The notion that the government could or should license of a family was foreign to Americans in the 18th century — at least, not as we know it today. Government recognized marriage, of course. But granting permission through licensure was anathema to the liberty-loving founders of our nation.

So how were they married?

George and Martha entered into a legally binding oral contract in the presence of witnesses. While other recognized the Washington’s marriage contract, and some were affected by it (Martha’s children, for example), none were forced to participate in the actual contract.

The Washington’s chose a religious ceremony. They also chose to be married, not in a church, but in Martha’s home.

When were marriage licenses first issued?

I’ve not been able to find the first instance of a marriage license being issued in the United States. However, they were in use by the mid-19th century; probably earlier.

Some suggest the first marriage licenses were issued in states where inter-racial unions were outlawed. The license represented the government’s permission for a couple to circumvent prevailing laws regarding miscegenation.

Marriage licensure has become so ingrained in our culture that most view it as essential to legitimize a marriage. However, had the government simply stayed out of marriage, such issues a gay marriage would be moot. The current dispute over legislation, such as SJR-7, would not be an issue.

Rendering to Caesar

Evangelicals frequently refer to the biblical passage in which Jesus taught that we should render to Caesar (government) that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s. To evangelicals who embrace this teaching, I would ask: Does your family belong to Caesar or to God?

I find it strangely inconsistent that most Christians would balk at government licensing parents’ right to have children, but support licensing one’s right to have a spouse.

What about gay marriage?

If two same-gendered people decide to enter into a verbal contract, there’s nothing to stop them. If they wish to enter into their contract with a ceremony, including witnesses, no law prohibits them from doing so. If they wish to fancy themselves “married,” they currently have that right.

So what’s the fuss over issuing licenses to same gendered couples? Licensing forces the rest of us to participate in the contact. It is wrong for the government to force me to recognize a gay marriage.

What about polygamous marriage?

Polygamous relationships — if understood as mutliple sex partners — is far more prevalent than homosexuality. Multiple partners are common among young people. Some engage in multiple partnerships simultaneously. Other engage in serial partnerships — one at a time. What makes this form of polygamy different from official government licensed polygamy? The commitment to the relationship may be less in unlicensed, de facto polygamous relationships. But the core objection to polygamy — multiple partners — remains.

Forced families

When the government foces us to recognize homosexual marriages through licensure, it will also force us to recognize polygamous marriages. Such is the case in Canada where laws deemed efficient to permit gay marriage is prohibiting the government from enforcing laws that ban polygamy.

Original at - http://endiana.blogspot.com/2007/10/government-should-stay-out-of-marriage.html

See http://kumogakure.blogspot.com/2007/10/state-marriage.html

The new bride had her attorney send a letter saying she’d cancelled her wedding. She asked her ex-husband for a lump sum buyout? She was told to get lost.

She did get married again (Dec. 23, 2006). Her wedding was performed by an Orthodox rabbi (a cousin of the groom) who holds an endowed Talmud chair at Yeshiva University. The couple did not get a civil marriage license.

The rabbi admitted he married them without a marriage license. He didn’t understand why this was a problem.

He was told that $11,000 in alimony had been sucked out that very day by the new bride. The rabbi said he was appalled.

Eventually, the bride returned all alimony paid since she was Jewishly married until she got a civil marriage three weeks later (so they could avoid paying the marriage penalty in tax, which the rabbi thought was OK).

The man who runs the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), Basil Herring, was informed about the situation. He was expected to investigate the situation, give the officiating rabbi a reprimand, and tell other rabbis that this is not acceptable.

There’s a guy in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who’s still paying alimony to his ex-wife after she’s gotten a religious but not civil marriage and the community has circled the wagons around her.

At least one of the Yale Five got out of the university’s requirement to live on campus by getting a civil marriage months before the religious one.

I’ve heard stories about kids at Yeshiva University and Stern College getting married young religiously but not getting civil marriage licenses so they can stay on their parents health insurance.

I’ve heard stories about kollel students who are married with kids but they’re not married civilly so their wives can collect welfare as single parents with kids.

Rabbi Herring reported back to the complaining couple that he spoke to the officiating rabbi and the rabbi only had good intentions and that was the end of it.

The correspondence with Rabbi Herring was shown to a leader at JTS who responded that Rabbi Herring had to be crazy to sweep this under the rug. It would’ve been easy to give the officiating rabbi a reprimand and to make a policy statement about abiding by the law of the land.

Rabbi Herring won’t make any such policy statement and when pushed about it he got really nasty.

I bet that when Rabbi Steven Weil takes over the RCA, he will handle such matters differently.

“It’s a terrible thing for the Jews to manipulate the system this way,” says a source.

“The [officiating] rabbi is the gatekeeper for the state,” says another source. “He committed a crime by doing this.

“It’s like telling the policeman when you get stopped, ‘I’m going to take the driving test next week.’ The rabbi committed a crime. It’s not a victimless crime. It cost me money in legal fees and a private investigator. I wouldn’t have had to get a private investigator if I could’ve gotten a copy of a marriage license.”

“I sent the same 24-page letter I sent to Basil Herring to Yeshiva University. This is a guy who teaches people to be rabbis. They blew me off also. They said it’s not academic. It’s not plagiarism or forgery. We’ll let the RCA deal with it.”

“If Rabbi Herring had told me that ‘We discussed it, we put a letter in his folder and we put an item in the newsletter,’ he could’ve shut me up in two seconds. Instead he told me, in effect, to go jump in the lake.”

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=1527

I am amazed that pastors, during the course of a marriage ceremony, have the audacity to utter the words “Now, by the power vested in me by the State of _____, I now pronounce you man and wife.” Insofar as I am aware there is no state in the United States of America that actually requires a pastor obtain a license to preach the gospel. However, many willingly bow the knee to Baal in every area of their ministry; hence it is not surprising, although it is heartbreaking, that pastors willingly surrender the sacred covenant of marriage to the state in which they pastor. It is a sad commentary on just how far the church has been willing to compromise and capitulate in matters regarding rendering unto Caesar and forgetting that God is due allegiance first and foremost.

In order for you to completely understand the sin of surrendering the God-ordained and instituted act of marriage (and that marriage is a God-given right) it is needful for you to understand the legal ramifications of entering into a license agreement with the state and further the history of marriage licenses in America.

To understand the full impact of obtaining a marriage license one must understand the definition of the word license. Black’s Law Dictionary defines license as “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission would be illegal.” A more expanded definition comes from the Law.com dictionary which states:

What is a “license”?

n. governmental permission to perform a particular act (like getting married), conduct a particular business or occupation, operate machinery or vehicles after proving ability to do so safely, or use property for a certain purpose.

n. the certificate that proves one has been granted authority to do something under governmental license.

n. a private grant of right to use real property for a particular purpose, such as putting on a concert.

n. a private grant of the right to use some intellectual property such as a patent or musical composition.

v. to grant permission by governmental authority or private agreement.

As you can see from the foregoing definitions, the granting of a marriage license by the state carries with it several legal implications and assumptions. First, the government assumes it has the right to regulate and license that which is a God-given right. It does not! Secondly, why on earth would a Bible-believing Christian seek governmental permission to enter into that which God ordained and blessed? When you seek a license, you enter into a contract with the government; thus your marriage becomes a three-sided agreement–you, your spouse and the state–thereby leaving very little room for God in the equation. By seeking the permission of the state to marry, you are, in essence, implying that marriage is an institution of the state and not of God, which is wrong. The state cannot grant the right to marry; it is a God-given right, and it is a holy and precious thing in His sight. Thirdly, your marriage license extends to the fruit of the marriage (i.e. your children). Your children are a gift and heritage from the Lord and He has instructed YOU to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Nowhere in His instructions for the family did God ever include the government in the rearing of children. There is a great deal of case law that confirms the fact that a marriage license extends to the offspring of the marriage. The license agreement is a contract; and the government will hold you to it at any time they so desire and in arbitrary and capricious manners that defy any notion of fairness and justice.

It is important that we recognize the history of marriage licenses. In colonial America there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license. It was absolutely unheard of. The only requirements in those days was you had to obtain your parents’ permission and had to post a notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony. With rare exceptions the state no longer requires that you have parental permission to get married. In most cases they do not require it for one to have an abortion, but they demand that you seek their permission to marry. Why do you suppose that is?

The license grants control; and our government is ever expanding its tentacles of control. If they control the family, they pretty much control it all.

Many of our founding fathers, including George Washington, were married without a license. From the outset of our country all of the states had laws forbidding interracial marriage. In the mid-1800’s some states began to permit interracial marriage, provided the parties obtained a license from that state. This was a defining moment, as the enactment of laws that granted permission to do that which was otherwise illegal is a cornerstone in our modern-day marriage license disaster.

In reading Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “marriage license” one finds the all too revealing historical perspective of the enactment of the marriage license laws. Blacks contains the original definition of marriage license which is “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” And as a flood begins with one drop of rain, thus the deluge of laws concerning marriage licenses. In 1923, the government established the Uniform Marriage License Act; and by 1929 every state had adopted laws concerning marriage license. And so it goes today.

The government is attempting, quite successfully I might add thanks to pastors and couples who willingly give that which belongs to God to the state by entering into the marriage contract with them, to control and regulate that which is created and ordained by God.

What should we do, you ask? I firmly believe that a marriage license is wrong and that it is a sin to surrender the God-ordained covenant agreement of marriage to the state. I suggest you utilize a marriage covenant or use the family Bible marriage page. Make sure the covenant is signed by the pastor performing the ceremony and two witnesses. If you choose to use your Bible as your record of marriage, make sure it is also signed by the pastor and two witnesses. You can record the covenant at your local courthouse as an official document and, after having obtained a certified copy of the document, you may utilize it to change names on records, etc. There have been incidents of elected officials balking at the thought of recording marriage covenants; but I have yet to find an instance where, when confronted by the law, they refused to comply. I pray you will be obedient to our Lord in the sacred covenant of marriage.

From http://www.tstg.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=142

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.

In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice were very rare.

Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people’s interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America’s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.

Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.

As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.

Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College, is the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

A response to this article is available at - http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/unclear-on-the-marriage-concept/

Although I am not personally an advocate of homosexual relationships, some of those who are support this idea too, as they do not wish their relationships controlled by the government either. Hence various viewpoints, including those antagonistic to these ideas can be found on this online journal, and comments are encouraged so that all opinions can be represented.

Articles are archived according to date, but where there is no date they have been collected here

For a few years now I’ve been thinking about getting married. No, not to anyone in particular, and not in any given time frame - but thinking about marriage and what it means to me. Because I strongly believe in marriage - long-term, come-what-may, monogamous marriage.

Now, for me, marriage has never had anything to do with a church. One of my personal pet peeves is people who never attend church, but then get married there. Or getting married in a church you don’t believe in because of family pressures. We all choose our compromises, I guess. And certainly, many people are religious and connecting their marriage to their church is very important to them. For many people, marriage has a whole heck of a lot to do with their church. Lucky them if they live in a country where they have their religious freedom.

I will never be married in a church.

But for most of my life, I did accept the fact that getting married means a trip to your local marriage licensing department. It always kinda gave me pause, that aspect, but marriage does have legal meaning. Legal benefits. Legal disadvantages even.

I’ve never been one to think “a piece of paper doesn’t mean anything.” It does mean something. Just like the degrees I hold. Yes, I wanted them. They mean something.

So ultimately, should I get married, I would want to “make it legal.”

Except that lately, more and more, month by month, I’ve realized that I have a serious issue with getting legally married in a country that doesn’t allow homosexual people the same rights. Were I to desire to get married today, I know I would look into other options, and I think my future husband would have to be of the same mind.

Because I can get married and have a husband, and in reality, it’s a choice to make it any of the state’s business. Except…

I also know that there are huge disadvantages to not “making it legal,” the biggest of which (I believe) is medical insurance issues. It seems insane not to take advantage of the right that I have as a heterosexual in America - the right to get legally married and be recognized as married.

So I just assumed that I was the only one who was thinking what I’ve been thinking. But I’m not.

I’ve recently met others who feel the same way, and suddenly I wonder, how many of us are there? And I wonder, is there a lawyer out there working on a legal connection package? Power of attorney, etc. There are ways to connect without a marriage license. What can you cover, and what vulnerabilities remain? I’m sure this is something the gay community has explored, but I think there may be a developing heterosexual market here. I’m not a lawyer, so I can only scratch the surface of this thinking. I’m talking about something that everyone can access, so as to easily consider the option and be fully informed.

I’d also love to see a financial analysis of the monetary cost of the “marriage tax” vs. the cost of privately insuring a spouse. Hell, if enough heterosexual people stopped registering their marriages, a market might develop for a spousal health insurance policy and make it more financially reasonable. And it could potentially increase pressure to allow legal marriage between any two people who want to get married.

Freedom. Rights. For me, that’s what America is supposed to be about.

Ultimately, how much do your principles mean? Ultimately, how reasonable is a sacrifice and what level of sacrifice do you choose? I think of it like paying taxes for education. I don’t have children, but I benefit from living in an educated society. I’m not homosexual, but I benefit from living in a country where freedoms and rights aren’t based on gender, race, sexuality, geographic location, occupation, etc.

Movements can be effective. Marches. Lobbying. People coming together to effect change.

Another thing that changes the world: Individual Actions.

Americans marched for racial freedoms and equal rights, but at the same time, people of different races fell in love and got married. Sometimes I wonder which of these is the most powerful.

Sometimes I think it’s what we each do day to day, the little choices, the personal stands, that ultimately change our world.

So on the day that I am fortunate enough to decide to get married, it’s going to matter to me that every American has the same right. If we don’t - all have that right - I don’t think I have it in me to sign that little piece of paper. Because right now, as an American, it simply doesn’t mean what I believe it should mean.

Liz Rizzo - http://blogher.org/node/5810

When the couple discovered their pastor had not officially married them, Fike says he “about hit the floor.”

Rev. Larry Devon Blanton has since been charged with a misdemeanor and the couple has had to arrange a second marriage ceremony, which will take place tomorrow.
“If something would have happened to either of us (the past two years), we couldn’t have proved (we were married),” LeMoyne said.

The marriage ceremony for LeMoyne and Fike was performed on April 17, 2004 by Rev. Blanton of Morgan Chapel Baptist Church. Approximately 200 witnesses were in attendance.

Fike and LeMoyne said after they asked Blanton what paperwork they needed to fill out to be married, such as an application for marriage, Blanton told the couple he would take care of everything. Blanton gave the couple a marriage certificate. They put the certificate away and didn’t think anything about it until almost two years later.

LeMoyne says she became concerned about the legality of their marriage when issues arose at their church, including a change in teachings by Blanton and Blanton’s firing of the church deacons (see story, page .

The couple visited the Polk County Sheriff’s Office earlier this year to see if they were legally married. A Polk County magistrate told the couple they were not legally married. No marriage license was obtained for Fike and LeMoyne and their certificate did not have the language and seal required by the register of deeds. A complaint was made against Blanton.

On Feb. 22 of this year, Blanton, 49, of 432 Harmon Field Road, Tryon, was arrested and charged with solemnization without license unlawful, a class I misdemeanor, according to Lt. Grayson Edwards, with the Polk County Sheriff’s Office.

The law states that, “no minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds in the county in which a marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant,” according to N.C. General Statute 51-6.

Blanton, in a letter to the Bulletin, said that a mistake was made at the sheriff’s office regarding his recent arrest. He said the misdemeanor charge was without merit and he is attempting to clear up the issues. Blanton concluded in his response that he couldn’t comment further as the issue is now in the hands of an attorney.
Officials at the Polk County Sheriff’s Office say there is no mistake, that a warrant was issued and executed on Blanton and he was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor.

LeMoyne and Fike will be legally married tomorrow in a ceremony scheduled for 2 p.m. at the Mill Spring Baptist Church at the intersection of Highways 9 and 108. Rev. Eric Page will perform the service, led by a Polk County magistrate.
Fike and LeMoyne say if nothing else, they want others to be aware so no one else falls victim to the same problems.

LeMoyne says she and Fike are thankful to the Mill Spring Baptist Church officials, who offered the church to the couple, and to the many people in the community who have helped with their situation.

LeMoyne says up to 75 people have been invited to tomorrow’s ceremony and any supporters in the community are also welcomed and invited to attend.

Amongst the responses to this article are these -

Hmm. Doesn’t say anything here about this being a mixed marriage. A marriage license is needed to “make legal” only a mixed marriage, according to Black’s Law Dictionary:

“MARRIAGE LICENSE: A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry, usually addressed to the minister or magistrate who is to perform the ceremony, or, in general terms, to any one authorized to solemnize marriages.”

(An “intermarriage” is between members of different races.)

Wonder if maybe this pastor isn’t smarter than people are giving him credit for…? Or maybe he isn’t a “licensed” minister - just one called by God (imagine that!) - meaning that no statute would apply to him in this matter anyway.

A pastor can’t get a marriage license for a couple, anyway; they have to go do that themselves. So their story that he said he would take care of everything, including all their paperwork, doesn’t wash.

Maybe there’s more “church politics” at play here than meets the eye …

That’s how it looks from here.

At the same time, however, as a personal relationship, the institution has unique, personal importance to those who partake of it. To some it even has deeply felt religious significance.

Thus, there is a mismatch between what is demanded of marriage and what is supplied. It is this imbalance that makes the prospect of same-sex unions a seemingly intractable problem.

Because there is only one legally sanctioned version of marriage, those who personally view homosexuality as a mortal sin (rightly or wrongly) are hostile to the prospect of sharing it with gay couples.

As with many things in life, a free-market solution that offers people choice may provide a solution.

Subject to certain statutory constraints, businesspeople have long been free to form whatever sort of partnership they felt appropriate to their needs. Why not make the same possible for marriage, which is a partnership based on one of the oldest types of contractual relationships?

We are already there in some respects — no-fault divorce states such as California already treat the dissolution of a marriage largely in the same way as the dissolution of a corporate partnership.

Couples entering into marriage should be able to use a partnership agreement that is tailored to their own circumstances and aspirations, one that reflects the values and expectations that they themselves attach to marriage.

Of course, it will be impractical to expect everyone to be able to draft a workable partnership agreement that will govern a (hopefully) lifelong relationship. Off-the-shelf marital partnership kits would be developed by lawyers and other private enterprises to fill this need. Customized products would be available, too.

Even greater participation could be achieved through the establishment of marital corporations (MCs), which could have hundreds or thousands of couples as shareholders, all sharing common values about marriage.

Couples getting married would subscribe to the shares of an existing marital corporation. Its charter documents would set forth the terms of the marriage to which the subscribing couples agree.

Here is where a plethora of choices would become available to prospective newlyweds.

A Catholic marital corporation would forbid its members from divorcing. Progressive marital corporations would allow gay marriage. Islamic or Mormon fundamentalist marital corporations could allow polygamy. Plain vanilla marital corporations would probably be popular among people who just want to get married without thinking about it too much.

Consideration of the wide range of available options might actually encourage people to think about what they want out of their marriage. And once those with strong feelings about homosexuals, divorcees, Republicans or whatever, are able to exclude such people from their own version of marriage by joining a like-minded marital corporation, they are less likely to object to same-sex couples joining more-accepting ones (or even ones that accept only homosexuals).

Exclusivity and the use of choice to define one’s identity are at the core of modern consumer society. Extending this to marriage is only logical. Marital corporations would be a huge boost to the multibillion-dollar wedding industry, while opening up a vast range of possible business opportunities throughout society.

Some could be established as nonprofit organizations that also work in furtherance of social or environmental causes about which some couples have strong feelings.

Others might become investment vehicles, whose assets form the marital nest egg. Still others might charge a subscription fee that would then be invested to pay dividends to lasting marriages upon significant anniversaries.

Very exclusive branded MCs could charge extravagant membership fees; getting married through say, the Tiffany Marriage Corp., could be a huge status symbol for which some people might pay a hefty premium.

Some might become social clubs through which like-minded couples can develop friendships or business contacts. With incentives to develop marital corporations that cater to all sectors of society, marriage would turn into an even bigger business than it already is. This is usually what happens when you offer consumers more choice.

Numerous issues would have to be worked out, of course. Just as with any contractual relationship, minors below a certain age would be excluded from joining a marital corporation.

Exemptions to securities laws would be needed to free marital corporations from having to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Marital corporation shares would not be freely transferable, except perhaps to children (as precious family assets, like Mom’s wedding ring).

The messy issues that arise in a divorce would still be there, just as they are in any bankruptcy or corporate dissolution.

And what do you do if you want to get divorced and remarry but have done your first marriage through a marital corporation that does not permit it?

Subscribe to a marital corporation that allows polygamy, perhaps, or at least be willing to assume whatever financial liabilities a breach of the shareholder terms of your first marital corporation requires.

Freedom of choice means freedom of contract, and freedom of contract includes the freedom to breach a contract if you are willing to accept the consequences.

But because the marital corporation charter would also be a perfect place to include prenuptial terms, divorce might actually be simplified, as more people would be likely to have at least some terms in place clarifying their rights and obligations when the union goes bad.

The reproductive aspects of marriage will also cause issues. Not because marital corporations will change the way the law deals with children in divorce situations (and I am not suggesting we incorporate the parent-child relationship), but because allowing same-sex unions (either through a marital corporation regime or the ad hoc approach some states are already following) will eliminate the presumption of reproduction that underlies traditional marriage.

Big deal, respond gay marriage proponents, who will point out that nobody looks at the reproductive capabilities of male-female couples before allowing them to marry, even after child-bearing age.

However, this argument ignores the fact that reproduction is only a presumption of marriage, but a very useful one, just like the presumption that minors (no matter how precocious) are incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. If the presumption of reproduction is no longer needed, then there is no real reason to prevent incestuous marriages.

This too may sound like a typical alarmist “slippery-slope, where will it end?” argument against gay marriage, but that is not the intent. Marriage may be about a lifelong loving relationship, but in today’s world, it is also about benefits.

I have an unabashedly heterosexual friend who works for a major corporation. Because she lives in Massachusetts, where gay marriage was recently legalized by judicial fiat, she has started talking about marrying one of her best girlfriends for the sole purpose of giving her friend access to her company’s health care benefits.

Fraudulent, some might say, but why not? Does anyone want to get into the business of determining who is really gay and who isn’t?

And once gays can get married in same-sex unions, why can’t heterosexuals? And if my friend can marry her friend to get spousal benefits, why can’t I do the same thing for my widowed mother? Or my sick, unemployed brother?

If marriage is not at least presumptively about reproduction anymore, there is no real reason to disallow any of these things. This is not an endorsement of incest, but if marriage is no longer about sex (hetero, reproductive or otherwise), intra-family marriages cease to be a problem.

While people would be free to use a marital corporation to enter into whatever type of marriage they wish for, governments and corporations would be able to limit the types of marital corporations they will recognize for benefits purposes.

Marital corporations that wish to be eligible for federal spousal benefits might be required to have mandatory provisions in their corporate charters that, for example, prohibit gay unions but permit interracial ones.

Such limitations may reflect public policies, economic realities or both, but at least it will enable us to get the government out of the business of deciding who can and who can’t get married.

Just as corporations will be able to “choose” marital corporations for benefits purposes, employees will be able to choose, too. Businesses that are too restrictive in the range of spouses they offer benefits to will find themselves having trouble attracting qualified employees. The marital corporation regime will not satisfy everyone. But more people will be at least partially satisfied, which is a sign of a good compromise, and will surely be an improvement over the simplistic “marriage/not marriage” dichotomy that currently defines the institution.

More important still, people will be able to exercise some choice in how their marriage is treated, rather than having the result imposed by the government. Yes, you can have a polygamous marriage, but you do so on the understanding that you may sacrifice your access to spousal benefits.

There are, after all, as many types of marriage as there are marriages. Recognizing this reality in the law would doubtless save us all from endless strife among those who would seek to turn the institution into something that they control through defining what it is.

The tremendous business opportunities that privatizing marriage would create would be a happy side benefit.

Colin P.A. Jones is a U.S. lawyer and professor at Doshisha University Law School in Kyoto, Japan.

Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?
Partnerships Could Be Tailored to Fit
January 22, 2006
Colin P.A. Jones
San Francisco Chronicle

From http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1657

I am grieving as to how and why some Christians came out in support of Proposition 2. Now that it has passed, I wonder if they are aware of the implications.

To begin with, it is problematic to use Christianity as a basis for defining marriage. In the Hebrew texts, the dominant ethic for marriage is polygamy.

Interpretational variances aside, polygamy is illegal in the United States. In Christian texts, neither is there a clear nor a definitive statement about marriage. Marriage is mentioned in various texts, but a suitable definition is not given (one passage often used to define marriage is found in Mark 10; however, the larger question deals with divorce and not marriage). What makes a person legally married in this nation is not churches, but a license from the state.

It is unthinkable for Christians to relegate theological definitions to the state. This is, in effect, what happened. If Christians believe that marriage is a sacred, biblical institution, then why would they let the state define its parameters?

Many marriages–though not all–are performed in churches. Yet still, over half end in divorce. Either the church is failing miserably, or couples have an inadequate understanding of Christian marriage (I would submit that the two are closely related).

Stanley Hauerwas says that the church should get out of the “marrying business.” I agree. Little or no forethought, guidance and instruction are given by the church before the wedding ceremony.

This is a case where the bounds of separation of church and state are needed on a practical level.

So what is next? A dry county prohibiting real wine for the Eucharist?

Proposition 2 is a Trojan horse for more mischief by the religious right in public policy. One of the co-sponsors of Proposition 2 – Republican State Sen. Todd Staples –also favors prayer in public schools and repealing Roe v. Wade.

In 2001, Gov. Rick Perry attended a rally in Palestine – Staples’ hometown – that concluded with a prayer “in Jesus name.”

The problem was that this rally was in a public school gymnasium.

Finally, a hidden agenda behind Proposition 2 is patriarchal domination. The historical and biblical contexts that formerly attempted to define marriage were vastly patriarchal. It is no wonder that some biblical texts used to define marriage are about male hierarchical systems of domination. These so-called household codes were inherently male-dominated.

Marvin M. Ellison is right when he says that a patriarchal social system that places gender as a prerequisite for authority is simply a “male supremacist cultural paradigm . . . in which women’s lives are secondary and derivative in relation to men’s.”

Same-sex marriage threatens the patriarchal hold of our societal power structures, and it further subjugates women’s as well as gay persons’ freedom.

The New Testament description of the early church seems to present an egalitarian vision of a faithful community:

“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

Sadly, we did not think through the implications of this amendment and about what happens to personal liberties with political maneuvering in the name of religion.

Rev. Robert Kenji Flowers of Waco is a United Methodist minister.
Waco Trib (wacotrib.com)
Saturday, December 03, 2005