With Prop 8 having passed and now appearing to be ratified by the State Supreme Court, someone in California finally figured out what the real problem is:  Governments controlling marriage in the first place.

Think about it.  If marriages are recognized only as social and religious ceremonies, and the government merely recorded civil unions on a contractual basis, then the problem is solved, right?

So using that logic, a new initiative has surfaced:  Removing the title of marriage from all state sanctioned ceremonies, and calling them recognized civil unions.

California Initiative Proposes Abolishing All Marriage from Law

California same-sex “marriage” supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

The “Domestic Partnership Initiative” proposes to categorize all unions simply as “domestic partnerships,” while retaining all the rights of marriage for heterosexual couples, and extending them to homosexual couples.  According to the initiative’s summary, “Legally speaking, ‘Marriage’ itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions.”

…

“[The initiative] is more like a compromise that mediates the two sides,” said Shams. “This isn’t a gay rights campaign, it’s an equal rights campaign. You can see it as an attack on marriage, but you can also see it as protecting marriage because we are taking it out of the battlefield.”

In a sense they are right.  But this will not work even if it manages to get on the ballot and actually gets adopted.

Frank Schubert, the pro-Proposition 8 campaign manager, told the San Francisco Gate that eliminating all types of marriage was unlikely to gain broad public support and called it “fundamentally a dumb idea.”

Well I wouldn’t go that far, but there are some fundamental issues with doing this at the state level.

First, the civil unions would not necessarily be recognized as defacto marriages in other states even for the hetero couples.   So would they need to leave the state and be married again in the next state?

For that matter, there is no guarantee that the federal government will acknowledge them either. 

After all, the gay marriages in Massachusetts do not get recognized on a Federal level, so these civil contracts will still be limited to recognition in California.

It’s is an interesting idea, but it also does the job of the Legislature who should have passed a fully recognize civil union process long ago, and given gays equal recognition at a state level.

So as I said, it is an interesting idea, but I would bet it faces an uphill battle and even if it passes all the hurdles, it will not solve the real problems, and may end up creating more than it solves.

Hot Air echoes many of the same sentiments:

The DPI is an interesting and provocative referendum that will force people to consider the role of government in social constructs and religious practices.  Those who argue that government has a duty to protect the sanctity of marriage will undoubtedly object, but that argument died on a pragmatic basis with no-fault divorce.  Though not all states have it, most do, and it demoted the marriage contract to the lowest rung in legal commitments by allowing one partner to break it at will with no consequences whatsoever.  On a philosophical basis, libertarians and some small-government conservatives would argue that “sanctity” is a religious/philosophical construct and not something for governments to enforce, anyway.

As a practical matter, eliminating marriage as a government sanction and forcing couples into partnership contracts would eliminate barriers to adoption and benefits for gay couples, at least in California.  It would also avoid the state-recognition issue that the Massachusetts Supreme Court created and which the Defense of Marriage Act attempted to pre-empt.  Since the couples would not have government-sanctioned “marriages”, other states would not have to recognize them as such, but the contracts would be enforceable anywhere in the US — probably a lot more enforceable than marriages are today.  Those who want to claim “marriage” could have that sanctioned by their religious organizations instead of relying on the state.

Most opposition to this will rest on adoption and the profound nature of changing the way society treats its foundational building block, the family.  In practice, DPI might not really change much anyway, since I believe California allows for private adoptions by singles and gay couples, and people are free to arrange their families in such manner anyway without government approval as “marriage” now.  However much the libertarian argument appeals to me — and it does — I have to wonder whether we gain much in taking such a step, and what we lose in comparison.

So this may have some benefit of at least opening up the dialog and perhaps forcing lawmakers to confront the real villain in marriage:  Government control.

Marriage is supposed to be a rewarding relationship, a keystone to a stable family.  It should be about love and happiness and children.

It was never supposed to be a tax advantage, a survivors benefit for Social Security or a business industry.

Bottom line, when as a culture took all those historical fundamental values and cheapened them to the Love Boat and Fantasy Island levels, we set ourselves up for everything we see now and more. 

Not that I am trying to trivialize love and marriage.  I am pointing out how trivial people treat it.

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Political Byline, The Pink Flamingo, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.