首先，我们所说的“废除”婚姻到底是什么意思?John points out that no one necessarily believes that marriage should be abolished in the same sense thatslaverywas abolished. Ken points out that the laws surrounding marriage are far from a new issue. After all, interracial marriage is only relatively recently legal. Indeed, some countries such as Sweden are slowly ‘abolishing’ marriage without even passing any laws. Simply put, the purpose of marriage, at least state-sanctioned marriage, has been put under increasing scrutiny. John argues that the state naturally supports marriage because intimate, caregiving relationships provide many benefits to society. But Ken counters that such ‘intimate entanglements,’ as he put it, do not necessarily precipitate the state’s acceptance of marriage, along with all of the attendant religious and cultural baggage. So really, what we’re asking on this episode can perhaps be more accurately rephrased: What role, if any, ought the state to play in the establishment of marriage (as opposed to other varieties of intimate relationships)?
Tamara Metz joins the conversation with an answer to our question—None! She argues that if we examine the liberal (classical, not ‘democrat’) tradition on which our country was founded, we would notice a strong commitment to a separation of church and state. This separation does not merely serve to preserve the freedom of the state from religious encroachment, but also to preserve the freedom of the religious to practice (within certain limits) as they see fit. The marriage debate, according to Tamara, has become, or perhaps always was, a deeply religious question. If we remove the state’s control overmarriage，以某种形式的民事结合取代对亲密关系的支持，那么我们就会发现辩论可以进行到一个实际的讨论。宗教人士可能会选择承认他人的结合为婚姻，也可能不承认，无论他们喜欢什么。Ken wonders if this suggestion appears to be more of asemanticissue than a deep philosophical one. He points out that these supposed civil unions may have simply replaced the meaning of marriage in this case.
A caller, Brian, brings up a thorny issue for the abolisher of marriage. He points out that marriage provides a contract which can protect the parties of the contract on the occasion of death or divorce. For instance, if one partner is a caregiver while the other is a ‘breadwinner,’ then, if the two separate, the caregiver may be left in a financially dire situation with nothing concrete to show for their years of support. Tamara admits that there are many legitimate reasons for government involvement in intimate unions, but repeats that ‘marriage’ (as opposed to a civil union) is not directly relevant to the issue.
- Roving Philosophical Reporter (seek to 5:30):凯特琳·埃施采访了奥克兰的婚礼策划师凯伦·赫斯特，她最近的生意不太好。自从加州“废除”同性恋婚姻以来，凯伦的非传统婚礼策划业务就陷入了停滞。我们听到了她的客户对废除婚姻的感受，以及婚姻对非传统夫妻意味着什么。
- 60-Second Philosopher (seek to 44:50):Ian Shoales reminds us that marriage has long been riddled with problems. Now, as over half of our marriages end in divorce, it may make more sense to privatize marriage, courtesy of Shoales Corporation, the company with a heart. Wait… nevermind the heart has now been outsourced.
