Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics

Everyone knows that nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce. Right?

Check out this analysis from the Freakonomics Blog.

It’s actually more like 1 in 3. Not sure what my point is in posting this, just liked the analyis.

Sidebar: While the Chicago School of Economics annoys me to no end on the ideological front, (Note to Milton – uhh that whole I.M.F. & World Bank thing didn’t work out so well) one has to admire their dedication to slicing the numbers all the way down to the bone. Also, I dig the idea that basic economic theories can be applied to almost anything.

 

The Costs of Marriage

I plan to do more research on this, but this is interesting

Beginning next week, Illinois counties will begin collecting an extra $5 from those seeking marriage licenses. The money will be used to pay for legal counseling and services aimed at the state’s growing number of domestic violence cases.

more

 

When you’re right, you’re right: against marriage and motherhood.

Found this 12-year-old but still entirely relevant essay by Claudia Card, Against Marriage and Motherhood. You should read it, because a) she’s a lesbian, and she’s anti-marriage – gay and straight, so in case you thought we were bigots, think again, and b) she’s just right.

I really tired, so I haven’t delved into the motherhood bit yet, but some great quotes from the first portion of the piece:

About same-sex marriage I feel something like the way I feel about prostitution. Let us, by all means, decriminalize sodomy and so forth. Although marriage rights would be sufficient to enable lovers to have sex legally, such rights should not be necessary for that purpose. Where they are legally necessary and also available for protection against the social oppression of same-sex lovers, as for lovers of different races, there will be enormous pressure to marry. Let us not pretend that marriage is basically a good thing on the ground that durable intimate relationships are. Let us not be eager to have the State regulate our unions. Let us work to remove barriers to our enjoying some of the privileges presently available only to heterosexual married couples. But in doing so, we should also be careful not to support discrimination against those who choose not to marry and not to support continued state definition of the legitimacy of intimate relationships. I would rather see the state deregulate heterosexual marriage than see it begin to regulate same-sex marriage.

And:

Among the trappings of marriage that have received attention and become controversial, ceremonies and rituals are much discussed. I have no firm opinions about ceremonies or rituals. A far more important issue seems to me to be the marriage license, which receives hardly any attention at all. Ceremonies affirming a relationship can take place at any point in the relationship. But a license is what one needs to initiate a legal marriage. To marry legally, one applies to the state for a license, and marriage, once entered into, licenses spouses to certain kinds of access to each other’s persons and lives. It is a mistake to think of a license as simply enhancing everyone’s freedom. One person’s license, in this case, can be another’s prison. Prerequisites for marriage licenses are astonishingly lax. Anyone of a certain age, not presently married to someone else, and free of certain communicable diseases automatically qualifies. A criminal record for violent crimes is, to my knowledge, no bar. Compare this with other licenses, such as a driver’s license. In Wisconsin, to retain a driver’s license, we submit periodically to eye exams. Some states have more stringent requirements. To obtain a driver’s license, all drivers have to pass a written and a behind-the-wheel test to demonstrate knowledge and skill. In Madison, Wisconsin, even to adopt a cat from the humane society, we have to fill out a form demonstrating knowledge of relevant ordinances for pet-guardians. Yet to marry, applicants need demonstrate no knowledge of the laws pertaining to marriage nor any relationship skills nor even the modicum of self-control required to respect another human being. And once the marriage exists, the burden of proof is always on those who would dissolve it, never on those who would continue it in perpetuity.

[Note: Bold text styling is my own.]

 

I’ll no more on’t; it hath made me mad – an addendum.

In a discussion while driving to have some delicious sushi, I told TeemKuntz that railing against gay marriage (in that it is a type of marriage at all, not as a homophobe) is a waste of energy. Sure, it’s irksome to see so much time and energy spent on fighting for something so undesirable.

But our guest commenter, Joz76, on TK’s last post on gay marriage versus same sex unions had a valid point: in the real world, marriage and civil unions do NOT offer the same rights and protections. So if getting those left-out rights is important to them, well, then I say let them go for it.

However, completely unrelated to anyone’s feelings about gays or about marriage, think of how this affects voter’s rights. I don’t generally quote pastors of Evangelical churches in Georgia as food for thought (I am a little queasy even saying that) but Byron at The No Kool-Aid Zone has an interesting point:

The California Supreme Court usurped authority not inherent in its constitutional powers, and stripped every single Californian of his/her rights to vote in a meaningful way. Why? Because California voters had already rejected “gay marriage” by an overwhelming margin, in a legal, statewide referendum.

I can honestly say I had never thought of it that way.

Is it true that they could vote to ban gay marriage again? Sure. But why the back lash from the Supreme Court? Why do something that (again, paraphrasing Byron – yeesh) is “morally right and legally wrong” in the meantime? I don’t know enough about the nitty gritty, specific limits of sep of powers, but it seems strange to me.

Additionally, I find this whole post somewhat hypocritical on my part as I am going to a Bachellorette party tonight, and a wedding (accompanied by TK) next week.

…I’m hoping the lapdances I get later will wash this icky Georgian pastor feeling off of me….

 

I say there shall be no more marriages

Well, it happened, a  mostly-Republican-appointed Supreme Court overturned California’s same sex marriage ban.

I think it’s opposite day again…but that’s neither here nor there. I’ve expressed my intense opposition to the legal recognition of marriage of any kind, and I don’t really want to jump into that pool again, but I’ve got a few questions to the world at large:

One caveat (and people, please read the damn caveat before you start spouting off)

Caveat: I am not opposed to equal rights for gay and lesbian couples. I am not a neanderthal homophobe. I am opposed to the legal recognition of marriage for any couple whatsoever. I have expressed my reasons before, read my previous posts on the matter before you accuse me of…whatever you’re going to accuse me of…

The questions:

1) Why does anyone need sanction from the government to be together? My relationships do not need to be legitimized by a government…umm, why do yours?

2) What is the evidence that marriage is actually any good for society? Provide examples please, because after watching 3 colleagues go through divorce. I don’t buy it for a goddamn minute. The ball’s in your court, you assert it’s good for society, you back it up.

3) Finally, quoting the Stephen Sondheim musical Company, What do you get for it? Congratulations! You can now get married! So what?

Please, whatever you do, don’t give me the commitment line. Commitment is a complete fallacy. People change. The reasons you love someone may cease to exist. Unconditional love does not exist and should not exist. We love for reasons. If you don’t, why love at all?

Would you really want to be loved for no reason? Think about it.

 

Burn the shoes and boil the rice.

Just a quick addendum to TeemKuntz’s well-put thoughts on civil unions. I would like to play devil’s advocate, but… I can’t really think of anything to argue. I guess my brain just doesn’t work like that.

A while back, I started searching for anti-marriage groups with a quick spin on Google, and found unmarried.org, home of the Alternatives to Marriage project.

Good start, I thought.

But, aiming to be politically correct and accept all attitude, one of the projects this group supports is a Marriage Boycott that will end when same sex couples have the same rights to marry as het couples. Then everyone will get married all at once, and it will be like the end of a Shakespeare comedy times a gazillion. Or something.

Does anyone feel like these people have missed the point? Does anyone think this is actually helping? And on a broader more important point, are actually we legitimizing inaction as protest? This ain’t a sit-down strike. There’s nothing pressing about this type of boycott. These people aren’t sacrificing anything, except a chance to fight with their future mother-in-laws about bridesmaids’ dress colors and / or a chance to be divorced. And who are they trying to impress / hurt / get to notice? Friends? Lawmakers? The wedding industry? (who they will give all their money to when the boycott ends, by the way.)

AtMP stresses that there are different ways to be “unmarried” with different levels of vehemency. But a few links later, they have information on types of “commitment” ceremonies (i.e. they look like a wedding, sound like a wedding, cost like a wedding, but aren’t a wedding.)
Isn’t the point to be uncommitted? Or, as I have phrased it before, to rebuild commitment every day? I realize this attitude would cause confusion in terms of legal arrangements, but since these ceremonies have no legal ramifications, then shouldn’t the message at least be right?

I’m not against big parties with fancy dresses and friends and family, followed by luxurious travel and kinky kinky sex. But the vow (if you can call it that) at said party should always be “I love you until I can’t love you anymore.”

Unfortunately, AtMP is the best that’s out there right now, as far as I can tell, and I generally hate to denounce powers used for actual good in favor of powers used for idealistic awesome.

But in the name of making the point, being a militant, being the Nader… I kinda want to.

 

Something borrowed, something blue

A lawsuit is pending in California challenging the states’ definition of marriage. California does recognize civil unions and basically confers the legal protections of marriage, but now they’re fighting for the right to get (dum-da-da-dum) Married(!)

I’m getting a little sick to my stomach this morning. This is such a bad idea that I can’t fully count the ways, but I certainly aim to try.

(One caveat, TeemKuntz did used to be married, so feel free to take this post with liberal amounts of salt.)

The legal protections of marriage and marriage itself are two extremely different things. If I could go *poof*, and make it better, this is one of things I would change.

Being married basically tells the state “Hey, this person here (point to spouse), I want them to look after me and my interests if I am unable to do so myself.” Things like inheretance, power of attorney, medical decisions, these are important. Each person should be able to designate whoever they want to take care of those things. I love my parents and brother to death, but we disagree about enough things that I wouldn’t want them making decisions on my behalf.

This designation is important. Otherwise we could have mass chaos every time someone is injured or dies. Parents, spouses, children, could all have some kind of claim in medical care. Imagine being a doctor in those circumstances. We saw a bit of this during the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Avoiding that fiasco is why the state recoginizes marriages. It assumes the person you marry is the one you want to look after your interests.

Fine, OK. My objection is the recognition of marriage as the means of accomplishing this end. It’s mixing the church and state in very uncomfortable ways. In my world, designating a person would be the equivalent of filling in the “in case of emergency” entry in your passport. Something happens, you erase the name. Simple.

Marriage could still exist as well, but it would be completely outside of the public sphere. You want to go to a church? Fine. Wear a wedding band? Fine. Your church doesn’t want to perform ceremonies for gay people? Fine with me. Remember, coercion is a bad thing. If gay people want to have a wedding, that’s fine too. They can rent the hall, wear tuxedos, watch Uncle Mike get tanked up at the open bar, all fine with me.

And if they fill out the “in case of emergency” form all rights and benefits are theirs.

This is my ultimate problem with same sex marriage. It legitimizes the mixing of public policy and religion. We should be encouraging states to only recognize civil partnerships. But for this to work there cannot be any substantive difference between the civil unions and marriage.