20 thoughts on “What happens when two men (or women) can marry?”
What does the issue of marrying solely for tax breaks have to do with SSM?
What happens when two Mormon men marry and decide to raise their adopted children in the church? I have a friend that plans on doing this. I think it would make for some interesting sharing time lessons in primary.
Wow, my ward is kind of boring compared to yours..
People have been marrying for tax and other non-love reasons for a very long time. The idea that only recently has the instution of marriage been moved from the sacred into the alternative motvies category is rather disingenuous. Certainly, all of us believe marriage to be sacred and want everyone to treat it is as such. However, that doesn’t change the fact that marriage has and is often about convenience, financial gain, etc.
It isn’t my ward. This would never fly in my ward, stake, city or state (guess where I live). This friend lives in San Francisco.
I’ll second HL — this has been going on for a long time, and will likely continue to the foreseeable future. I’ve known (heterosexual) people who have married solely for immigration reasons, and people who have actually sold their marriagiability to the highest-bidding immigrant. The phenomenon of sham marriages is in no way limited to same-sex couples.
This is actually a move towards what I always thought was the sensible solution to all the conflict. Separate our the religious/ethical meaning of marriage and the legal meaning of marriage.
The legal meaning of marriage is tied to who has rights regarding illness as well as tax breaks. The whole arguments by homosexuals regards wanting those rights but it never was clear why those rights ought be tied to marriage. Put an other way, if the state was using them to encourage a certain kind of relationship then I don’t see why that entails homosexuals getting them. If it was more about basic civil rights then it wasn’t clear why say two older widows *not* in a sexual relationship shouldn’t still have those rights.
If it was all about the meaning of marriage after all then of course the traditional criticisms of homosexual marriage holds.
This marriage is no longer on. It was a publicity stunt, or a joke. Anyway, the press in Canada is reporting that it is not happening.
Further to my comment above, see the following news story:
It was cancelled on Saturday. Why is this columnist still writing about it as if it’s on? He needs to check up on his sources before he publishes.
What Clark said.
Geoff, I don’t doubt your good faith in your ardent defense of traditional marriage. But I genuinely wonder: has your exploration of the institution of marriage principally stayed in the political arena, or have you been moved to study marriage from historical and sociological perspectives, as well? Have you looked at how it works as a legal instrument, as a structural phenomenon, and as a cultural feature over time?
Someone who is disturbed that marriage can be used to solidify economic advantages, to my mind, is somebody who doesn’t understand how marriage has worked structurally across time.
Stref, thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen that although I suspected they would back down when actually faced with the challenge of a publicity-heavy marriage ceremony. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to hear that a few young heterosexual roommates from Cambridge — one with health benefits and one without — have secretly married so one can take advantage of the health benefits of the other. It’s the kind of stunt I would have pulled when I was in my 20s.
Rosalynde, I have considered the role of marriage in history and am aware of the kinds of relationships that I believe you are mentioning. Marriages of economic convenience, arranged marriages, that sort of thing. It’s interesting to ponder the role of marriage between the royalty in Europe, for example — there was certainly a deep disrespect for the institution of marriage in those days and a cynicism that is noteworthy. I’m sure you could cite many other cases where heterosexuals have used marriage in ways we would disapprove of now (Henry VIII comes to mind immediately, but I’m guessing you’re thinking of Asian, African and other cases as well).
I guess I would have four responses to that:
1)Heavenly Father has set up an ideal for marriage historically starting with Adam and Eve and continuing onward. We should always strive for this ideal and recognize that as imperfect beings we have fallen short of the standard. This doesn’t make the standard wrong, it just makes us imperfect.
2)In our time, the Church has made it abundantly clear that the acceptable standard is one man-one woman heterosexual marriage and has even organized campaigns against SSM. Based on my study of Church history, there have been times when loyal members of the Church have been tested in various ways (loyalty to Joseph Smith, polygamy, faith despite the black priesthood ban, etc). Now is one of the times where we are expected to support the Church’s standard.
3)The breakdown of the traditional family has had a huge societal cost. Continued degradation of the institution of marriage will have an even greater societal cost.
4)When marriage is no longer special it loses its meaning. Until recently, marriage has had a special place in society — thus the myriad types of tax laws, immigration laws and other laws to encourage one man-one woman marriage.
I don’t believe any of these arguments are new to you. I thought some people had not considered the side effect of legalizing SSM — that two heterosexual men may get married to get benefits that have reserved for opposite sex couples. This seems to me yet another sign of the dangers of number 3) and 4) above.
While I’m just as horrified as Rosalynde, Kaimi, Clark Goble, HL Rogers, et al., that Geoff B. would this example of two heterosexual men getting married to impugn the venerable institution of gay marriage, which the Church has repeatedly supported, I’m forced to admit that (1) all he did was provide a link and (2) maybe, just maybe, folks like Geoff B. who are against gay marriage have argued in the past that such incidents would be a result of the increasingly normalization of gay marriage. And were scoffed at.
“Someone who is disturbed that marriage can be used to solidify economic advantages, to my mind, is somebody who doesn’t understand how marriage has worked structurally across time.”
Rosalynde, what are you implying? That we should lay off the tax shelter criticism because everything was hunky-dory in the past? (evil grin)
Adam, why do you think I was horrified? I think I saw it as an excellent way to divorce the religious sense of marriage from the state sense of marriage. Something that I think the church in the 19th century definitely wanted and that I favor.
Like Rosalynde I’d simply point out that marriage for economic reasons has a long and veritable history in our culture.
Rosalynde,
I am a married person who is very aware of the economic advantages of marriage since I am a SAHM. As you have said, historically marriage has been an economic agreement.
This is why the article made me a little uneasy. Already the consensus that wives should get half of their husband’s social security benefits has started to slip. Working couples and singles don’t see why they (and the rest of society) should be expected to extend a financial benefit like that.
Employer paid health insurance benefits seems to be scarce these days. Why should an employer pay for a spouse’s health insurance if there is a 75% chance the spouse might have coverage elsewhere. Why pay for children when there is a 50% chance those children are covered elsewhere, perhaps on a cheaper plan.
The economics of marriage are always changing. Federal taxes on a married couple have often included more of a penalty in some ways, especially if both in the couple were working.
I should add, JKS, that as a long time single until recently, I really questioned a lot of the benefits the state gives economically to marriage.
Although marrying for economic benefits is indeed nothing new, historically those marriages still had the expectation of permanence, and other functions of marriage (sex, child bearing) were performed as well. If two heterosexual men marry, and then one of them falls in love with a woman and wishes to marry her, you can bet that his prior “marriage” will be dropped quickly.
The Netherlands was the first country to fully adopt same sex marriage. The result has been a rapid increase in out of wedlock births, and marriage has increasingly been decoupled from parenting. A group of Dutch scholars voiced concern about that trend, stating:
…there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalization of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favor of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’ has not had serious social consequences….
There are undoubtedly other factors that have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.”
An addendum to that would appear to be that gay marriage was sought more for the “victory” over traditional views than for its supposed benefits. After the initial flurry of well publicized gay marriages, the incidence of actual gay marriages has fallen sharply.
El Jefe, you bring up an excellent point that has been discussed in the past but not taken seriously enough. Again and again, evidence shows that SSM is dangerous for society and that modern-day prophets’ warnings should be heeded.
What does the issue of marrying solely for tax breaks have to do with SSM?
What happens when two Mormon men marry and decide to raise their adopted children in the church? I have a friend that plans on doing this. I think it would make for some interesting sharing time lessons in primary.
Wow, my ward is kind of boring compared to yours..
People have been marrying for tax and other non-love reasons for a very long time. The idea that only recently has the instution of marriage been moved from the sacred into the alternative motvies category is rather disingenuous. Certainly, all of us believe marriage to be sacred and want everyone to treat it is as such. However, that doesn’t change the fact that marriage has and is often about convenience, financial gain, etc.
It isn’t my ward. This would never fly in my ward, stake, city or state (guess where I live). This friend lives in San Francisco.
I’ll second HL — this has been going on for a long time, and will likely continue to the foreseeable future. I’ve known (heterosexual) people who have married solely for immigration reasons, and people who have actually sold their marriagiability to the highest-bidding immigrant. The phenomenon of sham marriages is in no way limited to same-sex couples.
This is actually a move towards what I always thought was the sensible solution to all the conflict. Separate our the religious/ethical meaning of marriage and the legal meaning of marriage.
The legal meaning of marriage is tied to who has rights regarding illness as well as tax breaks. The whole arguments by homosexuals regards wanting those rights but it never was clear why those rights ought be tied to marriage. Put an other way, if the state was using them to encourage a certain kind of relationship then I don’t see why that entails homosexuals getting them. If it was more about basic civil rights then it wasn’t clear why say two older widows *not* in a sexual relationship shouldn’t still have those rights.
If it was all about the meaning of marriage after all then of course the traditional criticisms of homosexual marriage holds.
This marriage is no longer on. It was a publicity stunt, or a joke. Anyway, the press in Canada is reporting that it is not happening.
Further to my comment above, see the following news story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050812/od_afp/canadagaymarriage_050812222935
It was cancelled on Saturday. Why is this columnist still writing about it as if it’s on? He needs to check up on his sources before he publishes.
What Clark said.
Geoff, I don’t doubt your good faith in your ardent defense of traditional marriage. But I genuinely wonder: has your exploration of the institution of marriage principally stayed in the political arena, or have you been moved to study marriage from historical and sociological perspectives, as well? Have you looked at how it works as a legal instrument, as a structural phenomenon, and as a cultural feature over time?
Someone who is disturbed that marriage can be used to solidify economic advantages, to my mind, is somebody who doesn’t understand how marriage has worked structurally across time.
Stref, thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen that although I suspected they would back down when actually faced with the challenge of a publicity-heavy marriage ceremony. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to hear that a few young heterosexual roommates from Cambridge — one with health benefits and one without — have secretly married so one can take advantage of the health benefits of the other. It’s the kind of stunt I would have pulled when I was in my 20s.
Rosalynde, I have considered the role of marriage in history and am aware of the kinds of relationships that I believe you are mentioning. Marriages of economic convenience, arranged marriages, that sort of thing. It’s interesting to ponder the role of marriage between the royalty in Europe, for example — there was certainly a deep disrespect for the institution of marriage in those days and a cynicism that is noteworthy. I’m sure you could cite many other cases where heterosexuals have used marriage in ways we would disapprove of now (Henry VIII comes to mind immediately, but I’m guessing you’re thinking of Asian, African and other cases as well).
I guess I would have four responses to that:
1)Heavenly Father has set up an ideal for marriage historically starting with Adam and Eve and continuing onward. We should always strive for this ideal and recognize that as imperfect beings we have fallen short of the standard. This doesn’t make the standard wrong, it just makes us imperfect.
2)In our time, the Church has made it abundantly clear that the acceptable standard is one man-one woman heterosexual marriage and has even organized campaigns against SSM. Based on my study of Church history, there have been times when loyal members of the Church have been tested in various ways (loyalty to Joseph Smith, polygamy, faith despite the black priesthood ban, etc). Now is one of the times where we are expected to support the Church’s standard.
3)The breakdown of the traditional family has had a huge societal cost. Continued degradation of the institution of marriage will have an even greater societal cost.
4)When marriage is no longer special it loses its meaning. Until recently, marriage has had a special place in society — thus the myriad types of tax laws, immigration laws and other laws to encourage one man-one woman marriage.
I don’t believe any of these arguments are new to you. I thought some people had not considered the side effect of legalizing SSM — that two heterosexual men may get married to get benefits that have reserved for opposite sex couples. This seems to me yet another sign of the dangers of number 3) and 4) above.
While I’m just as horrified as Rosalynde, Kaimi, Clark Goble, HL Rogers, et al., that Geoff B. would this example of two heterosexual men getting married to impugn the venerable institution of gay marriage, which the Church has repeatedly supported, I’m forced to admit that (1) all he did was provide a link and (2) maybe, just maybe, folks like Geoff B. who are against gay marriage have argued in the past that such incidents would be a result of the increasingly normalization of gay marriage. And were scoffed at.
“Someone who is disturbed that marriage can be used to solidify economic advantages, to my mind, is somebody who doesn’t understand how marriage has worked structurally across time.”
Rosalynde, what are you implying? That we should lay off the tax shelter criticism because everything was hunky-dory in the past? (evil grin)
Adam, why do you think I was horrified? I think I saw it as an excellent way to divorce the religious sense of marriage from the state sense of marriage. Something that I think the church in the 19th century definitely wanted and that I favor.
Like Rosalynde I’d simply point out that marriage for economic reasons has a long and veritable history in our culture.
Rosalynde,
I am a married person who is very aware of the economic advantages of marriage since I am a SAHM. As you have said, historically marriage has been an economic agreement.
This is why the article made me a little uneasy. Already the consensus that wives should get half of their husband’s social security benefits has started to slip. Working couples and singles don’t see why they (and the rest of society) should be expected to extend a financial benefit like that.
Employer paid health insurance benefits seems to be scarce these days. Why should an employer pay for a spouse’s health insurance if there is a 75% chance the spouse might have coverage elsewhere. Why pay for children when there is a 50% chance those children are covered elsewhere, perhaps on a cheaper plan.
The economics of marriage are always changing. Federal taxes on a married couple have often included more of a penalty in some ways, especially if both in the couple were working.
I should add, JKS, that as a long time single until recently, I really questioned a lot of the benefits the state gives economically to marriage.
Although marrying for economic benefits is indeed nothing new, historically those marriages still had the expectation of permanence, and other functions of marriage (sex, child bearing) were performed as well. If two heterosexual men marry, and then one of them falls in love with a woman and wishes to marry her, you can bet that his prior “marriage” will be dropped quickly.
The Netherlands was the first country to fully adopt same sex marriage. The result has been a rapid increase in out of wedlock births, and marriage has increasingly been decoupled from parenting. A group of Dutch scholars voiced concern about that trend, stating:
…there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalization of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favor of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’ has not had serious social consequences….
There are undoubtedly other factors that have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.”
An addendum to that would appear to be that gay marriage was sought more for the “victory” over traditional views than for its supposed benefits. After the initial flurry of well publicized gay marriages, the incidence of actual gay marriages has fallen sharply.
El Jefe, you bring up an excellent point that has been discussed in the past but not taken seriously enough. Again and again, evidence shows that SSM is dangerous for society and that modern-day prophets’ warnings should be heeded.