Gay marriage, the State and the Free Market

[bigmike]

I've been paying a little attention lately to the California Supreme Court case and the recent legislation in Iowa (and other states) regarding the gay marriage issue. This has never been that important of an issue to me personally but has been to some friends of mine.

I made a few points this evening I'd like to share from a discussion I had with one of my friends who is very active in the gay rights movement here in Detroit.

"Why do you care if the State recognizes your marriage?" I personally don't see the point of marriage licenses at all, gay or straight. Do we need permission to have a ceremony? Should we be forced to pay in order to ask permission?

The response I got was along the lines of whether or not the State recognizes these rights of a person being able to have a same sex marriage and their being entitled to spousal benefits from insurance companies, pensions, etc.

It's my understanding that in many cases involving probate that the courts still recognize common law marriages as long as the time together can be verified in some way. Why can't gay marriage be recognized the same way as a common law marriage?

As far as spousal benefits, can't all this be done with a contract between two people? Would an insurance company not be able to pay a life insurance policy to a beneficiary that was gay if there was a signed affidavit stating that it was the policy holder's wishes to have their partner as the beneficiary? Maybe it would depend on the policy and whether the insurance company would grant that, but the couple could always find out ahead of time. What insurance company would want to turn away the business?

Even if the couple couldn't find an insurance company to recognize their marriage, wouldn't the market be an ideal solution? There's gotta be some wealth in the gay community. What stops someone from starting their own insurance company specifically for same sex partners? It would be a HUGE niche market and compel their competitors to offer their services to same sex partners just to compete.

What am I missing here?

[Discipula]

As far as I know you're not missing anything. I'm not gay and I've done no deep research into it, but just from hearing tidbits here and there it seems there is no huge shortage of companies offering benefits to partners. People certainly see the market there and are capitalizing on it.
The commonlaw thing though...I'm pretty sure only a limited number of states have commonlaw marriages.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

As much as I like and respect Ryan Marvin, I've found his campaign in NH to be annoying. Every time I look at the words "Marriage Equality" I feel the campaign is dishonest, because what he's advocating will NOT bring equality, it'll only get the state involved with the relationships of select gay couples.

The only way that marriage will really be equal is when marriage is no longer a government thing since while some government people recognize gay marriage, none respect poly-marriages.

This is something I've been contemplating with my wife. It's delicate and we're starting to broach it. Neither she nor I knows the day we got married. We celebrate the 4th of July as the day we committed our lives to each other, together. A few months later, we has some magistrate put words on paper.

The assumption was that those words would make the government give us some rights over each other, such as contracting and speaking on each other's behalf. In reality, no businesses care about marriage. I can't access my wife's cell phone account because she didnt' authorize me. That's annoying, but okay; they're private businesses.

But the DMV won't let her sign for me on my car's title, and they ARE government people.

It seems that the ONLY thing marriage (in the legal sense) is doing is making my WIFE afraid that they'll steal HER property if I don't pay taxes.

I really, REALLY resent the government's involvement in my life through marriage. I don't wish that involvement on anybody else.

*This ad paid for by Heterosexual Married Couples Against Government Marriage*

[Mike Barskey]

Kevin, have you two considered getting divorced? Just legally. Just to remove govt from your bed.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Kevin, have you two considered getting divorced?

As I said, it's "delicate". We're both anti-state but I think I'm a little more... I don't want to say principled but I feel more of an imperative to make my actions and my philosophy in line. To me, it's literally just a piece of paper, but to her it's part of being "normal". While she's growing to reject the imperative to be "normal" I think she's still emotionally invested in the idea of marriage.

There's also the counter side... The problem is that the government is part of our relationship, so we'll solve that by getting another government paper...

Finally, we've got more important things to focus on right now, like refurbishing our motorhome and moving to Keene.

[Mike Barskey]

Finally, we've got more important things to focus on right now, like refurbishing our motorhome and moving to Keene.

I like your priorities.

[dalebert]

I'm with you, Kevin. I've frequently said that I wouldn't get a government marriage even if I could, so where do I find the inspiration to throw my support behind this effort? It feels so fake. I would much rather encourage everyone to avoid a government marriage. If I'm doing that, why should I talk out of the other side of my mouth and beg the government to marry same-sex couples?

[J’raxis 270145]

As much as I like and respect Ryan Marvin, I've found his campaign in NH to be annoying. Every time I look at the words "Marriage Equality" I feel the campaign is dishonest, because what he's advocating will NOT bring equality, it'll only get the state involved with the relationships of select gay couples.

The only way that marriage will really be equal is when marriage is no longer a government thing since while some government people recognize gay marriage, none respect poly-marriages.

It's not marriage equality, but it's a step toward it.

Also remember not everyone in our movement is an anarchist, and some who are (including Ryan and myself) are to some extent pragmatic about moving us toward freedom. Some people are still stuck in the begging-the-State paradigm, and whereas I can't say I agree with this, because it's a harmless use of the State (other than to oneself, perhaps), I can understand and support someone saying it's unfair that one group of people is simply excluded from asking the State for a marriage license, whereas another group can do so. Ideal solution: Get the State out of it. Interim solution: At least stop using the State's involvement in it as a way to discriminate against one class of people.

The situation also offers a great opportunity to pull people in a more libertarian direction. That's probably the biggest benefit I see in getting involved with this: We're exposing the message of true freedom to a bunch of liberals who are begging the State for certain freedoms. Quite a few people I've talked to are on board with the "get the State out of marriage" idea. That's one step: Realizing that the State isn't a solution to everything. We've been trying to recruit a lot of people into the NHLA, too. That's another step: Going from activism about one freedom that one has a personal stake in, to understanding the general message of freedom based on the principle of self-ownership. And hopefully from there, some people will see the broader movement toward freedom with no State whatsoever.

And as for stepping toward complete marriage equality, hopefully the State will be gone before we have to worry about getting them to recognize poly-marriages.

[Friday]

I just hope Reverend Ryan doesn't see the ad at the top of this forum urging the Governor to veto the bill.   

[Lloyd Danforth]

I'm with you, Kevin. I've frequently said that I wouldn't get a government marriage even if I could,

Just broke a 1000 hearts!

[dalebert]

I just hope Reverend Ryan doesn't see the ad at the top of this forum urging the Governor to veto the bill.   

That was the Google ad placement on AIYH as well. If I could figure out the URL without clicking on it, I would have blocked it.

[MaineShark]

Well, there is the issue of spouses not being forced to testify against each other.

As far as I know, that's the only thing a government marriage license gets you, that you can't get by private contract.

Joe