Marriage Privatization:

[Aquila]

Would you (or do you) support marriage privatization?

Privatize Marriage

By David Boaz

In the debate over whether to legalize gay marriage, both sides are missing the point. Why should the government be in the business of decreeing who can and cannot be married? Proponents of gay marriage see it as a civil-rights issue. Opponents see it as another example of minority “rights” being imposed on the majority culture. But why should anyone have—or need to have—state sanction for a private relationship? As governments around the world contemplate the privatization of everything from electricity to Social Security, why not privatize that most personal and intimate of institutions, marriage?

“Privatizing” marriage can mean two slightly different things. One is to take the state completely out of it. If couples want to cement their relationship with a ceremony or ritual, they are free to do so. Religious institutions are free to sanction such relationships under any rules they choose. A second meaning of “privatizing” marriage is to treat it like any other contract: The state may be called upon to enforce it, but the parties define the terms. When children or large sums of money are involved, an enforceable contract spelling out the parties’ respective rights and obligations is probably advisable. But the existence and details of such an agreement should be up to the parties.

And privatizing marriage would, incidentally, solve the gay-marriage problem. It would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one’s private life would have official government sanction—which is how it should be.

Andrew Sullivan, one of the leading advocates of gay marriage, writes, “Marriage is a formal, public institution that only the government can grant.” But the history of marriage and the state is more complicated than modern debaters imagine, as one of its scholars, Lawrence Stone, writes: “In the early Middle Ages all that marriage implied in the eyes of the laity seems to have been a private contract between two families. … For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals, enforced by the community sense of what was right.” By the 16th century the formally witnessed contract, called the “spousals,” was usually followed by the proclamation of the banns three times in church, but the spousals itself was a legally binding contract.

Only with the Earl of Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1754 did marriage in England come to be regulated by law. In the New England colonies, marriages were performed by justices of the peace or other magistrates from the beginning. But even then common-law unions were valid.

In the 20th century, however, government has intruded upon the marriage contract, among many others. Each state has tended to promulgate a standard, one-size-fits-all formula. Then, in the past generation, legislatures and courts have started unilaterally changing the terms of the marriage contract. Between 1969 and 1985 all the states provided for no-fault divorce. The new arrangements applied not just to couples embarking on matrimony but also to couples who had married under an earlier set of rules. Many people felt a sense of liberation; the changes allowed them to get out of unpleasant marriages without the often contrived allegations of fault previously required for divorce. But some people were hurt by the new rules, especially women who had understood marriage as a partnership in which one partner would earn money and the other would forsake a career in order to specialize in homemaking.

Privatization of religion—better known as the separation of church and state—was our founders’ prescription for avoiding Europe’s religious wars. Americans may think each other headed for hell, but we keep our religious views at the level of private proselytizing and don’t fight to impose one religion by force of law. Other social conflicts can likewise be depoliticized and somewhat defused if we keep them out of the realm of government. If all arts funding were private (as 99 percent of it already is), for instance, we wouldn’t have members of Congress debating Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs or the film The Watermelon Woman.

So why not privatize marriage? Make it a private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so. Less traditional couples could keep their assets separate and agree to share specified expenses. Those with assets to protect could sign prenuptial agreements that courts would respect. Marriage contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world. For those who wanted a standard one-size-fits-all contract, that would still be easy to obtain. Wal-Mart could sell books of marriage forms next to the standard rental forms. Couples would then be spared the surprise discovery that outsiders had changed their contract without warning. Individual churches, synagogues, and temples could make their own rules about which marriages they would bless.

And what of gay marriage? Privatization of the institution would allow gay people to marry the way other people do: individually, privately, contractually, with whatever ceremony they might choose in the presence of family, friends, or God. Gay people are already holding such ceremonies, of course, but their contracts are not always recognized by the courts and do not qualify them for the 1049 federal laws that the General Accounting Office says recognize marital status. Under a privatized system of marriage, courts and government agencies would recognize any couple’s contract—or, better yet, eliminate whatever government-created distinction turned on whether a person was married or not.

Marriage is an important institution. The modern mistake is to think that important things must be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the government. The two sides in the debate over gay marriage share an assumption that is essentially collectivist. Instead of accepting either view, let’s get the government out of marriage and allow individuals to make their own marriage contracts, as befits a secular, individualist republic at the dawn of the information age.
http://www.cato.org/publications/com...atize-marriage

[shazeep]

our law has always allowed that one may ignore legal marriage, out of necessity, i think. So i don't quite get why someone who would ignore an unjust law anyway should care if the law is changed? To God, you are "married" when you consummate a marriage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by shazeep

our law has always allowed that one may ignore legal marriage, out of necessity, i think. So i don't quite get why someone who would ignore an unjust law anyway should care if the law is changed? To God, you are "married" when you consummate a marriage.

That's essentially how many understand it. Outsiders sometimes criticized early Quaker couples for "living in sin" because they married each other without priests or ministers. Some couples choose to marry within the meeting without registering their marriages with the government, a tradition dating back to Quakerism's earliest days.

Here are some excerpts from "Faith and Practice": "Quaker Marriage Procedure"...

"Marriage is a sacred commitment of two people to love one another in faithful partnership with the expectation that the relationship will mature and be mutually enriching. Friends know that marriage depends on the inner experiences of the couple who marry and not on any external service or words. Thus, the ceremony in which the couple enter into this commitment is performed by the couple alone, in the presence of God, the families, and the worshiping community. Both the solemnity and the joy of the occasion are enhanced by its simplicity."

"While most Friends’ marriage ceremonies conform to civil law, couples who do not want, or are not eligible to contract a legal marriage occasionally ask for a ceremony of commitment or a wedding under the care of the Meeting. The Religious Society of Friends has long asserted its freedom to conduct under divine leading marriage ceremonies not conforming to civil law."

The point is... not every Christian holds that government involvement is a necessity for a couple to be "married" in the eyes God.

[shazeep]

i hold the ones that do suspect now; allowing of course for wisdom gained after the fact.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i hold the ones that do suspect now; allowing of course for wisdom gained after the fact.

Me too. Now that I've experienced civil marriage and the divorce courts, I'm leery of ever getting entangled with the system again. I'd rather my second marriage remain private. We'll wear rings signifying our covenant, but I don't want the civil government defining the marriage or setting the terms of the marriage.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Me too. Now that I've experienced civil marriage and the divorce courts, I'm leery of ever getting entangled with the system again. I'd rather my second marriage remain private. We'll wear rings signifying our covenant, but I don't want the civil government defining the marriage or setting the terms of the marriage.

Yea, the government becomes the head. You can divorce for any reason. I'm very leery as well. It just seems the whole institution of marriage is in disarray.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Rudy

Yea, the government becomes the head. You can divorce for any reason. I'm very leery as well. It just seems the whole institution of marriage is in disarray.

So very true. I think God's way is quite simple.

The Bible states:

Matthew 19:5-6
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The first thing I notice in this verse is that it is God who unites a man and woman in the bonds of love and sexual union. This is God's design. Man and woman fall in love and have sex. And as a result, regardless of ritual or social construct, they become one flesh. This union is so concrete before God that Paul warned the Corinthians that even sexual union with a harlot establishes a one flesh relationship between the saint and the harlot (I Corinthians 6:15-16). So, regardless of social custom, legality, culturally accepted norms or rituals, or any other circumstance, if a man and woman have sexual union they have become one flesh in the eyes of God.

The second thing I notice is that Jesus warns us not to try and dissolve or separate this union. This is why I disagree with churches who try to split-up couples that are what they might call, "unmarried". Based on Scripture, these couples should be regarded as being one flesh before God not broken up, especially if they've been together for years. The church I came to the LORD in always lovingly encouraged couples to consider civil marriage to "make it official". Our pastor would say, "I'm not going to try and separate what God has joined together. They just need a little encouragement to take care of legalities."

So, I support privatizing marriage and churches embracing private commitment ceremonies for couples who do not wish to involve the government in their unions.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So very true. I think God's way is quite simple.

The Bible states:

Matthew 19:5-6
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The first thing I notice in this verse is that it is God who unites a man and woman in the bonds of love and sexual union. This is God's design. Man and woman fall in love and have sex.

I believe you're missing a very important piece. God's design is not for us to jump in the sack with someone and call it good. This post and a previous one like it makes it appear as though all one needs to do in the eyes of God is to have sex, and Voila! They're a couple.

But that isn't right. That's fornication.

It's fine if you don't want to get the marriage license and you want to stick it to Uncle Sam, but there must be a covenant they enter into before consummating the marriage.

[Rudy]

I'm in a situation where we are both ill and need monitored. We can take care of each other. If we get a government sanctioned marriage she may lose medicaid coverage. Therefore wiping out the bank account.

If we were to have a private marriage I somewhat feel that she is my wife until it's time for medical bills to be paid. BUT! If the government ask are you married the reply would be I'm not legally married. So therefore benefits would continue.

In a private marriage it would not be necessary to change the last name. Since you could not legally sign civil/legal documents anyway.

Does this sound misleading or is it simply a loop hole to use. Nothing illegal about it I don't think.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Rudy

I'm in a situation where we are both ill and need monitored. We can take care of each other. If we get a government sanctioned marriage she may lose medicaid coverage. Therefore wiping out the bank account.

If we were to have a private marriage I somewhat feel that she is my wife until it's time for medical bills to be paid. BUT! If the government ask are you married the reply would be I'm not legally married. So therefore benefits would continue.

In a private marriage it would not be necessary to change the last name. Since you could not legally sign civil/legal documents anyway.

Does this sound misleading or is it simply a loop hole to use. Nothing illegal about it I don't think.

When they ask you if you are "married" they are talking about being married under a civil contract recognized by the government. If you were married privately, for example with a "Quaker wedding", your marriage wouldn't be a civil contract, it is a spiritual covenant. Therefore your answer is, and should be, "no". You are not lying or being misleading. Frankly, they don't care if you shack up or have a religious marriage ritual. They are only concerned with the binding civil contract recognized by the government.