Comments on: The race to marriage http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/06/18/the-race-to-marriage/ Secularism, religion, and the public sphere Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:17:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Barbara R. Bergmann http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/06/18/the-race-to-marriage/#comment-2836 Barbara R. Bergmann Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:34:37 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=264#comment-2836 The polygamist groups that have been in the news have been accused of forcing very young girls to marry older men, and forcing out young men so that girls might be available to the older men to take for multiple brides. That suggests that bad things result from polygamy, and argues for it being banned. Or perhaps these bad things happen because the law does not allow polygamy, and so these groups are cut off from contact with the larger society, giving great power to the male leaders. I think the racial issue is somewhat beside the point. The polygamist groups that have been in the news have been accused of forcing very young girls to marry older men, and forcing out young men so that girls might be available to the older men to take for multiple brides. That suggests that bad things result from polygamy, and argues for it being banned. Or perhaps these bad things happen because the law does not allow polygamy, and so these groups are cut off from contact with the larger society, giving great power to the male leaders. I think the racial issue is somewhat beside the point.

]]> By: Aeyal Gross http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/06/18/the-race-to-marriage/#comment-2813 Aeyal Gross Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:09:14 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=264#comment-2813 Great post. I tend to agree that the abolition of marriage as a state institution is the only path to equality, as marriage, even if expanded to same-sex couples, is still exclusionary of many. Still, many questions will remain, such as whether we really want "deregulation," the question of bigamy, and the status of women, etc., etc. Great post. I tend to agree that the abolition of marriage as a state institution is the only path to equality, as marriage, even if expanded to same-sex couples, is still exclusionary of many. Still, many questions will remain, such as whether we really want “deregulation,” the question of bigamy, and the status of women, etc., etc.

]]> By: Curtis Sarles http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/06/18/the-race-to-marriage/#comment-2808 Curtis Sarles Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:45:20 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=264#comment-2808 This is a well-argued and compelling critique of state favoritism of particular family forms. You end up making the very radical (and I think sensible) moral claim that "Sexual and gender justice require getting the state out of the marriage business altogether, returning marriage to the province of diverse religious and secular communities." ... thus supporting the notion that "we could protect far more individuals and families if we divested marriage of its unique legal status and awarded rights, benefits and obligations to the multitude of relations of care that currently exist in our society." This seems to imply that, in a just society, the government would not grant marriage licenses, would not inquire about our marital status when we pay our taxes or request licenses, and would generally not interfere with our consenting family arrangements. If this is indeed what you are arguing, I agree with it, but I don't see it happening any time soon. As it is, most public dialogue on marriage focuses on whether groups who have historically been denied the right to marry should be granted this right. Some couples have newly gained the right to marry, while others face a legal backlash in response to public attention to this subject. The notion of repealing marriage laws more generally is usually not on the table, though innovators can and should change this. In the mean time, calls for the general repealment of marriage are in the same category as calls for the general repealment of licenses for medical doctors: maybe a good idea, but not likely to happen any time soon. Do you agree with this appraisal of the current political climate? Do you think there are any less radical measures that could honor existing relations of care? This is a well-argued and compelling critique of state favoritism of particular family forms. You end up making the very radical (and I think sensible) moral claim that “Sexual and gender justice require getting the state out of the marriage business altogether, returning marriage to the province of diverse religious and secular communities.” … thus supporting the notion that “we could protect far more individuals and families if we divested marriage of its unique legal status and awarded rights, benefits and obligations to the multitude of relations of care that currently exist in our society.”

This seems to imply that, in a just society, the government would not grant marriage licenses, would not inquire about our marital status when we pay our taxes or request licenses, and would generally not interfere with our consenting family arrangements. If this is indeed what you are arguing, I agree with it, but I don’t see it happening any time soon.

As it is, most public dialogue on marriage focuses on whether groups who have historically been denied the right to marry should be granted this right. Some couples have newly gained the right to marry, while others face a legal backlash in response to public attention to this subject. The notion of repealing marriage laws more generally is usually not on the table, though innovators can and should change this.

In the mean time, calls for the general repealment of marriage are in the same category as calls for the general repealment of licenses for medical doctors: maybe a good idea, but not likely to happen any time soon.

Do you agree with this appraisal of the current political climate? Do you think there are any less radical measures that could honor existing relations of care?

]]>