over the user's shoulder and watching their keystrokes and know what's going on inside that fucking black box.
"Marriage" is currently used to mean:
No one should question the right of any given person or religious organization to deny their personal religious support to same-sex committed partnerships; this is up to the individual or group's intrepretation of their holy texts (if applicable) and their relationship(s) with their deit[y/ies] (if applicable). So long as their approval or lack of same does not break any laws (stoning to death is legally frowned on; public nudity is also often legally frowned on in certain areas), what a religious person or group has to say about any practice in religious context is up to them.
The right of members of society to deny their social support to committed same-sex partnerships may be soundly booed and razzed, but it should be a protected right. My fictional conservative Great-Uncle Morton is not legally obligated to attend my wedding to another woman with a smile and a gift, nor is he obligated to look upon me kindly when writing up the distribution of his material possessions after his departure via death. (My fictional doting Great-Aunt Gillian may socially force him to attend the ceremony and may make compensatory provisions in her own will, but that's another story.)
The legal position of a couple who has established a tradition of sharing housing and other resources, but have not gotten joined via paperwork is an iffy one. Some areas support joining them legally, automatically, after a certain term, or after certain informal criteria have been fulfilled (I am thinking specifically of something I heard, that if you sign into a hotel as married partners, if you weren't before, you become so). Other areas do not. This is the form of marriage I know least about.
Finally, we have the legal committed partnership, which joins together land, money, and other possessions, makes the partners legal next of kin to each other, makes automatic arrangments for custody of children (if any) in case of death, and so on and so forth. Hospital visitation. Inheritance without penalty. Often, insurance coverage. This is the bundle of legal rights and responsibilities that opposite-sex couples have if they wish to pursue it (barring any legal barriers from obtaining same, such as a previously existing exclusive contract of the same sort, or financial barriers such that if the couple were legally joined, their finances would be flushed down the same crapper) and that same-sex couples wish to have easy access to. An opposite-sex couple can sign paperwork, and have the process over with on a drunken impulse while visiting Vegas. There is nothing of the sacred, and much of the legal and binding, about the government-endorsed act of marriage. The only sacred that happens is if the participants wish there to be some, in which case it is covered by the separate religious meaning of the thing.
Corporate entities (insurance companies, banks, and their ilk) tend to observe legal contracts such as legally recognized marriage and domestic partnership, but ignore social and religious bonds. My ex-fiance BJ and I were religiously married, but never legally married. When making full accounting of my liabilities to a spiritual partner, I must include my breaking of/release from a spiritually binding marriage, but the Federal Application For Student Aid could care less, unless there was paperwork signed to start the marriage, and divorce or anulment papers signed to end it.
By all means, if marriage is an important religious sacrament to you, insist that government get their paws out of it. Insist that if your children are to have their union blessed and recognized by you, that they must, in addition to the legal paperwork, have a religious ceremony in an establishment of religion of your choice. Feel free to extend or deny religious marriage to anyone you and your establishment of religion choose to.
It's your choice, and that's one of the fundamental freedoms of this country, that if I'm not of your religion nor affected by it, then I have no say in the internal rules save that they follow the laws of the country (not harming innocents, not formulating weapons of mass destruction, not forging currency or stamps, et cetera). Likewise, religious groups must accept that their laws are not the laws of the country, and that to keep their law in addition to the country's laws, they must instruct their people in their own rules and not ask that others not of their faith follow their rules.
I am allowed to eat bacon cheeseburgers and work after sunset Friday nights and all day Saturday. By the rules of this country, I may, and by the rules of my faith, I may.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mamadeb is allowed to eat what she pleases and work any hour that she pleases by the law of this country, but by the law of her faith, she may not eat that nor work then. I do not insist that she break with her faith; she does not insist that I comply with hers. Of courtesy for her, I would probably refrain from eating a bacon cheeseburger in her presence, but that is my social choice. Of courtesy for her, I would probably ask if there were any task that she wishes could be done on the Sabbath; this is also a social choice.
Social law, courtesy/politeness/custom, is the lubricant that fills the gaps between secular and religious law, and laws from differing religions. If I were to choose permanent religious and legal partnership with another person, I would have a legally recognized officer of legal marriage of our choice do up the papers, with us and witnesses of our choice. We would likely have at least one religious ceremony, possibly two, especially if we come from different religious backgrounds. By preference, we might not have particularly many guests at either the legal or the religious ceremonies. We would probably have a relatively good-sized social ceremony, with friends and family invited. I would not ask fictional Great-Uncle Morton to watch someone tie our wrists together and then watch us jump over a broomstick or a fire (though I might invite Great-Aunt Gillian); and I have a few friends who I suspect would be glad to avoid any ceremony that takes place in a building with lots of stained glass and crosses. I would happily ask Great-Uncle Morton to join us for cake and punch and dancing, and I'd probably make sure that there was a version of the goodies he could have, what with his diabetes and all, and I would try to make sure that he was seated well away from the slashgrrls.
One reason I suspect that the government is reluctant to endorse a union between more than two people at a time is because, in case of dissolution, the red tape of whose stuff is whose is going to be a bloody nightmare, and I don't blame them at all for that. It's bad enough with just two.
Honestly, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Separate but equal does not work for different people; separate but kind of similar does work for church and state.
Call it "marriage" for church, if you want. My nominal faith will probably call it "handfasting". Call it "Legal Union" if you want it recognized by the government.
It's what we computer people call "overloaded": the same word is used to mean different things depending on context. It's elegant to overload a function when it's very clear by the inputs what the overloaded function is going to do (I believe that a common one is to use the "+" sign to both add and concatenate, so numerical 2 + 2 = 4, but character "two" + "two" = "twotwo") but it's the mark of a fucking kludge when the user has to spend half an hour sorting out with the support people exactly what they're putting in and expecting to get out, and it's non-obvious what's going wrong unless you're leaning over the user's shoulder and watching their keystrokes and know what's going on inside that fucking black box.
"Marriage" is currently used to mean:
- the package of legal rights and responsibilities for a legally wedded committed partnership
- the package of legal rights and responsibilties for a common-law committed partnership (in states that support that)
- the package of social expectations that go along with socially acknowledged committed partnership
- the package of religious rights and responsibilites that go with a religously-sanctioned committed partnership
No one should question the right of any given person or religious organization to deny their personal religious support to same-sex committed partnerships; this is up to the individual or group's intrepretation of their holy texts (if applicable) and their relationship(s) with their deit[y/ies] (if applicable). So long as their approval or lack of same does not break any laws (stoning to death is legally frowned on; public nudity is also often legally frowned on in certain areas), what a religious person or group has to say about any practice in religious context is up to them.
The right of members of society to deny their social support to committed same-sex partnerships may be soundly booed and razzed, but it should be a protected right. My fictional conservative Great-Uncle Morton is not legally obligated to attend my wedding to another woman with a smile and a gift, nor is he obligated to look upon me kindly when writing up the distribution of his material possessions after his departure via death. (My fictional doting Great-Aunt Gillian may socially force him to attend the ceremony and may make compensatory provisions in her own will, but that's another story.)
The legal position of a couple who has established a tradition of sharing housing and other resources, but have not gotten joined via paperwork is an iffy one. Some areas support joining them legally, automatically, after a certain term, or after certain informal criteria have been fulfilled (I am thinking specifically of something I heard, that if you sign into a hotel as married partners, if you weren't before, you become so). Other areas do not. This is the form of marriage I know least about.
Finally, we have the legal committed partnership, which joins together land, money, and other possessions, makes the partners legal next of kin to each other, makes automatic arrangments for custody of children (if any) in case of death, and so on and so forth. Hospital visitation. Inheritance without penalty. Often, insurance coverage. This is the bundle of legal rights and responsibilities that opposite-sex couples have if they wish to pursue it (barring any legal barriers from obtaining same, such as a previously existing exclusive contract of the same sort, or financial barriers such that if the couple were legally joined, their finances would be flushed down the same crapper) and that same-sex couples wish to have easy access to. An opposite-sex couple can sign paperwork, and have the process over with on a drunken impulse while visiting Vegas. There is nothing of the sacred, and much of the legal and binding, about the government-endorsed act of marriage. The only sacred that happens is if the participants wish there to be some, in which case it is covered by the separate religious meaning of the thing.
Corporate entities (insurance companies, banks, and their ilk) tend to observe legal contracts such as legally recognized marriage and domestic partnership, but ignore social and religious bonds. My ex-fiance BJ and I were religiously married, but never legally married. When making full accounting of my liabilities to a spiritual partner, I must include my breaking of/release from a spiritually binding marriage, but the Federal Application For Student Aid could care less, unless there was paperwork signed to start the marriage, and divorce or anulment papers signed to end it.
By all means, if marriage is an important religious sacrament to you, insist that government get their paws out of it. Insist that if your children are to have their union blessed and recognized by you, that they must, in addition to the legal paperwork, have a religious ceremony in an establishment of religion of your choice. Feel free to extend or deny religious marriage to anyone you and your establishment of religion choose to.
It's your choice, and that's one of the fundamental freedoms of this country, that if I'm not of your religion nor affected by it, then I have no say in the internal rules save that they follow the laws of the country (not harming innocents, not formulating weapons of mass destruction, not forging currency or stamps, et cetera). Likewise, religious groups must accept that their laws are not the laws of the country, and that to keep their law in addition to the country's laws, they must instruct their people in their own rules and not ask that others not of their faith follow their rules.
I am allowed to eat bacon cheeseburgers and work after sunset Friday nights and all day Saturday. By the rules of this country, I may, and by the rules of my faith, I may.
mamadeb is allowed to eat what she pleases and work any hour that she pleases by the law of this country, but by the law of her faith, she may not eat that nor work then. I do not insist that she break with her faith; she does not insist that I comply with hers. Of courtesy for her, I would probably refrain from eating a bacon cheeseburger in her presence, but that is my social choice. Of courtesy for her, I would probably ask if there were any task that she wishes could be done on the Sabbath; this is also a social choice. Social law, courtesy/politeness/custom, is the lubricant that fills the gaps between secular and religious law, and laws from differing religions. If I were to choose permanent religious and legal partnership with another person, I would have a legally recognized officer of legal marriage of our choice do up the papers, with us and witnesses of our choice. We would likely have at least one religious ceremony, possibly two, especially if we come from different religious backgrounds. By preference, we might not have particularly many guests at either the legal or the religious ceremonies. We would probably have a relatively good-sized social ceremony, with friends and family invited. I would not ask fictional Great-Uncle Morton to watch someone tie our wrists together and then watch us jump over a broomstick or a fire (though I might invite Great-Aunt Gillian); and I have a few friends who I suspect would be glad to avoid any ceremony that takes place in a building with lots of stained glass and crosses. I would happily ask Great-Uncle Morton to join us for cake and punch and dancing, and I'd probably make sure that there was a version of the goodies he could have, what with his diabetes and all, and I would try to make sure that he was seated well away from the slashgrrls.
One reason I suspect that the government is reluctant to endorse a union between more than two people at a time is because, in case of dissolution, the red tape of whose stuff is whose is going to be a bloody nightmare, and I don't blame them at all for that. It's bad enough with just two.
no subject
There really is very little legal incentive for marriage here, which means that people in general only marry when they're really sure they'll stay together. (My parents got married when I was nine.) Some furrin idjots make a big deal about the number of children born out of wedlock in Sweden, but they haven't understood a thing. (Besides, ever since the government started regulating this marriage business, a kid has not been a bastard if his parents are married, whether or not they were at his birth.)
Re:
no subject
Re:
Though I don't feel particularly concise this morning.
no subject
I used to take this position, but now I'm of the opinion that it's just a sop to the religious fanatics who want to define the word "marriage" to suit themselves.
Re:
no subject
I consider "true marriage" to be the state of representing the relationship to everyone as a marriage, because I think that's the most important descriptor. Religious marriages are often, but not always (I don't remember knowing that you religious-married BJ at the time, for instance) true marriages by my lights, but there are many other sorts of true marriages, like mine. I think civil marriage should follow true marriage more closely, because the government perks and conveniences provided in civil marriage are largely supposed to go along with longterm, important, committed relationships. Also because I'm an idealist.
As I understand it, de facto/common law civil marriage laws are intended to cover one of two cases: 1) A and B have been together for decades and share everything and all, but haven't gotten around to doing paperwork. Everyone knows they're a family; the law is just catching up. 2) A and B (and sometimes C, etc.) are trying to make an end-run around the marriage laws. I'd heard that some states had the hotel rule, and that it was to deter people who snuck off to have affairs, because such people would often sign in as Mr. and Mrs. John Doe so the desk clerk would let them.
Polygamy would be hell on divorce law and also hell on tax law. It would be nice if laws less explicitly prevented it and polyamory, but I think a lot of the anti-bigamy/anti-"cheating" laws are intended to prevent real cheating, with affection or sex or money. I think that A shouldn't be allowed to marry C if A's already married to B without B's non-forced consent, and since that's a really hard thing to measure ("I'm marrying C anyway; feel free to stick around"?), it makes some amount of sense to just forbid getting anywhere near situations like that. Not necessarily the best solution, but a simple one.
Re:
While we were married, though, we did present ourselves as socially married-waiting-on-the-paperwork-and-ceremony-but-still-married.
One solution to the multiple marriage only with consent thing might be to make sure that if B and C want to get married without A's consent where A and B are already married, unless there is A's witnessed signature to B and C's marriage contract (or, alternately, A allowing C to sign on to the existing marriage contract, like allowing another party to sign on to a lease) then if B and C go ahead with it without A's consent, then either it wouldn't happen, or there would be divorce proceedings automatically put in motion between A and B, with favor going to A, and the finalization of B and C's marriage not happening until the divorce proceedings are cleared up.
no subject
That said, there are any number of ways to define the rights, responsibilities, prerogatives, obligations, and legalities between parents and children -- many of which are defined differently depending on jurisdiction and purpose. A "child" may be an person of twenty-five
years of age, for the purposes of federal income tax deduction, provided said "child" is enrolled as a full-time student in an accredited college or university. That same person may NOT qualify as a child under STATE income tax rules, depending on the state, if the state HAS income taxes, which not all do. A "child" of 15 years of age might marry only with parental consent in one state, but marry freely in an adjacent state; a situation which has historically led to patterns of elopement. A "child" of 17 may not buy tobacco, but a "child" of 20 may, although even he may still not buy alcohol. A victim of gun-related homicide is a "child" if 16 or fewer years of age, but a victim of auto accident is a "child" only if he's under 12. As far as I know, there is no need and no political movement agitating for a "defense of children" constitutional amendment which federalizes all such questions -- imposing one law, and one court of adjudication, upon all persons in relationships which might be called parent-and-child. We live, however comfortably, with ambiguity.
And we live with the risk that the ambiguity will bite us, from time to time, as we move between jurisdictions. Ah "adult driver" of 14 years of age, who moves from Kansas to New York, must suffer the demotion to "child" -- unable to drive -- if ever he moves. A "child laborer" enjoys legal protections in urban workplaces which are not imposed upon agricultural sites. An illegitimate "child" may lose claim on his father's probated estate, if that parent legally changed residence to a state which defines the claimnants based on acknowledged paternity.
I see no particular reason that the family court decisions of Boston or San Francisco impose any unusual burden upon the courts of Topeka or Des Moines -- particularly when the laws and constitutions of the states involved are so distinctly different.
Re:
Re: