...but apparently you can be extra-married. Will Baude thinks covenant marriage is legally OK but that there's something icky about it, and, while I have no legal expertise, I'd have to say I agree with him. But what I don't totally understand (from a social, not legal, perspective) is how covenant marriage can exist without making regular marriage start to seem flaky, to say nothing of civil unions, which, under the new framework, start to look a bit like agreements to be dates to a junior high school dance. Ideally, if marriage has to be written into law at all, there'd be just one thing, called marriage, and couples could define it as they see fit, and take it as seriously as they'd like within the bounds of the contract. If covenant marriage takes off, heterosexual couples who choose marriage over covenant marriage will start to seem unsure about the commitment they're making. Also, if one partner wants a marriage and the other would prefer a covenant, that could potentially be a large but otherwise avoidable source of conflict.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"If covenant marriage takes off, heterosexual couples who choose marriage over covenant marriage will start to seem unsure about the commitment they're making."
Um, well yes. People getting married make all sorts of promises to one another. You're right that it would seem odd to say those words in front of the cameras and the well groomed wedding guests, while simultaneously refusing to act in way that implies that you're actually, you know, serious about the whole affair. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing though.
"Also, if one partner wants a marriage and the other would prefer a covenant, that could potentially be a large but otherwise avoidable source of conflict."
Again true. But if two people are about to be married and they disagree about what the marriage vows mean on such a fundamental level, perhaps they should not get married. Regardless of whether or not a deposit has already been made on the $1000 wedding cake.
I was going to write almost exactly what the previous commenter wrote, but I'll add some things.
"But what I don't totally understand (from a social, not legal, perspective) is how covenant marriage can exist without making regular marriage start to seem flaky, to say nothing of civil unions, which, under the new framework, start to look a bit like agreements to be dates to a junior high school dance."
That is, of course, sort of the point of covenant marriage. When marriages can be terminated for no particular reason (like in no-fault divorces), many people see them as just glorified prom dates (a little more than the junior high date, I think). So covenant marriage provides a way to make them more than that and to encourage others to do so as well.
"Ideally, if marriage has to be written into law at all, there'd be just one thing, called marriage, and couples could define it as they see fit, and take it as seriously as they'd like within the bounds of the contract."
I don't buy into this "ideal" (it strikes me as a very libertarian ideal). It seems to me that if marriage is to be written into law, then couples should not be able to "define it as they see fit" because by the very nature of involving society in it you are accepting society's limitations on what marriage is. You can't have it legitimately be legalized and still say that marriage is just between two people (see here for that).
In my wise middle age, I have become a libertarian when it comes to marriage. For this I thank my own experience of marriage and divorce as well as the fight of gays and lesbians for the rights (and responsibilities) of marriage/ civil union. I now believe that the government should get out of the business of marriage entirely, and stop perpetuating the sham that there was ever a so-called traditional marriage. Marriage began as a way for males/ families to maintain property and until recently kept women subservient and poor. As long as marriage exists, divorce -- easily available -- must exist for the protection of women and their children. And when the rearing of children is not an issue, marriage is unnecessary. A committed relationship does not need the contract; and contract won't make a relationship a true commitment. --JM
Is there no such thing as divorce for the protection of men?
Post a Comment