Screw marriage, give me a civil union
Meet Kristen and Tom. They are madly in love. They have two cats, three dogs, blossoming careers, a wonderful home in an affluent Pittsburgh neighborhood and a fifteen-year love — and they just got married.
Kristen and Tom wholeheartedly believed (and still believe, I suppose) that you don’t need to certify your love with a marriage license. The federal government, however, was essentially giving them no choice. The hole in their pockets left after April 15 was too big for the two of them not to put a ring on it. So they did, against their own wishes.
On the flip side: You’re madly in love with a person. You’re about to graduate and are certain that you want to spend the rest of your life with him or her and you can’t wait to get started. One issue, though: You’re gay.
Now some of you are about ready to close your browser window because we already know what’s coming. The same-sex marriage debate is a messy one: It’s a touchy issue for a lot of people for a lot of reasons. Some say, “Legalize same-sex marriage! What happened to liberty for all and separation of church and state?” while others say, “Marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. End of discussion.” But what I’m about to offer would change the debate drastically: Simply forget about marriage licenses altogether.
Confused? Read on:
Kristen and Tom can get married whenever and wherever they want to. A same-sex couple, however, cannot. So essentially, if a same-sex couple wants to save money, they can’t. And if a couple does not want to get married, they almost have to in order to avoid financial ruin. Sounds discriminatory on both accounts, right? That’s because it is.
Where Kristen and Tom choose to start their lives together is not dependent on which state will let them live out their Kodak moments. But you don’t have that luxury. Right now, you have five options: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont (which you can choose in September) and maybe soon, New Hampshire. But if you go to California, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, or Oregon, you can have the same rights as a married couple but you can’t say that you’re married, only civilly unionized (unionized civilly?). Colorado, Maryland and Hawaii will give you some, but not all, of the rights of a married couple. Any other place in the country is a big no-no (unless you get married in Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, or Sweden, in which case New York or Rhode Island would be glad to have you).
But let’s say you’re like Kristen and Tom, and marriage isn’t that big of a deal anyway: You and your partner can live out your lives happily together wherever you want without the institution of marriage. That’s great, all the more power to you. But you’re missing out on something big. Getting married has several financial benefits, benefits that even Kristen and Tom couldn’t ignore. Married couples can file taxes together and share deductions on everything from their mortgage to their first-born child. They can share a single health insurance plan, escape the estate and gift taxes, share property, and receive divorce protections that help normalize life after a break-up. People living together as a married couple but not legally recognized as one end up paying more in taxes (on average). And let’s face it: Starting out your real lives neck-deep in student debt is hard enough without the burden of federal taxes.
Preventing people from saving money on the basis of their sexual orientation is simply discrimination, even though there have yet to be any laws detailing what constitutes tax discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. Congress is the one to blame for this because, under Article One of the Constitution, it is given the power to regulate interstate commerce, and since married couples are financial units that cross state boundaries, the federal government has a case for keeping marriage under its purview of regulatory powers.
The federal government, however, did not come up with the idea of marriage. That was religion’s doing. It is therefore hard to argue that the federal government should be allowed to define marriage (essentially what DOMA did in 1996). But more importantly, freedom of expression and religion in this country entails the freedom to practice and express whatever your beliefs may be (being homosexual fits under here, as no law explicitly says you cannot be a homosexual and live in this country).
The federal government was simply never in a position to allow the concept of marriage to politically straddle Pennsylvania Avenue. No state government should touch it, either. Seeing as how marriage was indeed a religious institution before it was a legal one, the grounds for ousting “marriage” from inside the beltway are simple. The principle of secular governance (separation of church and state) disallows the government to take part in the discussion and the First Amendment guarantees the rights of all to believe and practice what they will. Imposing the government’s will on people’s beliefs (either for or against same-sex marriage) is a clear violation of both of these principles.
Instead of marriage, the government should (and is allowed to) only recognize unions between people as financial units. These units would have the same rights as a married couple today, only now the toxicity of religion is out of the debate — no one is defining marriage.
I will surrender to the contention that this possible solution could lead to plenty of other problems. What if a man wants to marry a horse? Well for one, a civil union, like a marriage, is a contract. Only parties that have legal standing and the ability to express consent may legally enter a contract, which a horse cannot. Of course this is only one example, and there are bound to be more and even more complicated issues (take polygamy, for example). But with the extinction of “marriage” licenses, the religious angle to the debate is eradicated. It now becomes a purely political and economic debate, which like most others, can be solved after a few years of shouting.
So what happens if no one gets “married?”
Well, you’re allowed to live with, adopt a child with, file your taxes with and leave anyone you want without (heavy) legal recourse. This also means that same-sex couples still don’t get to be “married,” in the religious sense, either.
Now, religious institutions do not usually pre-sanctify common-law marriages, and these couples refer to themselves as husband and wife all the time without any problems. But if you do want to go the religious route you can, because there are several religious institutions out there that recognize same-sex marriages (United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church USA, Unitarian Universalists, Reform Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism and Quakers, for instance).
I’ll be the first to admit that this solution has its drawbacks, is not guaranteed to work and may not accomplish exactly what people on both sides of the aisle (pun not intended) are looking for. But to those who contend that only a man and a woman should marry, you have the standing to make the claim, as religion came up with the concept of marriage first. However, religion doesn’t get to decide who gets the legal and economic benefits of marriage, something government did come up with.
To those that are dissatisfied with the relatively complacent view of this proposition, I’d ask you to consider this: if everyone in this country can receive the benefits of marriage, gay or straight, this is a huge step forward. And even if you want your civil union to be called a marriage religiously, I’ve just listed a bunch of congregations that will gladly do it.
At the very least, the abolition of federally-issued marriage licenses for anyone will change the frame of the same-sex marriage debate. No longer will same-sex couples have to fight against religion. They would be able to fight for constitutionally guaranteed rights on the grounds of discrimination. No longer will public opinion be imposing its views on a particular faith, and no longer will a faith be imposing its views on those who don’t agree. In the end, it’s definitely a pragmatic proposition, and at the very least will get people talking about the issue instead of yelling about it.
| Print
See how else your taxes are going to be affected. Or you can return home.
Don’t use such weighty statements like “if a couple does not want to get married, they almost have to in order to avoid financial ruin.”
I was going to inform you about how marrying usually raises your tax burden but the article you linked to does it for me.
1) Marriage can result in higher taxes. As the term “marriage penalty” implies, whether they file jointly or separately, married couples can end up paying the government more than they would have had they stayed single. This is especially true for two high earners, explains John Olivieri, a partner in law firm White & Case’s private clients practice, because together they can push themselves into a higher tax bracket than they would face as single filers.
Diese
May 7, 2009 at 8:46 pm
While I agree with the main point of this article, marriage isn’t necessarily a religious institution as much as it is a sociological and anthropoligical one. Monogomous life-long partnerships existed long before organized religion, and while most of the defense of marriage nowadays is religiously motivated, it is important to realize that marriage wasn’t something invented by the church, but rather something that exsisted in society and then later was regulated by the government at a time when the government and the church were very closely linked.
a person...
May 7, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Ummmm… I’m sorry but this article is a train wreck.
1) You understand that there is no such thing as a “federally-issued marriage license”, right? The federal government doesn’t give out marriage licenses.. so abolishing them would be impossible, since they don’t exist.
2) RE: your interpretation of the Constitution.. you would have a hard-ass time finding precedent for your taxational inequality based on the class of homosexuals being denied the benefit of marriage.
3)The Constitution doesn’t grant a freedom to practice whatever belief you want. It guarantees that Congress won’t make a law respecting the establishment of religion, or cabining the exercise of religion. Religion =/= belief. Example: Congress cannot make a law making it illegal to exercise the tenants of Santeria. But Congress can make laws against slaughtering animals in certain locales, as a matter of police power and concerns for the public health. You can exercise your right to observe the religion, but you can’t put into action any belief you may hold.
4) Regardless of your other (incorrect) historical assumptions about marriage, this argument is pretty much devoid of meaning because it a)is based on an idea that will never happen in the foreseeable future and b) instead of addressing the moral dilemma of the tyranny of the majority, and the interplay between religion, Constitutional principles, federalism (which is what puts the whole marriage ball in the hands of states anyway), and equal rights. Instead, it substitutes an incorrect reading of the constitution a means of somehow arriving at the idea we should drop marriage altogether.
Ugh.
Andrew
May 8, 2009 at 3:01 am
This is just another example of the US government institutionalizing bigotry. A civil union is nothing more than separate, but “equal,” treatment. Equal protection my ass.
Anarchist
May 8, 2009 at 11:00 am
Addenda:
1.) I understand that the federal government does not issue marriage licenses and that this is left up to the states. You’ll note the article simply refers to marriage licenses in general, save for the last paragraph which contains an unfortunate type-o. Just the same, however, the federal government shouldn’t issue them anyway. The point of abolishing marriage licenses is to get rid of the word “marriage” which allows for a religious angle in the debate.
2.) My tax discrimination point is watered down and skimmed over far too quickly. There are no laws (at least that I’m aware of) that detail what tax discrimination based on sexual orientation entails. However, the fourteenth amendment to the constitution protects civil and political rights from infringement by any state. Included in such rights is discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation. Of course, all of this is left up to interpretation and finding legal precedent for this is difficult if not impossible. But alas, people argue because we interpret things differently.
3.) The constitution doesn’t let you practice any religion you want but congress can’t make laws “cabining” the exercise of religion. Thus it is safe to assume that if my religion exercises itself by letting same-sex couples marry, a government (state or federal) statute prohibiting that would be unconstitutional. Keep in mind that the fourteenth amendment established the doctrine of incorporation which extends federal constitutional protections to citizens of any state.
Anirudh Malkani
May 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm
thoughtful voicing. freedom is very disillusioned in this country. That being said, same-sex marriage will always stay a debate unless there is a presidential order.
… and thanks for reminding me to get my tax rebates!!
Kiran
May 10, 2009 at 8:38 pm
It’s refreshing to read a calm, practical assessment of a topic that so often shows more enthusiasm than thought. The various tyrannies of a culture which privileges marriage are often complex and subtle. Both of my daughters married under duress. For one of them, her husband was at risk to lose his first professional job had his Christian supervisor discovered Mike was living unmarried with a woman. These two had intended to marry anyway but not at this moment right after the death of her brother. The other daughter was an American living in Japan under a permit which required she leave every six months in order to have her work rights renewed. She was also willing to marry but would have preferred to do so neither in a rush nor under the eye of the state. In both cases I now have loving sons-in-law, but it helped nobody that the needs of everyone but the principals were what precipitated the weddings…and we all felt cheated at having to accept a quick, subdued ceremony in place of what should have been celebration. When I remember that marriage is a patriarchial institution which historically, and presently in many places, grants a man property rights over a woman, the evolution of a joined interest between religion and state is entirely understandable. Current events, USA and elsewhere, demonstrate that we must constantly reevaluate what it means to be a citizen; nowhere is it more difficult, or more imperative, than to recognize what dogma we allow to rule inside our homes.
Sandy Sterner
May 11, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Overall, I’m in total agreement that marriage should not be a legal institution. What I don’t understand is the justification for tax breaks or increases based on the union of people whether it’s a civil union or a marriage. Isn’t that discriminatory against those who choose not to enter such a union?
Just remove the governmental institutions of marriage and civil union altogether. There are other means (e.g. contracts) by which we can handle issues like hospital visiting rights, property ownership, etc. without them.
That’s not to say you can’t get married in the religious/spiritual or social sense, just that the government doesn’t need to be involved in declaring it one.
MQ
May 25, 2009 at 11:38 am
I agree with the sentement in which this article is written although, I am planning to be married but am attempting to have a civil union instead. I am doing so for many reasons, most of all though I am attempting to not join a discrimatory institution, but as I am striaght, I am not granted the right to a civil union as apparently i do not fit the criteria in my state.
I truely do believe that a executive order, or a supreme court ruling should be made completly abolishing the term marriage like your article suggested. But until the masses realize that it is not the state or the church who decides when two people are actually one unit, progress will never be made in regards to this issue.
Striaght and pissed
June 1, 2009 at 1:55 pm
This is another source of argument for most of us. The government in most cases leave us with no choice. We should make a stand about marriage and try not to get affected by what the government dictates us.
Estate Taxes
November 17, 2009 at 12:43 am
Please leave your comments on http://screwtheconceptofmarriage.blogspot.com/
Screw Marriage
February 11, 2010 at 12:38 am
The high costs of being a gay couple:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?_r=1
Doomed
February 11, 2010 at 11:23 am