"Privatizing" marriage: why would anyone object?

The following piece by Michael Kinsley is pretty well known by now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1910-2003Jul2.html?nav=hptoc_eo

He suggests that marriage be left to religious and civil institutions and that there be no more "government-sanctioned" marriage. He kind of leaves it hanging as far as some legal issues go; he acknowledges that marriage serves as a "bright line" and suggests we can come up with new ways of dealing with these issues but doesn't say how:

"Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are children, there are finances, there are spousal job benefits such as health insurance and pensions. In all of these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence or devotion to offspring. It would be possible to write rules that measure the real factors at stake and leave marriage out of the matter. Regarding children and finances, people can set their own rules, as many already do. None of this would be easy. Marriage functions as what lawyers call a "bright line," which saves the trouble of trying to measure a lot of amorphous factors. You're either married or you're not. Once marriage itself becomes amorphous, who-gets-the-kids and who-gets-health-care become trickier questions."

What I don't quite understand is why anyone would oppose this. It seems like a good way to satisfy those on both sides of the "gay marriage" debate. Does anyone here (on DU) have a problem with Kinsley's basic premise? Does anyone know why other people would have a problem with it?

:shrug:

Having the government certify a religious arrangement makes as much sense for marriage as for any other (meaning none whatsoever).

Why not have baptism licenses issued to determine who is really a member of which christian church or not?

Or bar mitzvah permits?

Or have priests and ministers and rabbis licensed and regulated as other professions?

I mean, if a particular form of contract ("marriage") has to be "respected as a sacred christian institution", then why not do the same to other contracts? Why should gays be allowed to form limited partnerships? Isn't the conduct of business "blessed by god" as much as the raising of children?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/891degvb.asp

"Kinsley claims that his solution "ought to satisfy both camps" in the gay marriage debate. What planet is he living on? Surely he must know that the public nature of marriage is crucially important to the most sincere gay marriage advocates, such as Andrew Sullivan. They desire marriage, among other things, for the legitimacy it will grant to homosexual behavior. (This is why Sullivan rejects mere "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships.") As for those who object to gay marriage, Kinsley believes his solution should suffice because "if you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?" But defenders of traditional marriage aren't merely troubled by being personally implicated in government endorsement of gay marriage. They're troubled because they believe gay marriage will further weaken, perhaps irretrievably, an essential institution that's already on the ropes."

The Weekly Standard is very right-wing, and this article is against gay marriage. My criticism of this viewpoint is that it suggests that it is the government's job to impose values on society. The author assumes that "gay marriage advocates" care mostly about getting society's approval and that those who are opposed need to stand firm because the traditional idea of marriage is being eroded. But, anyone can call themselves "married" right now even if it isn't a legal marriage. Making gay marriages legal is not going to make people who are against them any more accepting. And keeping gay marriage illegal is not going to stop gay couples from forming lifelong commitments. And it certainly won't keep straight married couples from cheating on each other, getting divorced, or doing anything else that "threatens traditional" marriage values much more than gay marriages would.

so i assume i wouldnt be married but have a civil union. i dont care anyway, would probably still say married, but doesnt matter an iota.

You and your partner (unless I've misunderstood your post) do not have the same rights as a married couple. If one of you had to go to the hospital, the other would not have the same visitation rights as a spouse, I believe. You can't take advantage of each other's health insurance plans at work, probably. Stuff like that.

With the same rights and legal obligations unto it. Under the 14th Amendment, these unions would be legal for heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, and everything in between.

Abolish all tax penalties/incentives associated with "marriage."

If people should so choose to be religiously "married," they may do so at the religious institution of their choosing. But this act would not be considered any form of legal commitment/contract.