Beleth,
I think I am guilty of bad grammar. In some cases where I say, "when you say", or similar phrasing, I should have said, "when someone says". In most cases, my last posting wasn't referring to your comments, but to general arguments about marriage that are frequently made.
I also talked about government interest in "unions", by which I meant a non-specific word that could be used when two (or more) people get together and decide that their lives will be related for a while, or longer. It's a personal decision. This is distinct from "civil union", which is a legal arrangement that exists in some places, and which is proposed in others. In this case, my grammar was correct, but it would be easy to misunderstand and confuse my generic "union" with "civil union".
So, to restate my opinions, society has historically played a heavy role in deciding when people can legally have sex, what they need to do with, for, and to each other in order to have sex, and what they have to do if they want to stop having sex. And they've extended these things to sharing a domicile between a man and a woman, because they figured any two such individuals sharing a domicile were probably having sex. Society has enforced its ability to play that role through societal institutions of church and government.
Today, most members of society reject the idea that the government ought to be involved with regulating how we have sex, and most members of our society reject the idea that government and religion should be intertwined. And with respect to those ideas, I am part of most members of society. Government should, in my opinion, stay out of sex and religion.
But there is one problem. Babies. Sex still causes babies. And babies are still helpless. Someone has to look out for the babies, and not just the babies, but the children.
And there is another problem, closely related. It turns out that approximately 50% of the population is totally incapable of having babies, while almost 50% of the population is pretty good at it. The latest scientific evidence suggests a strong correlation with gender. This wouldn't be a problem, but having and raising babies is a very energy intensive activity, and females bear the brunt of this responsibility in our society, and every other society, too. This has economic consequences.
So the government, which exists to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, might have to become involved in two people's relationship, or union, for a couple of reasons. First, the union of two people sometimes produces a third person, or more, and those people need someone to protect their rights. Second, the activities associated with the production and maintenance of those third people often result in an economic disadvantage for one partner in the union, usually the woman, and so government occaisionally has to intervene to protect the rights of the aggrieved party in the event of a dissolution of the union. When Harry tells Sally that it's all over, Sally should have an opportunity to enforce penalties against Harry.
To protect those rights, I believe we, as a society, need an institution which has, for some time now, gone by the name of "marriage".
With that in mind, here are my responses to your comments.
Whoa whoa whoa. I don't think anyone has said that they want government intervention in a civil union!
When you (and in this case I mean you) say that peoples' tax rates change when they pay their five bucks, you are saying that government should intervene in their union. Their legal obligations toward each other and toward society change as a result of their entering into any legal union recognized by the state, be it "civil union" or "marriage". That, by definition, is government intervention.
A child is not an asset.
I fully agree. Sadly, though, in divorce, children are often treated like property, and to some extent, this is inevitable. My point was that some people say that people ought to just be able to leave each other when they no longer love each other. Divide up the stuff, and say goodbye. Easy, yes?
But children can't be divided.
The government needs to consider what is best for a child, which is different than what it needs to do for a divestiture, but exerting pressure for the parents to stay together must remain out of the scope of what a government is allowed to do to interfere with a civil union.
Why? Do you believe that it is never in the best interests of the child? Or do you believe the interests of the parents outweigh the interests of the child?
I don't believe either one. I think there are sometimes when it is in the best interest of the child for two people to remain together, even if that isn't what they would choose for themselves, and I think government can, and should, use influence to try to bring about that end. I don't think they should force someone to stay in a marriage they hate. However, I don't see anything wrong with imposing a severe economic penalty on the partner who wishes to be released from marriage obligations, or against a partner who, by his or her actions, has not fulfilled his obligations.
In practice, this means that if he wants to run off with the younger woman, he can, but leave the car keys on the counter. He can keep the house keys, because she's having the locks changed anyway. And don't forget the child support and alimony checks. Likewise, if he beats her, he isn't fulfilling his obligations as a husband, so she can throw him out and still keep the house, car, and kids. Of course, the same obligations exist for wives, but let's be real. The ways in which women fail to fulfill their spousal obligations are, in most cases, different from the ways in which men fail.
I think you are wrong, and I think you have the entirely wrong idea of what the government's role in a marriage (civil union) should be. I can expound upon this in a future post, if you'd like, if I have not made my opinion clear in this one.
You've made your opinion clear, but I don't understand the reasoning. I believe that marriage can protect the rights of children, and frequently of men and women as well. To do that, it has to look a lot like what we call "marriage" today. I can explain more fully if you are interested.
Why do you think government should have any role at all in defining a marriage (civil union), and how should that role be enforced?
