Marriage (Part 2), 8-27-2010

 [Continued from Marriage (Part 1), 8-27-2010. sch 3/14/23]

Will it surprise anytone that I find only a technical problem with gay marriage? Considering my current and future status as a moral leper, I suppose not. I think marriage has such a technical meaning that putting gay in front of marriage creates an oxymoron. What I do not have a problem with is the civil government giving the same property rights to two gays or lesbians as I and my wife had during our marriage.

I must point out the State of Indiana denigrated my marriage as much as it denigrated gay marriage. Take a look at Morrison v. Sadler... The Indiana Court of Appeals insisted marriage existed for the purpose of breeding. My former wife and I could not have children.

Polygamy worried the Indiana Court of Appeals. I cannot imagine anyone multiplying the problems of marriage. Maybe polygamy could keep relationships fresher than does monogamy. I suggest reading David Hume's Of Polygamy and Divorce. In this essay Hume rejects polygamy, but also rejects voluntary divorces. With the former I think he has reason on his side but history erodes his arguments against divorce.

Hume, moreover, makes two interesting points about marriage. He points out the role of friendship in marriage. What he writes about friendship can be contrasted with what he writes in Of Love and Marriage, where he writes woman's love of dominion damages marriage. My first fiance always thought friendship was necessary to a successful relationship. She was a highly intelligent person.

I wish Hume had written more about another point he made in Of Polygamy and Divorce. That 

... When he has performed these two parts of duty, no one can reproach him with injustice or injury. And as the terms of his engagement, as well as the methods of subsisting his offspring, may be various, it is mere superstition to imagine, that marriage can be entirely uniform, and will admit only of one mode or form. Did not human laws restrain the natural liberty of men, every particular marriage would be as different as contracts or bargains of any other kind or species.

Robert Heinlein made this same point in several of his later novels ( I am thinking Friday and The Cat Who Walked Through Walls described different marriage contracts, but I have no means of checking my memory). 

Mind you this discussion here touches only on civil marriage, and not religious marriage. I know some get confused that religious and civil marriages do not always correspond to one another. For those not understanding that religions need not recognize a civil marriage. I think the Roman Catholic Church makes a specific point on this.

Why not contract marriage for a certain time? Excluding children and their issues, I say that a prenuptial agreement could be written to cover this scenario. It might take some seriously complicated writing, but that it would be about economics might make drafting a bit easier.

Polygamy, polyandry, or any of the scenarios described by Heinlein will not fly. Actually, I overstate the point a bit. One cannot marry more than one person at a time without committing a felony. (As a felon, not a state I suggest you join.) Excluding bigamy. I do not think that an Indiana court will enforce an agreement that is copies from one of Mr. Heinlein's books. I can see an agreement that works only if the parties avoid court.

sch

[Continued in Marriage (Part 3), 8-27-2010. sch 3/14/23.]