Beyond Marriage

[EverChanging]

I have become captivated with the possibilities of going beyond marriage in our legal system to accomodate various family structures, including polyamorous family structures and even families consisting of non-conjugal partners. Some ideas about how diverse families can be accomodated can be found at this link. Thoughts?

 

[EverChanging]

Further thoughts....I am gay, and our civil rights are so important to me. Same-sex marriage is also important to the transgendered and intersex communities -- intersex infants surgically assigned a gender are sometimes assigned the wrong gender. Therefore, an intersex child who has been assigned a female sex may grow up with a male gender identity and have a heterosexual orientation (gender identity is innate, according to the evidence.) That male (legal female) would be denied marriage to his partner.

But even after same-sex marriage goes through, and I think it will in America within the next ten years, I don't know that I will ever marry until all families can be accomodated.

 

[Nanda]

I'm all for it. We're polyamorous, and while both of my male partners live in my household, only one of them has any legal connection to me, and that's not only incredibly sad, but horribly inconvenient.

 

[EverChanging]

Nanda, do you think atheists and humanists will be more likely to support the cause in general than other groups?

By the way, I am single, but I have felt love for more than one person. I am in love with my best friend, who I also believe has feelings for me, but they are of a non-sexual nature. Yet I do feel in love, and I couldn't see that love diminishing, even if I did fall in love with another man with which I did have a sexual relationship.

 

[Nanda]

Hm. Probably. Staunch supporters of "traditional marriage" are likely to balk at the idea of moving beyond it.

 

[TheKnight]

I find marriage to be...something the State should have no involvement in. That, so I have found, is the root problem in all debates concerning marriage between people of any view.

The State has turned marriage into a legal contract which affords those involved certain rights, privileges, and amenities that those who aren't in that sort of contract don't get to have. Then the State makes the mistake of limiting the parameters of that contract to those as defined by particular religious standards.

I say, allow anyone the right to enter that State contract of rights, privileges, and amenities, and leave marriage to the various religions to form/recognize etc etc etc.

I wonder how many people would marry if it didn't come with all sorts of benefits? My guess is that few would.

 

[EverChanging]

The State has turned marriage into a legal contract which affords those involved certain rights, privileges, and amenities that those who aren't in that sort of contract don't get to have. Then the State makes the mistake of limiting the parameters of that contract to those as defined by particular religious standards.

I say, allow anyone the right to enter that State contract of rights, privileges, and amenities, and leave marriage to the various religions to form/recognize etc etc etc.

I agree. Churches could bless and define marriages as they wish, yet polyamorists, polygamists, adult children living with parents, non-conjugal partners, extended families who care for one another, etc. could all receive legal benefits. No family structure would be preferred above another, and marriage, a subject often entangled with religion despite the supposedly secular nature of civil marriage, could be left to churches.

 

[TheKnight]

I agree. Churches could bless and define marriages as they wish, yet polyamorists, polygamists, adult children living with parents, non-conjugal partners, extended families who care for one another, etc. could all receive legal benefits. No family structure would be preferred above another, and marriage, a subject often entangled with religion despite the supposedly secular nature of civil marriage, could be left to churches.

Yep. If they ever come up with legislation for that, I'm certain it would be passed with little to no opposition.

 

[rolexbenz190e]

Beyond marriage, beyond me

 

[rolexbenz190e]

oh, i forgot... marriage is ok sometimes

 

[rolexbenz190e]

Ok ok.... MOST of the time lol

 

[blackout]

I agree. Churches could bless and define marriages as they wish, yet polyamorists, polygamists, adult children living with parents, non-conjugal partners, extended families who care for one another, etc. could all receive legal benefits. No family structure would be preferred above another, and marriage, a subject often entangled with religion despite the supposedly secular nature of civil marriage, could be left to churches.

This to me seems like the obvious and best way to handle the whole matter.

(I would just add that "marriage" would best be left to both churches AND/or the individuals involved.)

Great thread.

 

[EverChanging]

Any ideas on how this would affect treaties involving recognition of marriage and how that could be settled? I suppose this question is relevant even in today's political climate regarding same-sex marriages.

 

[Elessar]

As I always have said, and I will continue to say:

Marriage is a politically and religiously charged term. If people want to say they're "married", that is their business. It is not the business of the state to say who is and who is not married.

The state, meaning the government, should issue certifications of civil union to any two or more consenting adults. Let the various religious organizations decide whether they consider a specific relationship to be a marriage or not.

I mean, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, today, doesn't recognize second marriage after divorce. It is not your right to have the RCC recognize your marriage. It should, however, be your right to enter into a contract of civil union with any person or persons you desire, of course, assuming them and you to be consenting adults

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'd love to see marriage opened up beyond the male/female dichotomy! Why not? It's a commitment of love; a sharing of lives.