A novel proposal.
Just so you all don't freak all over me, realize the following is "philosophically speculative".
Let's suppose that those of us opposed to same-sex marriage would agree to it with a significant concession from 'the other side'. What if that concession was a public, enforceable (yes, this is why it's speculative) prohibition on both divorce and infidelity? Just for the thought experiment of it all, I'd love for pro- and anti- comments to discuss this one. Oh, heck, just to build up my blog comments I'd love for any comment at all. Pretty please .....?
posted by Cyrano at 11:32 p.m.
6 Comments:
What about men who beat the hell out of their wives? Divorce isn't always a bad thing. I'm not sure why you'd want that particular "concession". The infidelity one sounds good though. It would cut the divorce rate in half. Er...or double it. I'm not sure.
Glad I could be of help.
OC
Divorce isn't necessary to get a woman away from a husband who beats her - separation will do. If, somehow, divorce can be treated as a permanent thing, then her jerk-for-a-husband would be prevented from remarrying (and probably treating wife #2 the same way). Of course, there are problems in this, particularly for possibly-completely-innocent wife #1.
As a side note - I can't say I understand wife-abuse; I've never really been exposed to it in my extended family - it's the kind of thing that if, somehow, it started, I'm pretty sure somebody else in the family would step in and 'straighten things out'.
More's "Utopia" provides an interesting solution. Adulterers (one could also add abusers) are sentenced to slavery, which frees their former spouse to re-marry. Further, the one who committed the heinous act is permitted to beg for forgiveness, and if granted is released from slavery and the marriage continues, but (and this is the important part), if the act occurs again, they are simply executed.
The debate assumes that one or both spouses are telling the truth. As the penalties for bad behaviour rise, the heinousness of falsehood rises too.
Also, some "first" marriages are stupid. Some "second" marriages show that wisdom has been gained.
I'll bite. It would eliminate my most secular objection to homosexual marriage. As I see it I (and all other taxpayers) pay for all the divorces in the country. Given the cost of the legal system this must be a big bill already. Homosexual marriage would expand the potential for divorce to a large number of people and their divorces would be more expensive then average due to the lack of legal precedent for them.
Moreover, I'd happily apply this to any marriage I was getting into. I've already said I'd like a prenuptial agreement that says, "Upon divorce my wife and I must give all our money to the poor and continue to live together."
Unfortunately, I don't think it would work for everyone. There are some tremendously immature people getting married (heterosexual or homosexual) and the government just doesn't have the power to make them act like adults. If we say "communicating and working through your problems" is the mature thing to do then this is exactly what we'd be asking the government to do.
My preferred solution would be to take the government entirely out of the marrying game. That way I'm married by my church and my church alone. If the gay couple down the street wants to have someone wave a crystal over them (or a totally traditional ceremony) and declare them husband and husband I won't be endorsing it and I certainly won't be paying for it. We can handle the legal details of marrage with legal contracts like any other financial or custodial legality.
I have a LOT of respect for two Catholic ladies I know, who were legitimately married, but their husbands turned out less than good, and they have each been living married, but separated for years now. IMHO, their lives show many around them the fact that when marriage fails due to immaturity (etc.), we don't automatically have a 'right' to go find someone else, and expect society to pick up the pieces for us.
Post a Comment
<< Home