Wishin' and Hopin' ... for Legal Recognition of My Friendships
by Motte Brown on 06/17/2008 at 5:02 PM
There's a new movement afoot that gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "friends with benefits." It's so friends can have the same rights and privileges as spouses.
Here's the gist from The Boston Globe article, "I Now Pronounce You ... Friend and Friend:"
[A] number of scholars are seeking to shore up friendship in a surprising way: by granting it legal recognition. Some of the rights and privileges restricted to family, they argue, should be given to friends. These could be invoked on a case-by-case basis -- eligibility to take time off to care for a sick friend under an equivalent of the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example. Or they could take the form of an official legal arrangement between two friends, designating a bundle of mutual rights and privileges -- literally "friends with benefits," as Laura Rosenbury, a law professor at Washington University, puts it. One scholar even suggests giving friends standing in the tax code, allowing taxpayers to write off certain "friend expenditures."
Once marital rights were given to couples based on whether or not they have sex, I suppose it was only a matter of time before the argument was made to extend it to good buddies. It's the logical next step.
At least that's what Washington University law professor Laura Rosenbury thinks.
"If the law decides to support some relationships, why not others that similarly involve care and support?" asks Washington University's Rosenbury. "What is it about marriage or marriage-like relationships -- that is, relationships that are assumed to have sex in them?"
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because I would never make a life-long commitment to honor and cherish my buddy Chuck in sickness and in health. I'm pretty sure I would bolt the first sign of a stomach flu.
One thing is for certain though, privileges like these would serve only to extend adultescence among 20- and 30-somethings. Here's more from "Friend and Friend:"
If the law were to move systematically toward recognizing friendship, it could trigger deeper changes in the way we structure our lives. The most radical effect might be to disaggregate the components of relationships. Most people grow up expecting to eventually find a long-term relationship -- whether marriage or not -- that combines sex, domesticity, friendship, some degree of economic interdependence, and caregiving. But some wonder whether it is healthy, or even realistic, to expect one relationship to meet all of those needs. ...
If the state were to sanction a wider variety of relationships, unconventional arrangements could gain currency as long-term, legitimate options. This could foster increased flexibility in forming relationships and the expectations people bring to them.
Especially for guys. Given the plethora of women available for casual, guilt-free sex, a friends with benefits law would pretty much be the end of marriage.
But maybe that's exactly what the proponents want.
1. Charity said the following at 5:09 PM on Jun 17:
Wow, that's weird. Really, really weird.
2. Mike Toreno said the following at 6:29 PM on Jun 17:
I thought it was silly because I hadn't thought it through. I went to the article and read this:
"These could be invoked on a case-by-case basis - eligibility to take time off to care for a sick friend under an equivalent of the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example."
Then I thought, oh. Yep.
3. Nicole (from Boston) said the following at 6:30 PM on Jun 17:
Interesting. I think that adds a whole new level of confusion to the whole concept of relationships. The last thing we need is more confusion in that area.
Also, I'm not surprised that the Globe was the first to break this story. Gotta love the liberal-ness of this area. :)
4. BDB said the following at 7:28 PM on Jun 17:
I notice something that is missing from the article: there is no mention that the public policy purpose for marriage-related benefits is because children need protection, and children are the biologically natural result of marriage.
5. P&P said the following at 7:31 PM on Jun 17:
Whoa, I think you have it all wrong. I see this legalized friendship as a way to help people without any family or no family near by to have an advocate in emergencies.
Far too many seniors find themselves alone when they desperately need help. In fact I see an opportunity to serve seniors by having an advocate step in to provide trustworthy care and counsel when a senior is not able to care for him or her self.
In addition, B'less does advocate the idea of leaving family at a fairly young age. What's a 22 year old to do when they're seriously ill or in an accident and they're 2,000 miles away from family?
Frankly, I think if you're single, widowed or divorced, a legal friend to act as your advocate in emergencies or (G-d forbid) end of life decisions is essential.
6. Chin Wee said the following at 7:42 PM on Jun 17:
I'm not at all surprised. It's just the next logical step after the legalization of homosexual marriages. Next thing you know, it would be between a man and an animal. Just you wait.
7. Cassandra said the following at 7:47 PM on Jun 17:
Sadly, it really doesn't surprise me. The definition of marriage has been stretched in recent years, so this development is really just the logical next step.
What I wonder is if the proponents of gay marriage (who so recently have won that right) will fight against this as violently as christians fought (and still fight) gay marriage, or will they accept it?
Its possible they will consider this movement to be in the same spirit as theirs and support it, but its possible they might feel that marriage is something special, something higher than just friends, and resent the "friends with benefits" advocates trying to usurp their hard-won gains, trying to take the romantic commitment out of it (in the same way christians and traditionalists were upset by the gay's desire to change the definition of marriage.)
Now that the gays have secured a legally accepted view of marriage sympathetic to their concerns, will they accept further change of the definition of marriage? Will their views change, now that they have a comfortable position?
8. Marc said the following at 8:11 PM on Jun 17:
I have a best-friend. His name is Skip (not his real name, by the way). We've been friends for 10 years and, though we both love each other as brothers in Christ, we both agree that this is taking it too far.
We love each other, but not that much...
9. S said the following at 8:44 PM on Jun 17:
I agree w/ P&P about having an emergency contact or advocate. I think this could be taken care of under a power of attorney or something similar for emergency situations.
10. Rebecca said the following at 9:10 PM on Jun 17:
From a woman's perspective, I can see the benefits of this. Prior to her marriage a few months ago, I lived with my best friend S. for about 3 years. We moved together to a new state over 8 hrs or more from both of our families. We had serious discussions about making legal arrangements so that in case of an emergency I could make medical and financial decisions for her and vice versa. We are in our late 20's (both almost 30) and at that time neither of us had a significant relationship. Being so far from family it seemed reasonable. We also both were committed to living together until the Lord brought us husbands. In addition, we found out when she changed jobs that I could be on her health insurance as a "domestic partner" because we lived at the same address, shared living expenses and I was employed but with no benefits. However, she got married and all of that went to her husband:-)
This may seem strange, and I would never have thought of it when I was a teenager or in my early 20's. Now, nearing 30 and still sans significant other, living with another female friend and anticipating that this situation could last quite a bit longer, I can see how this would be helpful. Obviously it is not the best situation, but it is realistic. My first thought was about these relationships and not about a commitment-free male/female relationship, but that is where my life is right now.
Just my two cents.
11. Joy W. said the following at 10:28 PM on Jun 17:
I've wished more than once that I could add certain family members onto my health insurance policy. My dad is on Medicare and my sister, who works at a large, well-known discount retailer, has very poor insurance coverage.
My health coverage, on the other hand, is excellent. They are my family, so it doesn't seem fair that I can't have a family policy that would include them.
12. pass the ammunition said the following at 10:46 PM on Jun 17:
when the government is involved in marriage in the form of benefits, they can dictate what it is.
unfortunately its the nature of the government. if married people are willing to give up all the legal benefits of marriage and get the government out, then all this other stuff would not be happening, because the church would have the right not to allow it within their non-governmental definition of marriage.
13. Mason Moore said the following at 10:59 PM on Jun 17:
As a second-year law student, let me gently correct BDB's understanding of the law. Marriage law and child-protection laws are two distinct and separate things. Child-protection laws apply to children regardless whether the parent(s) is/are single or partnered, married or not. Likewise, marriage law applies to married partners ...period; the presence or absence of children has no bearing on the law.
To put it much more succintly: the legal benefits of marriage have never required children. I don't see that ever changing.
14. alex said the following at 12:28 AM on Jun 18:
Hm. It could be pretty great for a number of the women who want to live with any of the plethora of GUYS who are available for guilt free sanctioned sex as well.
15. Jeremy said the following at 12:28 AM on Jun 18:
I am confused as to why anyone would think this attacks marriage. How on earth is giving the legal ability to take off work to care for a sick friend or writing off certain expendiatures from your taxes an attack on marriage? Only because this happens most often in the context of a marriage? By that same logic, wouldn't same sex roommates be an attack on marriage?
16. alex said the following at 12:36 AM on Jun 18:
I am really confused about why you think this is a bad thing...these people are trying to help each other for crying out loud. Your marital status doesn't make you better and more entitled than other people. I have many friends who treat me like family and they've helped shape me into a (more) generous person than I would have been otherwise, after having my family of six all but abandoned by my father. In Christ we are all brothers and sisters. I see no reason a person taking leave of absence to take care of a sick friend should not recieve the 'blessing', as it were, of the government. It's a little strange, I admit, but I fail to see the harm in it.
Please explain further.
17. xeres said the following at 1:10 AM on Jun 18:
Alex,
I read the whole original article. I can see their rational but these people don't understand that this legal recognition thing will make friendships into a heavy burden as well as a potential government pet project that they can control at will. While I'm not liberaterian (I'm politically independent/non-parisan), we don't need more red tape, more people abusing the system and more government officials being busybodies regarding personal relationships. They have no right to tell you how to love a person period. NO ands, ifs or buts.
While I don't agree some of Motte's analyses, the troubling aspect of this is it increases more government regulation on people's personal lives. It will bite us in the butt in a very painful way. Wait a sec, it had countless times yet people still didn't learn anything from it.
18. Holly (single, non-parent one) said the following at 1:23 AM on Jun 18:
I would be grateful for something like this. I have a medical power of attorney in place for a friend who I trust, in the event that I am incapacitated or medical decisions have to be made on my behalf, but I do worry about the disposition of my pets and belongings if something happens to me before God grants me a husband.
The law in this regard has not made it easy for the many people whose circumstances are not served by the usual progression of "next of kin" (in most states, it goes legally wedded spouse, adult children, parents, adult siblings...). The reality of the world we live in, with its high divorce rate, is that many people's family-of-origin becomes supplanted by a group of friends who function the way family used to, many years ago.
This has many ramifications toward further devaluing marriage in a secular sense, but it also has ramifications toward protecting the family. One of my best friends is a married woman with three children. Neither she nor her husband come from Christian families. If anything happens to both of them, her kids would face, depending on whose family got them, being raised as either atheists or Wiccans. Their pastor and his wife are designated guardians of the children, but if push came to shove, the grandparents would fight it. And, in a court of law, one or the other set of grandparents would almost certainly win, because the law respects blood.
Some sort of "update" to family law that recognized reality was inevitable. Rather than Chicken Little screaming, perhaps we should focus on solving the problem -- we live in a society full of fractured families.
19. Charllotte said the following at 2:26 AM on Jun 18:
I agree with some of the commenters above -- I don't understand how this is permission to have random guilt-free sex. It seems to me the purpose of "friendship registry" is to allow some sense of legal security to singles who lack close family ties (emotionally or spatially), which they would otherwise lack outside of marriage. In the first place, committing oneself to a "friend with benefits" in this manner seems rather illogical for someone who just wanted sex - why trust your medical and financial decisions to someone you will fling with for a night/week/month? If things don't go over well in the end, you better hope your buddy isn't the vengeful sort... And who wants to deal with official friend-divorces? Waaaaaaay too complicated.
Though I do feel that this may be a good thing to enact, I disagree with the proponents who suggest that marriage and friendship should be placed on the same level. Married couples aren't any better than a pair of friends, but the relationship is way different, and it should be treated that way. I don't really see this sanction destroying the distinction of friendship and marriage -- widespread divorce does more to do that. =/
20. Jenn said the following at 2:42 AM on Jun 18:
Yeah taking and making it relate to marriage is a stretch, at best. While it is odd, in many states end-of-life decisions and healthcare decisions made while incapacitated already extend to close friends. A young person who has medical issues or who has been suddenly incapacitated can fully understand the need for this particularly when he/she has no family or the closest family member is placed under financial/travel constraints and unable to assist. Not every piece of legislation which challenges 'the way things have always been done' is a covert bash on the family.
21. S said the following at 4:20 AM on Jun 18:
This article really got me to thinking last night... I am single and live about an hour from my parents. So, under normal circumstances, if some type of medical emergency happened, they would be making the decisions, I think? But, if they were out of town, who would this fall to? My sister lives 10 hours away... Same thing with a will. I don't have a ton of assets, but if I should die suddenly, do I really want my family to have to go through the legal wranglings that occur when a will isn't present?
Have any of you singles out there drawn up these kind of documents? Did you go through a lawyer?
22. Kelly said the following at 4:55 AM on Jun 18:
Rebecca - thanks for sharing your story! It makes a lot of sense.
I remember when I was living in a city far from family and friends. I had to go to hospital and the only person who could take me was a male friend from work.
When filling out the forms, I was at a loss of who to put for 'emergency contact'. I ended up writing my friend's name, and then it asked me to describe our relationship. There was no option for friend. So I listed him as 'partner'.
It felt weird.
I'd like to see legislation that acknowledges that a Friend is an important relationship/go-to person for a single person.
23. Lauren said the following at 5:12 AM on Jun 18:
I agree that it's a huge stretch to see this as an attack on marriage. The fact is a lot of people live far from family (myself included) and in times of illness, grief, financial hardship, etc. often our close friends are the ones we rely on. I have several dear friends who have become like family to me and if one of them were in need I would welcome the option to take time off work to be with them.
24. Bridget said the following at 5:42 AM on Jun 18:
Aside from what this may or may not do to marriage, what about what it does to friendship? In my mind part of what makes true friendship so special is the willingnesss to make sacrifices without any deep obligation or benefit in doing so.
The stomach flu would make me run, too-- but in the direction of ginger ale and soda crackers. What's a little upchuck between friends?
25. niki said the following at 6:31 AM on Jun 18:
"pass the ammunition", what you wrote is true.
26. rob said the following at 7:24 AM on Jun 18:
If you find yourself alone in the world, sick, and unable to attend to your own needs adequately, you will probably hope that someone will help you. If you are lucky, that someone will be be a brother or sister in Christ, who has both time and resources available to offer assistance. Why, then, is it that FOF bloggers seem to think that the law should not make it more possible for people to do this? Does a tax break or mandated work leave (usually it is with out pay, by-th-way) mean that a relationship of friendship extending to care-giving has become sinful. Lord help us all if this is what Christians are thinking!
27. Brian said the following at 7:25 AM on Jun 18:
Hmm, I could see ways this could be good, but I admit when I read this I thought of this Calvin and Hobbes comic strip:
http://tinyurl.com/4cxkua
28. Anastasia said the following at 7:26 AM on Jun 18:
Anybody remember David and Jonathan? How they swore that they would care for each other and each others' families? Hello?
The only problem I have with this is that one has to invoke the legal system to do it rather than vowing a vow that people will stick with without the clout of the legal system behind it.
I'm with the commenter who pointed out that people often live alone these days and need other people to be their medical proxies, etc., when they cannot care for themselves. But wouldn't you do that as a friend anyway?
Seems to me this is the crown of a society determined to take commitment out of life, to make light of deep relationships (what guys can be close without being accused of being gay?), to trivialize everything important and sacred in life.
29. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:29 AM on Jun 18:
P&P, #7
Boundless advocates leaving family at a young age and getting married =p
Which would take care of that problem.
They also advocate remaining with your family (and living responsibly towards a future and not giving into the "adultescence" thing) until you are married =p
They'd just like to see us married sooner rather than later =p
30. faye said the following at 7:31 AM on Jun 18:
If this does become law, then might I suggest that the church promote doing the RIGHT thing with it. To care for your neighbor who has nothing, to provide medical assistance to your beloved friend, to welcome that person who once was distant into your life. Promote friendship. I find it hard to make assumptions about the proponents. Maybe they really do want to help out. Maybe their intentions are to actually promote something underhanded. I don't know.
But for once, dear church, don't make it all about sex. Some things can be sacred without bringing sex into it.
I can see your passion for marriage Motte (which is awesome), but it is ok to have a deep commitment to a friend. For example, Jonathan made a covenant with David... out of his love for him.
(1 samuel 19+20)
I think that's something that can open the eyes of folks who want to make everything about sex. The reality is that true friendship does not mean sex. What people crave is the truth about friendship and love, but they only understand that to mean sex...
Friendship is something earth shattering that Christ, through the Church can offer to a really messed up heart.
Friendship is one of those things that is treasured all over the world. That's why it's so important to give a broader platform to it, rather than degrade it and make a law to define it.
31. Chris B. (VA) said the following at 7:33 AM on Jun 18:
I can see how this movement could be construed as an attack on the sanctity of marriage, but I see it more as a response to many sad facts about our fallen society and to the already weakened condition of the family. Many people now say, "my friends are my family," and feel closer to friends than they do to their blood relatives. While some people do not have any living family, I see other reasons for many of those who hold this view. In a culture that elevates youth over maturity/wisdom, and that segregates children based on age in schools, people will naturally feel closer to peers--especially when a day filled with extracurricular activities and solitary media consumption reduces quality time with the family. We also have a very mobile culture, in which young people do not think twice about moving across the country, away from immediate family. Delayed marriage and declining church attendance (even among professing Christians) only exacerbate the problem.
The question is, will we merely treat a symptom of the disease, or will we wake up to the deeper issues that have caused people to stray from the support of spouse, family, and church? Unfortunately, history indicates that we will do the former.
32. Kate said the following at 7:34 AM on Jun 18:
This is certainly interesting. One thing I would like to know is how these agreements could be broken. Would there be a long and nasty legal battle, similar to a divorce? What if your friend acts in your behalf, but does not do what you want, or does not actually do what is best for you? Would you have any legal recourse, or would that be it since you decided to relinquish that choice by making the agreement? I would like to see what kind of policies are built into this concept to address situations of abuse (obviously marriage contracts presently also have potential for abuse).
I can see how this kind of policy could be very useful in certain circumstances cited above, such as with singles, divorced people or widowed people. It's not like being blood related, or even related by marriage, to someone automatically means that person will have your wishes and best interest in mind when exerting the legal rights they may automatically have. It also does not mean they would be competent to handle your finances or make decisions about your health either. Maybe that reflects the broken state of the institution of the family in our culture, but then again, maybe not. It seems like stories about profiteering, greedy relatives go throughout cultures and history.
Sometimes I think it is kind of strange that biological extended families have such legal precedence in things like child custody when the parents die or are determined unfit by the state, the sort of "renegging" on adoptions, or in the case of wills. For example, is it right or fair that blood relatives who hardly had anything to do with the deceased can pop out of the woodwork, sue, and get the inheritance the deceased wanted and even wrote up legally to go to someone else, perhaps to people who were not blood related, but acted as that person's family when the bio family was completely absent for years? Is it fair that biological parents can change their minds and have the legal ability to take their children back once they are adopted by someone else?
Also, for the family medical leave part of it... in terms of how your taxes or insurance premiums are used, would you rather let a friend take care of a friend and personally support the ill person through their recovery (which may also have the additional benefit of social support in speeding and enhancing recovery, and be more supportive and stable than certain family members), or pay what I would guess to be more money overall in providing a similarly involved "professional" level of service and care?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that this policy might not be a bad thing, though it really challenges our notions of what the "legal" roles are or should be of biological or bound-by-marriage families... and how much we are allowed and encouraged to rely upon and care for "friends."
33. Erica_13 said the following at 7:47 AM on Jun 18:
Alex #16 wrote:
"I am really confused about why you think this is a bad thing...these people are trying to help each other for crying out loud."
I think your heart is in the right place Alex. Most people aren't objecting to helping out a friend or neighbor, but in this day and age traditional marriage has been so stretched and distorted by the homosexual agenda that this seems one more insult on top of injury.
Marriage is supposed to be sacred and set apart. When the governement became involved by issuing marriage certificates and tax benefits to marriage they in took the right to regulate it as well. For a many years that was not a problem - we were a Christian nation.
Now things that should be taken care of by the church (such as taking care of the elderly, widows, college kids away from home...) are being done by the government. But we *SHOULD NOT* need this new "legalized friendship." What we need are more motivated and selfless Christians reaching out to other people.
If you're (not you personally Alex =))that worried about health issues consider a) not going far from home for college b) granting a friend or nearby relative power of attorney. Problem solved. =)
34. Chuck (your buddy) said the following at 8:50 AM on Jun 18:
Motte,
This is your buddy Chuck. Your lack of committment to me makes me very sad.
Yours,
Chucky
35. Paxton said the following at 8:58 AM on Jun 18:
Yech, these folks need to read The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis, in particular the section on friendship...it doesn't *work* if you stand face to face, you need to stand side by side. Something like this ought to be vaguely embarrassing to real friends.
36. Motte said the following at 9:16 AM on Jun 18:
Jenn and others:
This quote from the article is the reason it's not a "stretch" to relate it to marriage.
"Most of the scholars in this nascent movement are part of a larger push to challenge the privileged status of marriage. They believe society would be better off supporting a broad spectrum of relationships, rather than exalting one kind above the rest."
37. obewan said the following at 10:26 AM on Jun 18:
">>...supporting a broad spectrum of relationships,...<<"
How on earth is that construed to be an "attack" on marriage? Marriage in the context of that statement could be at one end of the spectrum, and friendship at the opposite end. I don't feel threatened in the least by the proposal of the law. I do feel very threatened by the high divorce rate. Instead of having such a rabid opposition to friendship, why not focus on preventing our married friends from getting divorced? I could really use a law like this even now. I live 1800 miles from my nearest relative. I am single. I need a medical procedure and someone has to drive me to and from the hospital since I will be sedated. Only one person can do it for me - a retired friend. Everyone else will be working.
38. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:46 AM on Jun 18:
Kate brings up some excellent points.
Right now, because there is little history and legal precedent, and also because not everyone acknowledges the marriage in the first place, gay divorces (and the "benefits" of them) are not recognized in most states other than in the states which legalized them.
Another issue is that currently with marriage (and other family bonds like children) there are inherent powers and responsibilities. A parent can be held liable for acts done by a child. A husband can make binding agreements to the wife even if she didn't know about it. And "next of kin" in terms of estates is a significant issue. This is why adoption is such a lengthy process, and is not taken lightly.
Therefore, if we were to extend such legal bindings (because that is the core of why it's such a big deal to begin with) to friendships, it would open up a whole new can of worms.
What if the following situation occured: Person A had a "legal recognition" of friend B. And say friend B had a "legal recognition" with another person C. See the troubles that can arise? Now, you could remedy this saying you could only have one, and only one, legal partner (just as you can have one and only one spouse), but there are other issues as well. What if one person wants a "divorce" but the other doesn't? How do you decide to apportion things out? With friends it may not be automatically assumed you lived together or had joint accounts, etc. What if one friend moved away but you both, at the time prior to the divorce, wanted to keep your "legal status"? You can't automatically claim things such as abandonment as grounds for that divorce. And if children are added in the mix it just gets that much worse.
Definitely a bad idea.
39. PLH said the following at 11:28 AM on Jun 18:
Hmm..I see this as a positive point overall as long as it's clear that such legal arrangements are different from marriage. Regardless of how much Boundless and other evangelicals want to promote marriage, single people, widows, and divorced people will exist and they need a way to give power of attorney to others. My parents, for instance, gained power of attorney over my grandmother even though my grandfather was still alive because he was not mentally capable of making the decisions for her. This seems to have little or nothing to do with casual sex but rather encourage extended family members and friends to sacrificially love and care for each other. There is nothing cheap about having power of attorney over someone. It can involve a real sacrifice emotionally and in terms of time on someone's behalf. Again, it is simply wrong to equate this with casual and cheap sex. It's the exact opposite when a doctor asks you to make hard choices for someone who can't because that person loved and trusted you enough to appoint you.
40. Amy said the following at 11:40 AM on Jun 18:
well, I actually am in the middle about this. I agree with P&P and Rebecca, and the others, seeing it from a single's point of view. I actually do have my best friend (and subsequently her family) another close (single) friend, as my secondary beneficiary on my life insurance policy. Why do I do this? 1) I do not have much family, so if my parents were to pass away, I would have to put down a distant family member, like a cousin ( none of whom I am close to or speak to regularly) 2) I also do this because it makes them someone who could "take care" of things, rather than leaving it to the state ( again, if my parents died) and 3) It could also bless them...I am payong a lot of money for my life insurance policy (I have one non- related one, and one through my place of employment. If my parents arent around, SOMEONE shoudl get the benefit of my hard earned money that is being shelled out for protection. Similarly, when I didnt have health insurance ( and for my friend's who dont now, while I do) what a blessing and piece of mind to be able to be on theirs!!
On the other hand though, I do agree with everyone else, for most of their reasons...I do desire to marry someday, and this does allow for furthering adultlesence ( which, I think has decreased that possibility), I do think it contributes to breaking down further the family structure, and I do think it is another way for certain things, like "homosexual rights" to be advocated ( thusly endorsing ungodly lifestyles).
The end!:o)
41. Jo said the following at 11:46 AM on Jun 18:
Marc (#8) -
Is this the same 'Skip' that Suzanne doesn't want to be attracted to? :P
Generally:
I don't see the big deal about this either. Motte, your use of the phrase 'friends with benefits' implies no-strings-attached sex when actually the benefits being discussed are entirely different, practical benefits. Let's face it, if people want to have marriage-like relationships without the commitment, they are already able to do that. This would change nothing in that sense.
I can totally see the point in being able to list a friend as next-of-kin or emergency contact in certain situations, and in being legally entitled to take time off work to care for a sick friend. I wouldn't have thought a full blown 'legal friend' law would be necessary for this, and I can't imagine how they would implement something of that scale, but I certainly think the basis for the idea is sound.
42. kaarina said the following at 1:33 PM on Jun 18:
I disagree. I am single, and celibate, and don't feel called to marriage. My best friend (also a woman) is the same. We have talked in the past about moving in together after I finish my education, as we want to go into academics and want to work at the same kinds of schools if it became viable. She has supported me through times most boyfriends bolt. She is the person I'm closest to, after God.
If I was sick in the hospital, who would I want to come visit me? Her. When I die, who do I want to receive all my writing and many of my books and other things? Her, not my parents. Which person is more likely to support her in a financial emergency, her parents, or me? I am. As a single person, do I have any dependents or a spouse to cover under insurance? No, but if she needed coverage, I'd want to provide it for her. Would I drive across the country to take care of her if she fell ill? I would, and know she'd do the same for me.
Codifying a law of friendship? Probably not. But the Bible holds up friends and the care they give each other in a position of prominence (read Proverbs). Why not make it easier for friends to care for each other by opening visiting rights, insurance, and so on?
I am consistently disgusted by the assumption I see everywhere that close friends must be lovers. In my own life, nothing could be farther from the truth. Were a church member to "loving confront" me about my "homosexual lifestyle" I don't think I'd be able to walk away fast enough.
43. BDB said the following at 2:14 PM on Jun 18:
Mason Moore (#13) wrote:
>>To put it much more succintly: the legal benefits of marriage have never required children. I don't see that ever changing. <<
I'm sorry, but let me gently correct your understanding of history. There is no public policy purpose for marriage benefits without children. It is the understanding that the biological reality is that marriage usually involves childen, and before widespread birth control (a very modern invention), it was generally assumed. This is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Section 16) specifically ties the right to marry and the right to found a family together.
It is also useful to note that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not recognize homosexual behavior anywhere - it is not a human right. And never has been recognized as such.
44. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:15 PM on Jun 18:
In the case of legal contracts for friendships and "divorce" of friendships, makes ya kinda rethink that old saying to be careful who your friends are...
Where I understand the need to have friends available when you end up in the ICU who can come and take care of you, I think this is a bit much.
45. xeres said the following at 2:29 PM on Jun 18:
The fact this sort of thing is being suggested just shows how messed up and impersonal Americans today in general are with personal relationships, whether it is with friends or family kin. It also shows the culture in general doesn't value relationships enough, so the government has to make incentives.
I am a believer in the virtues of friendship. However, I will not accept the thought of government butting into my relationships
46. Jake said the following at 2:54 PM on Jun 18:
There's a simple answer to Dr. Rosenbury's question about why married couples should have more rights than friends. Married couples bear legal responsibility for one another. Friends do not. People who lobby for laws like this want all the benefits with none of the responsibility.
All the hypothetical problems mentioned by the previous posters can be resolved without granting additional legal rights to friends.
To all of you who think this isn't an attack on traditional marriage, the title of the article is, "I now pronounce you . . . friend and friend". Also, the expression, "friends with benefits" was taken directly from the article. The article also states that the psychological and social benefits of friendship rival marriage. It would seem the author wants the reader question why our society values marriage above friendship.
47. BDB said the following at 3:04 PM on Jun 18:
Some companies are already taking steps to deal with this stuff. For example:
1) Defensive coordination of spousal benefits: if your spouse has the ability to get health insurance through their employer, they must get that insurance, not yours.
2) Adjusted pricing for dependents. For example, the company can subsidize the cost of health insurance by paying 80% of the cost for the employee and dependent children, but require all non-employee adults to pay full price. They employee and children pay $70/month, any adult on the policy pays $350/month.
3) Personal Time Off (PTO) instead of sick/vacation time. Usually this is less days per year than sick/vacation time. But, the employee can use it for anything they want, including caring for a pet or sick friend.
Lots of companies that provide good benefits are very picky about adding new jobs. Most of the Fortune 500 outsource far more jobs to contractors than they have actual employees.
This includes outsourcing to contractors within the U.S. - Universities typically offer free tuition to employees and/or their children. But most universities contract out food service and janitorial. This means that the segments of the population that could most use the tuition benefit are the least likely to get access to it.
48. J. Tucker said the following at 3:29 PM on Jun 18:
I think people are forgetting the difference between a religious relationship/marriage and a legal relationship. Don't play ignorant on this issue, Americans, because each and every one of us has helped shape our legal society with your votes.
Basically, legal relationships are anything the government gives credence to. Contractual relationships are legal relationships, your relationship with your doctor is a legal relationship, and even your relationship with your pet in some cases is a legal relationship.
This article is basically saying that some friends want to grant legal rights to each other. This doesn't have anything to do with destroying the sanctity of a moral, religious marriage, or any other type of marriage for that matter. Religious marriages were only the beginning of legal relationships, but that doesn't not mean that all legal relationships are related to marriage.
I think the author of this article is looking for anything and everything that he might add to the cannon fodder to argue that any relationship outside of marriage should not be enhanced with legal characteristics. That's his personal opinion, but it certainly has no Biblical basis. In my opinion, I think it's sad that our society has legally erroded to such a degree that we need the legal recognition of friendships in order to take care of each other, which is a fundamental tenant of traditional Chrisitianity so to speak.
49. N from Alberta Canada said the following at 4:19 PM on Jun 18:
Wow...interesting article!! I've really enjoyed reading Boundless and have told my Canadian friends to log on and blog!!
In Alberta, which you may know as "red neck" country and conservative at its roots fought gay and lesbian "marriage rights" for a very long time until our Supreme Court of Canada found it to be unconstitutional in the Vriend decision many years ago, now.
Well, good ol' Alberta had to comply eh? But not without some kicking and screaming...so Alberta came up with "The Adult Interdependent Act". This Act recognized adults who lived together as having certain statutory rights thereby imitating similar rights to those of married heterosexual couples.
The interesting, yet unintended result of this legislations was to grant legal remedies to roommates etc. who may not have ever had romantic relations but the argument could be made...strictly on statutory basis. Whoa...eh?
50. Katherine said the following at 6:33 PM on Jun 18:
J. Tucker, you seem to be just about the only sane voice in this thread. Thank you.
51. Carrie (the original) said the following at 8:16 PM on Jun 18:
Thank you, J. Tucker!
I've skimmed this thread a couple of times and I keep wondering "Wait . . . what is wrong for me wanting to use sick days to care for another single friend. Other people get to take them if their child or spouse is sick, but I have to let my friends fend for themselves? And health insurance!? That's another thing that's always bugged me. If I'm gainfully employed and another friend is employed, but can't afford health insurance, why is it that I can't put them on mine simply because we both haven't found Mr. Right??"
There is a lot that homosexual couples will soon be able to do for each other that Christ-loving sisters can't simply because they aren't sleeping with each other. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
52. Mason Moore said the following at 10:27 PM on Jun 18:
Let me add my congratulations to J. Tucker, Carrie, Katherine, and all the other folks who showed that reason and clarity can win the day.
Thank you for showing that:
- support between friends has nothing to do with casual sex
- if someone other than a married couple benefits from something, it's not automatically "an attack on marriage"
- Christians don't need to oppose acts of kindness and responsibility because somewhere, somehow a gay person or a single person might benefit from it.
53. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:31 AM on Jun 19:
Here's a direct quote from the article:
"In a development that would have shocked our forebears, countless singles live with roommates, engage in serial sexual liaisons, and depend on friends for support. Again, pop culture supplies examples: think "Friends" and "Sex and the City." But this lifestyle is considered transitional - the period before the wedding.
If the state were to sanction a wider variety of relationships, unconventional arrangements could gain currency as long-term, legitimate options. This could foster increased flexibility in forming relationships and the expectations people bring to them."
If that's the goal of this legislation, then I'm not for supporting it.
As for taking sick days for friends, I'm willing to do it, simply because they are my friends. I don't need laws that cater to something I want to do that isn't my responsibility.
There is a responsibility and a duty that family members have to family members that goes beyond want. Current legislation provides for that, not for what we simply want to do that is beyond our responsibilities.
54. Kim said the following at 6:42 PM on Jun 20:
While I see everyones point about this just being a good way to transfer health care benfits (if that is in fact all that is being said.) I am a little frightened by some of the posts that look at marriage as just really close friendships, they are binding pacts before God but in our day and age all too easily ended. It's not all about sex either. A handicapped man or woman still has an obligation to their spouse before God even if government says they don't. Its quite scary to see people not taking this seriously. Even if no one else will take this as an attack on marriage I will. Sorry but I believe in that slippery slope.