I can see perfectly why civil union ought to replace marriage
in law. This
blog post in the link goes further and argues that instead of replacing marriage with union in the public
realm, we should split marriage into three components, each named a kind of union
and each is governed by one of three distinct spheres of life. The status of
theological union is granted and recognized by the church; that of civil union
is granted by the U.S. government; that of love union is granted, recognized,
and witnessed by any social actors/parties of the couple’s choosing.
This seems like a great idea. It also seems that under this
kind of system, one could be married to multiple people at the same time.
Let’s say a man, WT, could see economic benefits to being married to a female friend WeiWei, but WT could not bring himself to love her.
Instead, he loves Simon, his roommate, and wants to commit to him in a co-inhabitant
monogamous relationship. To thicken the plot, WT knows that his religious institution and family members would not recognize
that union. The tripartite union system would have no problem with this
traditionally thorny situation. WT would go to the city council and marry WeiWei, go to his friends to hold a ceremony to marry his lover Simon, and
maybe find a church that recognizes the religious commitment between him and
his lover. Isn’t this great? Now all of WT's problems are solved.
There is a way for the tripartite marriage system to get tricky.
The U.S. being the acclaimed “freest country of them all” gets a lot of calls
asking for citizenship. Although I have no intention right now to be a U.S.
citizen, I am still well aware of the difficulties involved in the process. It
takes 5-10 years of employment (usually in highly specified fields such as NMR
imaging- it takes more paperwork and therefore more money to hire a foreigner
so companies usually don’t do it unless they really need that person) to get a
green card and it could take more than 20 years to graduate from the green card
to citizenship. Marrying a U.S. citizen is much easier and faster. It usually
takes about 4 years of marriage for citizenship to be recognized. If you have
seen the movie Wedding
Banquet (which is awesome and I recommend you watching it this weekend if
you have not), you know that when citizens petition for residency status for
their alien spouses, federal officers ask them questions in the “Newlywed Game”
style to make sure the marriage is “genuine”. These questions
expose many presumptions the society has about what constitutes a traditionally
“genuine” marriage. For example, the question “where was your wedding?” assumes
that a public ceremony is necessary; the question “how much is your current
rent/mortgage payment?” Assumes that the couple are economic partners with each
other; “how many televisions do you have in your house/apartment” assumes that
the couple live together; “do you and your spouse use birth control? What kind”
assumes that the couple have sexual intercourse; etc If we were to adopt the
tripartite union system, the process for gaining citizenship through marriage would
be much more transparent and smoother. The couple would only have to tell the
officers that they want citizenship and other economic benefits. However, it is
imaginable that civil union could be misused when people start charging large
sums of money from foreigners in order for them to engage in civil union with
U.S. citizens.
Do you think a tripartite union for marriage is a good
alternative to traditional marriage and do you think it is okay for people to
use their U.S. citizenship as an “asset” for monetary gains? If not, do you
think the idea of citizenship is as exclusive as the idea of marriage and is
therefore as unethical?
Your link was incredibly helpful and enlightening. I think the idea of unions recognized by different spheres is one way to solve many of the contentions between the different camps that argue for particular understanding of marriage. However, I am not entirely sure that the three spheres is meant to encourage multiple civil unions in the way you mention simply because your characterization seems to put a lot of obligations on the individual to hold these unions in each sphere -- even if they may not necessarily want to have them.
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting part of your post however is your criticism of the application of citizenship through marriage in the United States. Particularly in contemporary society in which many couples go unmarried. For instance in Canada (yes not the United States but not horribly removed) individuals often enter into unions rather than traditional marriage with each other because of the individual social/economic freedom it grants them -- making their relationships similar to unmarried couples in the United States with the specific benefits many couples would prefer. The examples of questions you bring up I believe are examples of an outdated system which promotes a certain image of married life that is not only out-dated but inappropriate for contemporary society. Many individuals live out their lives much differently from when those laws were conceived and they should be changed to reflect the change in times and our understanding of relationships. Understandably that would be much more complicated but as the current system stands it seems very unfair.