• Home
• About
• Relationships/
  Polyamory
• Politics
• Poetry

© Sheye Blaze or by original artist. If you find your protected material or artwork on this site, please email me.

Legal-Marriage Abolition

Marriage "Protection"

Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) are not about 'protecting' marriage nor is it about the rights of "the Church" or the rights of indiviudals or even the rights of the State (both individually and federally). It is about fear of gay marriage and polygamy. It is about control. It is about imposing one "God-ordained" view on others.

But, it is possible to protect rights of both "the Church" and the individual! I can hear everyone gasping, now. How can you possibly protect both the Church's interests and those of the individual? That's just not possible! "The Church" (or any church for that matter) would never have to marry or condone a marriage that it does not view to be proper in the eyes of their God. Quite frankly, no individual has any requirement to respect nor condone a marriage that they do not view to be proper if we embrace the idea of legal-marriage abolition.

However, it is a different ball of wax when we began to talk about governmental recognition and regulation of marriage. I, personally, am both a married woman and a legal marriage abolitionist. I am not against marriage. I believe that marriage is a good and useful social construct of society. However, I believe that the government involvement in marriage has resulted in a discriminatory and unfair system. It has been and is currently unfair to both sides of the legal marriage-issue that is -- to both "singles" and "marrieds". Singles would also include forced singledom -- gays, bisexuals, lebsians, transgenders, polygamous or polyamorous partners, and any other groups I may be remiss in mentioning.

I believe that marriage should be taken solidly out of the hands of the government and placed where it truly belongs -- in the hands of the people. I believe marital status is used for discriminatory purposes in the United States.

Marriage currently confers social, religious and legal standing. Social standing is, of course, in the eyes of each individual in that social circle. Religious standing should be left to the purview of the various religious groups and churches to decide their own course of action. No church should be forced to perform, recognize, or support a marriage with which they do not agree.

Legal Standing

It's legal standing that I have issues with. There are many issues folded into this one category including discrimination, legal contract, child custody, financial, healthcare, etc. As things are now, the legal rights and obligations conferred upon one by legal marriage is very literally impossible to replicate by any other means. This is why civil unions are an unsatisfactory "solution" to the same-sex marriage debate.

The terms of the marriage contract are:

• Not spelled out in detail by law, anywhere
• Not available through any other contract
• Not fully described except in the case of divorce and even that is murky.

You cannot pay any amount to have a lawyer draw up a contract with commensurate rights:

• No other contract can make an unmarried couple exempt from testifying against each other in court.
• No other contract can give them the right to collect social security payments from the others' death.
• No other contract can give one person the right to rape another.¹

Nor can any other contract help with discrimination based on marital status:

• Employment (hiring): It is legal (in most localities) to discriminate on the basis of marital status in employment.²
• Employment (benefits): It is legal (in most localities) to discriminate on the basis of marital status in terms of benefits offered. You can offer benefits to hetero spouses, but not to partners of gay/straight singles.employment.²
• Taxation: There is currently legal basis for taxation on marital status. Both in favor of marrieds and in favor of singles.
• Public/Gov't Services: Marriage changes what services are availale to you and how you qualify.
• Private Charities: Some only help singles. Some won't help unmarried parents, etc.
• Hospitals: Visiting unmarried partners without "family" consent...
• Powers of Attorney: Should my parent be able to trump my unmarried partner's choices?
• Schooling: Married housing, government grant qualifications, student loans qualifications, etc.
• Child Custody: Assumed parentage of a married woman's child (assumed by law) can force a married man to be responsible for a child that is not his.
• Contracts/Debt: Should a spouse be held responsible for a contract that they did not expressly enter? Should they be liable for debt that they did not expressly incur?

But, without legal marriage things will be a mess! Law isn't set up for this, but indeed it is! There are already laws to handle unmarried couples and situations for every major situation that involves a married couple. Solutions to law issues:

• Child Custody: Laws are already in place for custody that doesn't involve marriage.
• Taxation: The IRS already has rules in place to determine tax benefits/deductions for children who are legally supported by more than 2 people.
• Contracts/Debt: Individuals would be responsible for their own actions. Items mutually signed/agreed to would be dealt with as any joint contract between non-marrieds.
• Inheritance: Through Social Security, allow a person to designate either a single heir, percentage heirs or to file a more detailed will. This would make less hassle with fighting the validity of wills as well.
• Powers of attorney: Through Social Security, allow a person to designate a person to handle Powers of Attorney in the event of incapacitation and to designate any number of "back-up" designees as they desire OR to file a detailed 'living will' stating who would be allowed to have which types of power of attorney and what the wishes of the incapacitate person are. It would make less hassle with fighting the validity of Powers of attorney and Living Wills as well.
• Employment (Benefits): Companies can either offer benefits only employee or if they do offer familial coverage then to allow only 1 other adult and X children or anything similar. As is the case now, employment with companies offering superior benefits would be highly sought after.

Why should any of these "rights" be conferred in such a discriminatory way as marital status? Or "family-member" for that matter? I'm estranged from my bio-father and let me tell you if he were to show up when I was seriously ill and be allowed to get information or visit based on "family-member" status and my best friend isn't? I'd raise one hell of a ruckus when I was better. I'd be pissed.

FOOTNOTES:
¹ Spousal rape is illegal in all 50 states... Well, that is for some definitions of "spousal rape." For example, "In Tennessee, it's not a crime for a husband to force his wife to have sex against her will unless he uses a weapon, causes her serious bodily injury, or they are separated or divorcing."
² Some states and localities have outlawed this -- but not many.