Marriage And Privacy

An excellent editorial in the New York Times on marriage makes some excellent points about the whole marriage business--especially that it is a private matter between two individuals.

Why should the state have the right to determine what is--or isn't--a marriage? Under current laws, all a marriage licence does is guarantee certain property rights. "Marriage" is very much a product of Judeao-Christian tradition--and those who do not wish to follow the strictures set forth by religion are shit out of luck.

Why is the state in the marriage business at all? Perhaps all "marriages" should instead be legally classified as "civil unions"--with the two parties agreeing, in advance, what property rights will be conferred to the other party once the arrangement is legalized.

Of course, certain legal provisions would still be necessary to protect the rights of children, ensuring that they receive the support of both parents. In addition, I also believe that children should always be entitled to a share of their parents' property and assets when they die. One thing civil unions should not do is make it easier for some people to get out of the obligations they hold towards their kids--if you bring one into the world, you should accept your responsibility.

The old definition of marriage no longer serves the interests of society--and despite the protestations of the religious right and other groups who have a habit of sticking their noses into other people's underwear--things will never be the same again. Isn't it time to accept reality?