Justice Thomas erred in Obergefell because he did not take seriously the argument of equal protection of same-sex marriage in states that recognize opposite-sex marriage. But he had a fair point about freedom, didn`t he? And if so, does that mean that a state could really abolish marriage equality? Society without marriage has repeatedly been the stuff of science fiction. It has been woven into utopian visions and egalitarian scenarios. But, as other commentators have pointed out, stability is the very essence of human progress and old habits die hard — especially if they have been acceptablely successful. The government and its close ally, religion, are investing heavily in stability and progress, and yes, I repeat only a few of the ideas already proposed. As Kestutis cleverly suggested, if anyone has a better idea, they should offer it with sufficient (or at least arguable) evidence. If anyone wants to explore some fictional implications, check out the books from the late sixties, written by Robert Rimmer: The Harrad Experiment and The Rebellion of Yale Marratt. These books were controversial, even for the turbulent times in which they appeared. Your mothers and fathers did not love them, nor did your clergy and governance. It is ironic (or perhaps paradoxical) that we claim to teach our children generosity over selfishness. We want them to be able to “play well with others.” But as they grow up, they must learn an uncomfortable truth: generosity is often rewarded with contempt and doormat status. Competition for position, power and prestige transforms selfishness into virtue.

If you want to succeed in the world, you can`t always be nice. And if someone wants to take your “things, steal your trophy wife, or treat you disrespectfully, you`re expected to get angry — and balance yourself. We are talking about utopia and egalitarianism. But we are taught to be ruthless when necessary. The historical effect. Keep this sentence in mind. Civil partnerships were established in 2004 to enable same-sex couples to enter into a partnership that guarantees them legal rights similar to those of married couples. In short, marriage in a common-law union or something very similar is making a comeback in law. While efficiency-oriented lawmakers are trying to drive it out of the front door, justice and reform-oriented researchers are taking a back seat. Whether or not states can abolish civil marriage, the basic rights and obligations of marriage have proven resilient.

Marriage is an outdated institution based on patriarchal inequality and has no place in modern society No religious model that rejects same-sex marriage would be required to perform same-sex marriages under this privatized model. According to this model, a couple, heterosexual or homosexual, would engage in a civil association in order to obtain public and legal recognition of their partnership; They would have a private wedding ceremony if they wished to honor their private religious or philosophical concept of marriage. [16] Subject to certain legal constraints, entrepreneurs have long been free to enter into any type of partnership they deem appropriate to their needs. Why not make the same possible for marriage, which is a partnership based on one of the oldest types of contractual relationships? [6] Nevertheless, Palmer`s general principle may well survive: if the government gives in, even for an illegal purpose, there is no violation of the same protection unless there are different effects. And if this principle survives, then the complete abolition of marriage by a state would be compatible with equal protection, as it would affect all married and potentially married couples equally. To Issaic Neutron: Why should we replace him? Why not allow people to connect with what they want and leave when the relationship has run its course? There is no emotional, financial, or pyschological security that a person can gain from a marriage or relationship, so the challenge is that a person can live that life knowing that the gain is lost. Although living with someone is pleasant and bearable, this is not always the case in my life. That my wife or husband can comfort me now, but maybe there may be a time in the future when they may not. For me, there is no need for replacement, only free association with people. We are not here to be in possession of culture and tradition, to act in a certain way. Those in civil partnerships and those who are married receive the same tax breaks and benefits – such as marriage money and bereavement payments. Surviving life partners are treated in the same way as widows or widowers in terms of entitlement to a state pension.

A key fact about marriage remains, regardless of reforms and modernizations. Marriage is much better for men than for women. It reinforces the idea that women are goods. It`s no wonder that men are happier, have better mental and physical health, and are better off financially than married women. As feminist writer Bea Campbell argues in her book The End of Equality, married women still do most household chores, and men care for almost as little of the children as they did 30 years ago. Marriage should be privatized. Let people make their own marriage contracts according to their conscience, religion and common sense; these contracts could be registered with the state, recognized as legal and arbitrated by the courts, but the terms would be determined by the parties. [2] As long as Alabama, Oklahoma, Kentucky and other states continue to recognize marriage — and continue to recognize same-sex marriage on an equal footing with opposite-sex marriage — laws that change the mechanism by which a couple establishes their marriage are likely to be maintained as constitutional. But what would happen if a state went further? What if a state really got out of the marriage business by abolishing the legal status of marriage? Would that be unconstitutional? The privatization of marriage is the concept that the state should not have the power to define the conditions of personal relationships such as marriage.

Proponents of the privatization of marriage, including some minarchists, anarchists, libertarians, and opponents of state interventionism, argue that such relationships are better defined by private individuals rather than the state. Arguments in favor of privatizing marriage have been made by a number of scholars and writers. Proponents of the privatization of marriage often argue that the privatization of marriage is a solution to the social controversy over same-sex marriage. The arguments for and against the privatization of marriage include both liberal and conservative political camps. Now, some in Alabama want to abolish civil marriage altogether. During the last session, the entire Alabama Senate and the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill that would have ended the official marriage license in the state. The settlement seeks to reach a compromise in principle between the U.S. Supreme Court`s mandate in the Obergefell case and the U.S. Court of Justice.

Hodges that states must treat same-sex couples and natural marriages equally, and on the other hand, the conscience mandate of Alabama citizens and officials who understand marriage as a male-female association. Although often introduced by conservative commentators, the privatization of marriage has attracted the attention of left-wing advocates. In 2003, left-wing political columnist and journalist Michael Kinsley wrote a second essay to appear in Slate on the subject. Kinsley`s essay is titled “Abolish Marriage: Let`s Really Get government Out of Our Chambers.” Kinsley followed the example of his libertarian counterparts Boaz and McElroy; Like Elder, he points to the potential of privatizing marriage to end the controversy over same-sex marriage: Of course, this is not at all the same as the question of whether marriage should be abolished altogether. So let`s try again to say what the question is. If elite law professors succeed in their efforts, committed cohabitation will soon enjoy the same legal status as marriage. Nearly two decades ago, in an influential series of legislative reform proposals entitled Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution, the American Law Institute proposed treating certain domestic partnerships as marriages in which the parties created legal rights and duties through their own conduct. Commenting on the document, the centre-left editors of a widely circulated collection of real estate cases state: “The same principle underlies common-law marriage.” Domestic partners must share a primary residence and live together for a period of time.

If, after that, “the partnership ends while both partners are alive, the couple`s assets will be divided according to the principles of matrimonial property division.” If death separates them, the state`s laws on legal succession apply. Progressive heterosexuals would benefit from joining the feminist campaign to abolish marriage. As has often been said, marriage involves three rings: engagement ring, wedding ring, suffering. The end of marriage is the only way to ensure true equality for all. But what I really like about this case is the way it has been fought on the basis that the institution of marriage is outdated, patriarchal and built on inequality.