News-Record.com

If private affection is the only true reason for marriage, why bother with all those silly inheritances, insurance beneficiaries and other ramifications? I would like to see heterosexual marriages no longer "legally" recognized, just to put everyone on the same playing field financially, etc. Think that would ever happen? No way. It's more than a sacred cow; it's about favorable treatment for a certain sexual orientation (and some would argue race and class---many young black women today do not prefer to marry, ever). "Show me the hegemony!"

Why should government give ANY chosen adult, uncoerced relationship its imprimatur? Get the courts and the legislatures out of the matchmaker biz. Don't tell me it's for ensuring propagation of the population (hence, the tax base); the states sanction marriage between infertile couples, young and old.

As for Cheney, he's as cagey as they come. He loves his daughter, no doubt, but he has been inviting a lot of hair-splitting for a bald guy.

"I would like to see heterosexual marriages no longer "legally" recognized, just to put everyone on the same playing field financially, etc."

Sounds good to me. That means the end of spousal group insurance, community property, alimoney, and, just maybe, child support. It would also require a total re-write of the tax system, Social Security, and......well, you get the idea, don't you?

Doug, problem is, this discussion isn't being framed the way you present. It's being framed as protecting the institution of marriage.
That's a patently illogical and disingenuous argument.

Simple solution: have governments reposition the financial safety net and tax system under not "marriage", which is a religious entity, but to support civil unions between consenting adults, the age of consent determined by each state, as it is today. I would not be opposed at all to making it strictly limited to monogamous relationships.

One problem would be how to deal with The Defense of Marriage Act. Could it be rewritten as a "Civil Unions Act" to still allow each state to disregard the arrangement made in another state, as it does now, but not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for these proposed civil unions?

Would you have a problem with this, Mr. Clark? If Mr. Cheney feels everyone should be "free to enter any kind of relationship", does this include freedom to enter a tax-favored, finiancially-secure one using a federally- or state-recognized civil union/contract? Right now, that is one kind of relationship denied gays and lesbians in almost every state.

It's hardly illogical to preserve the institution of marriage as it has traditionally been defined if one sees value in it -- as, of course, human society has for thousands of years. Somehow, in the last few years, it's suddenly presented as logical, even morally urgent, to redefine marriage to allow same-sex unions.

At that point, one should follow a logical progression to try to envision where matters might lead next. Polygamy is on the radar screen in Canada. What sense does it make to prohibit the marriage of close relatives, especially when children aren't part of the equation? If you can make an argument for elimination of any restrictions on marriage, perhaps marriage has lost its meaning and therefore its value as a social institution. In those circumstances, "defense of marriage" is neither illogical nor disingenuous for social conservatives. In fact, it's disingenuous for social progressives to suggest that redefining marriage will stop at same-sex couples.

The institution (?) you want to preserve is a living, slowly and yet constantly renegotiated set of social contracts. It is not an absolute reality. Not long ago (historically), within heterosexual unions among white settlers/citizens on this continent, men were given full power, women very little freedom. Divorce was illegal for a long, long time. Property was apportioned and handed down in patently discriminatory fashion. All these points of "traditional marriage" have been restructured. So which part of the tradition is beyond renegotiation and why?

Social contracts are renegotiated by each society as it sees fit. The labels of "traditon" and "naturalness" are used rhetorically to gain the upper hand by the powers-that-be. Minorities and the less-powerful have every right to attempt to challenge and gain acceptance for revisions.

When you champion "marriage as it has traditionally been defined" in "human society... for thousands of years", you choose to ignore a number of "valued" human societies for whom non-heterosexual unions (with ceremonial rites, if not necessarily called "marriage" always), such as the Athenians had, were considered extremely important; polygamous unions, such as were found in Asia and some Islamic cultures, not to mention on U.S. soil; and various kinds of mulitple pairings in Native cultures.

Your circle of "human society" seems to be rather limited. Or have we added more of greater import to the human mind than the Greeks? They obviously had terrible lapses, but I would not want to pre-judge our hyper-capitalist society as infinitely more important to history in advance of what future generations will find to criticize it for.

Because differing groups wish to renegotiate parts of the social contracts that guide our society, doesn't mean one "has to" allow for "all" permutations of civil unions or marriages; it is an ongoing process and societies make their choices, including what will be considered "taboo". These taboos serve to maintain order and power relations. They are necessary, and all societies have them. What we are doing today is reconsidering which taboos we want, which are necessary, and who will bear the burden. There has never been, nor will there ever be, complete and universal human freedom.