You're certainly right about the promotion of marriage - though in some ways I think that government does it - or at least started to do it - because of the push from religion, especially in Europe under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, to privilege their particular definition of marriage.
I don't understand how widening of the definition of marriage, to include same-sex couples, or polygamous relationships between consenting adults, or even between adult couples that would currently be considered consanguineous, represents a division into haves and have-nots. (Other than the fact that some people do not ever seem to find mutually committed partners, and that is something that neither religion nor the state can do something about without violating human rights.)
I *think* you may be referring to the fact that people who do not have partners (I'm using this phrasing because in Canada common-law partners are entitled to most of the same state-administered benefits as married partners), are often disadvantaged by the way the governments have promoted and privileged the married state - and if I'm right in my interpretation, you're assuming that I agree that only people with partners should have some of the rights and privileges that, as you pointed out, I chose not to talk about in this particular set of musings.
I do think that when several people form an economic unit in which income and property are shared, and one or more dependent persons are supported by others, then some recognition of this should be made in taxation, social support programs, and other financial matters administered by the state. However, I don't think that only people with partners should be permitted, for example, to register joint households and have the kind of taxation benefits that result from that status.
I haven't got a list of every special right or privilege that married or common-law partners have, but for most of the ones I can think of, I see no reason why persons who don't have partners should not have some equivalent benefit where such a benefit can be identified as being, in fact, equivalent. The major distinction would be that if you are married, you have de facto indicated who you are choosing to be the co-recipient(s) or beneficiary(ies) of those rights and privileges, and for an unpartnered person, there has to be some other mechanism for saying "I want to share my pension credits with my best buddy from high school," or "I'm putting my niece through college, give me a tax break," or whatever.
If you are thinking about something else, please clarify, because if I've overlooked something that would in fact create a material have/have-not situation, then I do need to re-examine my thinking.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 04:17 am (UTC)I don't understand how widening of the definition of marriage, to include same-sex couples, or polygamous relationships between consenting adults, or even between adult couples that would currently be considered consanguineous, represents a division into haves and have-nots. (Other than the fact that some people do not ever seem to find mutually committed partners, and that is something that neither religion nor the state can do something about without violating human rights.)
I *think* you may be referring to the fact that people who do not have partners (I'm using this phrasing because in Canada common-law partners are entitled to most of the same state-administered benefits as married partners), are often disadvantaged by the way the governments have promoted and privileged the married state - and if I'm right in my interpretation, you're assuming that I agree that only people with partners should have some of the rights and privileges that, as you pointed out, I chose not to talk about in this particular set of musings.
I do think that when several people form an economic unit in which income and property are shared, and one or more dependent persons are supported by others, then some recognition of this should be made in taxation, social support programs, and other financial matters administered by the state. However, I don't think that only people with partners should be permitted, for example, to register joint households and have the kind of taxation benefits that result from that status.
I haven't got a list of every special right or privilege that married or common-law partners have, but for most of the ones I can think of, I see no reason why persons who don't have partners should not have some equivalent benefit where such a benefit can be identified as being, in fact, equivalent. The major distinction would be that if you are married, you have de facto indicated who you are choosing to be the co-recipient(s) or beneficiary(ies) of those rights and privileges, and for an unpartnered person, there has to be some other mechanism for saying "I want to share my pension credits with my best buddy from high school," or "I'm putting my niece through college, give me a tax break," or whatever.
If you are thinking about something else, please clarify, because if I've overlooked something that would in fact create a material have/have-not situation, then I do need to re-examine my thinking.