It’s been a good few weeks for a game of homophobia bingo. With this week’s launch of the government consultation on same-sex marriage (finally!), every cliché you can think of has been rolled out: from the “slippery slope” argument (great example here from Cristina Odone asking why gay couples should get special treatment when paedophiles don’t – classy!) to the Thought for the Day segment taking the “marriage is a sacrament” and “separate but equal” approach. In between all the talk of sacraments, ancient institutions, and life-long commitment, I’d like to propose a different idea: let’s do away with marriage as we know it.
Let’s first of all recognise that marriage is – above all else – a legal an financial contract. Forget the twue wuv and meringue dresses; as David Allen Green points out, for any other contract of a similar value you’d have the solicitors crawling all over it. The economic realities of marriage become fairly self-evident after even a brief look at the history of the institution. Every time the economic situation changes, this alleged ancient sacrament changes with it. And let’s face it, economic circumstances have changed spectacularly over the last century or so. Besides, why is it the state’s business anyway who I choose to sleep, or be romantically involved, or share large chunks of my life with? Why aren’t all of the “small state” conservatives out there up in arms about this state intrusion into private life and individual choice?
Now, I’ll concede that there are certain advantages to be gained from being able to enter into a marriage-like contract with someone. You can settle rights and responsibilities like custody of children, next-of-kin privileges, some property arrangements. Why, however, we should have a one-size-fits-all contract for these is beyond me. No two relationships are the same, so why is the legal framework that governs them all the same? And why do so many of us blindly enter into this huge legal framework, covering everything from inheritance tax to the revoking of existing wills upon marriage, without being fully aware of what it is we’re letting ourselves in for? Perhaps if we knew a bit more about marriage, we wouldn’t have a 50% divorce rate.
Here’s what I propose to tackle both of these problems: Pick’n’mix Marriage. Let’s list out all of the rights and obligations and other legal perks and mine fields that go with the current marriage contract: taxes, benefits, next-of-kin issues, the lot. Let’s also think of some of the other things that might be useful to include in there while we’re redefining the whole thing. Then let everyone entering into a relationship negotiate and choose which parts of this they want to apply to their relationship. Maybe we’d want to make some of them conditional on others: if you want the inheritance tax allowance, you have to agree to be treated jointly for benefits purposes. Maybe we’d want to implement some of them in a non-reciprocal way: you may be your partner’s next of kin but they aren’t yours – as long as you both agree. Of course with this arrangement it doesn’t matter whether your partner happens to be of the same gender as you or a different one. Nor does it, technically speaking, matter how many partners you have – you may choose to share certain rights and responsibilities with one of your partners and another set with another. As your relationship changes, so does the contract.
Is this approach shocking? Immoral? Arbitrary? No more so that calling marriage a “sacrament”, than having a two-tier system which discriminates against same-sex couples, than making transgender people get divorced if they want to obtain legal recognition of their gender. It’s a more honest, more transparent and more flexible system. And you can still have the big party and the meringue dress if you really want to.