Monday, November 26, 2007 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Three cheers for Stephanie Coontz's piece in the New York Times today in defense of taking marriage private. She asks:
Why do people—gay or straight—need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.
She offers a persuasive case that in today's climate—with divorce rates still high—we need to rethink the state's involvement in marriage. And she points out the logical peculiarity of the fact that unmarried couples who've cohabited for 19 years might have no hospital visitation rights—while two kids who get married on a whim automatically do.
These are all questions I've had on my mind, because I got married this summer after a six-year relationship. I’m happy to be married—in fact, this week, I’m particularly glad, because I’m scheduled to have surgery, and if I weren't married, my partner might have met with far more resistance from Oxford Health Plans when he called on my behalf to investigate the fine points of the claims process. Being able to say the words my husband to doctors and nurses has made bureaucratic matters far easier to manage than the words my boyfriend ever did. One reason is obviously that in an era of constantly shifting relationships, the government and hospitals need some way of figuring out how to distinguish the loose bonds of a one-night stand from the deeper ties of a long-term relationship. But at this point in time marriage doesn't seem to perform that function as well as it might. For one thing, it's the policization of marriage that gives some young couples pause about wedlock. Not to get all Brad-and-Angelina about it, but for years I didn’t want to get married because I didn’t want to participate in an institution that was closed (or largely closed) to my gay friends and family members. Clearly my resolve weakened since then, but it still bothers me that I'm part of something that is not aavailable to all my peers.
So, I'm glad pieces like Coontz’s—which get fresh conversations started—are part of the debate about how modern matrimony might provide the greatest good to the most people, children and adults alike.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?