Marriage privatization

Last updated

Marriage privatization is the concept that the state should have no authority to define the terms of personal relationships such as marriage. Proponents of marriage privatization, including certain minarchists, anarchists, libertarians, and opponents of government interventionism, claim that such relationships are best defined by private individuals and not the state. Arguments for the privatization of marriage have been offered by a number of scholars and writers. Proponents of marriage privatization often argue that privatizing marriage is a solution to the social controversy over same-sex marriage. Arguments for and against the privatization of marriage span both liberal and conservative political camps.

Contents

Advocacy

Libertarian advocacy

In 1997, libertarian David Boaz wrote an article for Slate titled “Privatize Marriage: A Simple Solution to the Gay-Marriage Debate." In the article, Boaz suggests privatizing marriage in a way that models the nature of standard business contracts. Boaz's idea is to allow two (possibly more) individuals to set the terms of their own private marital contract in a way that is best for the individuals involved. "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." [1] According to Boaz the government could be called upon to enforce the contract but may have no other role in developing the contract and setting the terms.

In 2002, Wendy McElroy echoed Boaz's business contract model in an essay for Ifeminists titled "It's Time to Privatize Marriage."

Marriage should be privatized. Let people make their own marriage contracts according to their conscience, religion and common sense. Those contracts could be registered with the state, recognized as legal and arbitrated by the courts, but the terms would be determined by those involved. [2]

McElroy has also said:

Why is marriage declining? One reason is that it has become a three-way contract between two people and the government. [3]

In 2003, political columnist Ryan McMaken, writing on LewRockwell.com, raised the issue of marriage privatization arguing that the rise of state-sanctioned marriage coincides historically with the expansion of government. In his article titled "Married to the State," McMaken wrote:

The question we are then left with today is one of whether the churches and individuals should be looking to privatize marriage yet again and to begin making a distinction between secular contracts between private citizens and religious unions that should be kept beyond the power of the State. Such a move, of course, would bring with it new assumptions about the role of the State in divorce, children, and a variety of other aspects of family life. The State will not give up control over these things easily, for the assertion that the importance of marriage makes it a legitimate interest of the State is only true from the point of view of the State itself, for as the foundation of society, marriage and family cannot be entrusted to governments just to be blown about by the winds of democratic opinion, for the same government that has the power to protect can just as easily destroy. [4]

In a similar libertarian vein, the radio talk-show host Larry Elder endorsed the privatization of marriage. In "The State Should Get Out of the Marriage Business", a 2004 article published in on the website Capitalism Magazine, Elder wrote:

How about government simply getting out of the marriage-license-granting business? (Ditto for government licenses necessary to cut hair, drive a taxi, open a business or enter a profession.) Leave marriage to non-governmental institutions, like churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship or private institutions. Adultery, although legal, remains a sin subject to societal condemnation. It's tough to legislate away condemnation or legislate in approval. Those who view same-sex marriage as sinful will continue to do so, no matter what the government, the courts or their neighbors say. [5]

In 2006, law professor Colin P.A. Jones wrote an article appearing in the San Francisco Chronicle titled "Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?" following the business model for privatization Jones writes:

Subject to certain statutory constraints, businesspeople have long been free to form whatever sort of partnership they felt appropriate to their needs. Why not make the same possible for marriage, which is a partnership based on one of the oldest types of contractual relationships? [6]

In 2009, author and journalist Naomi Wolf wrote about getting the state out of marriage in The Sunday Times :

Let's also get the state out of the marriage union. In spite of the dress and the flowers, marriage is a business contract. Women, generally, don't understand this, until it hits them over the head upon divorce. Let's take a lead from our gay and lesbian friends, who, without state marriage, often create domestic partnerships with financial autonomy and unity spelt out. A heterosexual parallel: celebrate marriage with a religious or emotional ceremony—leave the state out of it—and create a business- or domestic-partner contract aligning the couple legally. [7]

Professor Gary Becker, a winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, has said that:

With marriage contracts that set out the couple's commitments, there is little reason why judges should retain their current involvement in marriage. [8]

As of 2015, the only known members of US Congress to support privatization of state marriage are Sen. Rand Paul, [9] Rep. Justin Amash (I–Michigan) [10] and Rep. Gary Palmer (R–Alabama). [11]

Religious advocacy

Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec told the Catholic News Agency that churches that do not accept same-sex marriage have a genuine concern that they be subject to penalties such as losing public benefits or receiving lawsuits. He argued that the state should just allot people "civil licenses", with the terminology "marriage" left "as a religious concept" for groups to debate outside the scope of government. [12]

Liberal advocacy

Though often introduced from conservative commentators, marriage privatization has received attention from advocates on the left. In 2003 left-leaning political columnist and journalist Michael Kinsley wrote a second essay to appear in Slate on the topic. Kinsley's essay is titled "Abolish Marriage: Let's Really Get the Government out of Our Bedrooms." Kinsley follows the model set by his libertarian counterparts Boaz and McElroy; like Elders, he emphasizes marriage privatization's potential to end the controversy over same-sex marriage:

If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying that its concern is not what people do in private, but government endorsement of a gay "lifestyle" or "agenda," that problem goes away, too. [13]

Marriage privatization received attention from the legal scholar Alan Dershowitz in 2003 when Dershowitz wrote a Los Angeles Times editorial titled "To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business." More so than commentators from the right, Dershowitz frames his view on the topic in terms of church-state separation; unlike libertarian leaning discussions Dershowitz maintains that the state does have an interest in the secular rights of marriage. Dershowitz proposes that civil-unions as a secular replacement for state sanctioned marriage, be extended to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Under Dershowitz's conception of privatization, couples have a choice as to whether or not they wish to be married by a clergy willing to perform a marriage ceremony or to exclusively partake of secular/state-sanctioned civil unions. Dershowitz writes:

Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control. [14]

Public policy advocacy and academia

In 2007 the Center for Inquiry, a secular think tank, released a position paper authored by analyst Ruth Mitchell titled "Same-Sex Marriage and Marriage". The paper argues from the separation of church and state that as long as marriage is available to heterosexual couples it ought to be equally available to LGBT couples. Nevertheless, the position paper claims that state endorsement of civil unions for both types of couples is the most appropriate policy in light of separation of church and state. [15]

The argument for marriage privatization has also been formulated in academic scholarship. In 2008 an argument for marriage privatization appeared in the public policy journal Public Affairs Quarterly. In that issue philosopher Lawrence Torcello offers a detailed model of marriage privatization based on the later political writings of the 20th century political philosopher John Rawls. The article is titled "Is The State Endorsement of Any Marriage Justifiable? Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and The Marriage Privatization Model."

In the 1993 book Political Liberalism , Rawls argues that arguments in a pluralistic society must be hashed out in terms that all members of that society can understand if not endorse. This means that in making public claims one must refrain from religious or otherwise controversial metaphysical claims that cannot, in principle, be equally endorsed by reasonable persons. In doing this, one is relying on what Rawls refers to as public reason.

In his article, Torcello claims that any state endorsement of marriage represents an inappropriate public endorsement of a comprehensive religious or otherwise metaphysical doctrine, which underlies any particular definition of marriage. Accordingly, taking public reason seriously leads to the idea that legalization of same-sex marriage may be just as neutrally unbalanced as its ban. [16] In place of the public institute of marriage, Torcello, like Dershowitz, argues that civil unions providing the full extent of marital benefits under law ought to be instituted for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. [16] According to the argument, such civil unions ought to replace the current legal institute of marriage. Once privatized, marriage is open for individuals to define and embrace or ignore as they see fit, within the scope of their private religious or philosophical belief systems:

No religious model that rejects same-sex marriage would be required to perform same-sex marriages under this privatized model. Under this model a couple, either heterosexual or homosexual, would obtain a civil union in order to have public and legal recognition of their partnership; they would have a private marriage ceremony if they so chose in order to honor their private religious or philosophical concept of marriage. [16]

In a July 2008 article appearing in The Monist titled "Privatizing Marriage" Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein and University of Chicago economist Richard H. Thaler offer arguments for the privatization of marriage. Thaler and Sunstein also take up the topic in their co-authored 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Wealth, Health, and Happiness. Sunstein and Thaler argue for marriage privatization among other positions under the heading of what they call "Libertarian Paternalism".

Arguments opposing the privatization of marriage

Opposition to marriage privatization, like its endorsement, is equally likely to be found arising from conservative or liberal sources [17] [ page needed ] and a wide variety of objections are made.

Conservative evangelical baptist R. Albert Mohler Jr. has stated that he opposes the privatization of marriage because "markets do not always encourage or support moral behavior" and he believes the proposal would "[destroy] marriage as a public institution." [18]

Princeton professor Robert P. George has argued that marriage has an important cultural role in helping children develop into "basically honest, decent law-abiding people of goodwill—citizens—who can take their rightful place in society". Thus, he concludes, "Family is built on marriage, and government—the state—has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake". [12] This position is seconded by Jennifer Morse of the Witherspoon Institute, who argues that if literally anyone can define marriage as whatever they want, the state forfeits the ability to sufficiently secure the best interests of children. [19]

Stanley Kurtz of National Review has written that privatization would be a "disaster". He argued that government "still has to decide what sort of private unions merit benefits... under this privatization scheme", and then "we also get the same quarrels over social recognition that we got before privatization." He commented that the government will have to deal with polygamous, polyamorous, and incestuous relationships attempting to obtain contracts under the new scheme as well as attempts by heterosexual acquaintances to make "marriages of convenience" to obtain things such as spousal medical insurance. [20] His National Review colleague Maggie Gallagher has also called privatization as a "fantasy" since "[t]here is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, mental and physical health problems." [21]


University of Virginia School of Law Professor Gregg Strauss argued against the privatization of marriage in “Why the State Cannot 'Abolish Marriage': A Partial Defense of Legal Marriage” [22]

Issues involved with privatizing marriage

In general, a legal contract signed between two or more people will often include penalties for the severing of the contract by a party or parties. However, this generally does not apply to marriages in the US, which usually fall under the legal standard of no-fault divorce. It remains an open issue as to whether or not these quasi-marriage partnership contracts will be enforced with penalties. [23]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Boaz 1997.
  2. ↑ McElroy 2002.
  3. ↑ "It's time to privatize marriage". Enterstageright.com. 2002-07-22. Retrieved 2014-04-05.
  4. ↑ McMaken 2003.
  5. ↑ Elder 2004.
  6. ↑ "Marriage proposal: Why not privatize? / Partnerships could be tailored to fit". SFGate. 22 January 2006.
  7. ↑ Wolf, Naomi (March 22, 2009). "Love lessons from divorce". The Sunday Times. London. Retrieved February 27, 2021.(subscription required)
  8. ↑ "Why Every Married Couple Should Sign a Contract". Gary S. Becker. Business Week. New York: December 29, 1997. Iss. 3559; p. 30
  9. ↑ "Rand Paul: Privatize Marriage". Time. June 28, 2015.
  10. ↑ "Justin Amash Backs DOMA Repeal On Twitter". The Huffington Post. 29 March 2013.
  11. ↑ "Abortion, marijuana, and same-sex marriage: District 6 candidates state their positions". AL.com. 22 October 2014.
  12. 1 2 "Kmiec proposes end of legally recognized marriage". Catholic News Agency. 2009-05-28. Retrieved 2014-04-05.
  13. ↑ Kinsley 2003.
  14. ↑ Dershowitz 2003.
  15. ↑ Mitchell 2007.
  16. 1 2 3 Torcello 2008, p. 51.
  17. ↑ Torcello, Lawrence G (2008). "Is the State Endorsement of Any Marriage Justifiable?: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and the Marriage Privatization Model". Public Affairs Quarterly. 22 (1): 43–61. JSTOR   40441478.
  18. ↑ Mohler 2006.
  19. ↑ Morse, Jennifer (4 April 2012). "Privatizing marriage is unjust to children". The Witherspoon Institute. Retrieved 11 August 2015.
  20. ↑ Kurtz, Stanley (2006-01-22). "Privatizing Marriage". National Review. Retrieved 2014-04-05.
  21. ↑ Gallagher, Maggie (14 July 2003). "The stakes". National Review. Archived from the original on 2010-08-06.
  22. ↑ Strauss, Gregg (2015). ""Why the State Cannot 'Abolish Marriage': A Partial Defense of Legal Marriage"" (PDF). Indiana Law Journal. 90.
  23. ↑ "Why is the state involved in marriage at all?". Hotair.com. 2010-08-07. Retrieved 2014-04-05.

Related Research Articles

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex (gay) or other unmarried homosexual couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in the United States</span> Overview of the status of same-sex marriage in United States

The availability of legally recognized same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state (Massachusetts) in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Epstein</span> American legal scholar (born 1943)

Richard Allen Epstein is an American legal scholar known for his writings on torts, contracts, property rights, law and economics, classical liberalism, and libertarianism. He is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University and the director of the Classical Liberal Institute. He also serves as the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago.

<i>Goodridge v. Department of Public Health</i> 2003 US state court case which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, is a landmark Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in which the Court held that the Massachusetts Constitution requires the state to legally recognize same-sex marriage. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry. Despite numerous attempts to delay the ruling, and to reverse it, the first marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004, and the ruling has been in full effect since that date.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maggie Gallagher</span> American writer (born 1960)

Margaret Gallagher is an American writer, socially conservative commentator, and activist. She wrote a syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate from 1995 to 2013 and has written several books. Gallagher founded the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a small, socially conservative think tank. She is also a co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), an advocacy group which opposes same-sex marriage and other legal recognition of same-sex partnerships; she has served as president and as chairman of the board of NOM.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cass Sunstein</span> American legal scholar, writer, blogger (born 1954)

Cass Robert Sunstein is an American legal scholar known for his work in constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and behavioral economics. He is also The New York Times best-selling author of The World According to Star Wars (2016) and Nudge (2008). He was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in New Jersey since October 21, 2013, the effective date of a trial court ruling invalidating the state's restriction of marriage to persons of different sexes. In September 2013, Mary C. Jacobson, Assignment Judge of the Mercer Vicinage of the Superior Court, ruled that as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, the Constitution of New Jersey requires the state to recognize same-sex marriages. The Windsor decision held that the federal government was required to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples who were married under state law as to other married couples. Therefore, the state court reasoned in Garden State Equality v. Dow that, because same-sex couples in New Jersey were limited to civil unions, which are not recognized as marriages under federal law, the state must permit civil marriage for same-sex couples. This ruling, in turn, relied on the 2006 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v. Harris that the state was constitutionally required to afford the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court had ordered the New Jersey Legislature to correct the constitutional violation, by permitting either same-sex marriage or civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage, within 180 days. In response, the Legislature passed a bill to legalize civil unions on December 21, 2006, which became effective on February 19, 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recognition of same-sex unions in Italy</span>

Italy has recognised same-sex civil unions since 5 June 2016, providing same-sex couples with almost all of the legal protections enjoyed by opposite-sex married couples, excluding joint and stepchild adoption rights. A bill to allow such unions, as well as gender-neutral registered partnerships, was approved by the Senate on 25 February 2016 and the Chamber of Deputies on 11 May and signed into law by the Italian President on 20 May of the same year. The law was published in the official gazette the next day and took effect on 5 June 2016. Before this, several regions had supported a national law on civil unions and some municipalities passed laws providing for civil unions, though the rights conferred by these civil unions varied from place to place.

Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights illustrate how libertarian individuals and political parties have applied the libertarian philosophy to the subject of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. In general, libertarians oppose laws which limit the sexual freedom of adults.

China does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. Since 1 October 2017, couples have been able to enter into guardianship agreements, offering partners some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care, death and funeral, property management, and maintenance of rights and interests. Attempts to legalise same-sex marriage in 2020 were unsuccessful, but public opinion polls show that support for same-sex marriage is rising in China.

Same-sex marriage is not legal in Israel, but the government has recognized same-sex marriages performed abroad since 2006. Prior to 2022, marriages performed in Israel were only valid when registered with one of the 15 religious marriage courts recognized by the state, none of which permit same-sex marriage. Consequently, Israeli same-sex couples who wished to have their marriages recognized by the government first had to marry outside Israel, in a jurisdiction where such marriages are legal, and then register upon returning home.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Hong Kong</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Hong Kong may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

Ukraine does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. The Constitution of Ukraine defines marriage as between "a woman and a man". The issue of legal recognition for same-sex couples has become particularly acute after the start of Ukraine's accession to the European Union in 2022 and the Russian large-scale invasion of Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Venezuela does not recognize same-sex unions. In 2008, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice ruled that the Constitution of Venezuela neither prohibits nor requires the recognition of same-sex marriage. In January 2015, a lawsuit seeking to legalise same-sex marriage in Venezuela was filed with the Supreme Tribunal, which announced in April 2016 that it would hear the case, though no decision has been made as of August 2023. On 24 February 2022, a deputy of the opposition Cambiemos Movimiento Ciudadano party introduced a same-sex marriage bill to the National Assembly.

South Korea does not recognize same-sex marriage, civil unions or any other form of legal union for same-sex couples. On 21 February 2023, an appellate court ruled that government health insurance should offer spousal coverage to same-sex couples, the "first legal recognition of social benefits for same-sex couples" in South Korea.

<i>Nudge</i> (book) 2008 book by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein

Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness is a book written by University of Chicago economist and Nobel Laureate Richard H. Thaler and Harvard Law School Professor Cass R. Sunstein, first published in 2008. In 2021, a revised edition was released, subtitled The Final Edition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North Carolina Amendment 1</span> 2012 state amendment

North Carolina Amendment 1 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in North Carolina that amended the Constitution of North Carolina to prohibit the state from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The amendment did not prohibit domestic partnership agreements, but defined male–female marriage as "the only domestic legal union" considered valid or recognized in the state. On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61% to 39%, with a voter turnout of 35%. On May 23, 2012, the amendment took effect.

Hong Kong does not recognise same-sex marriages or civil unions. However, same-sex couples are afforded limited legal rights as a result of several court decisions, including the right to apply for a spousal visa, spousal benefits for the partners of government employees, and guardianship rights and joint custody of children.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state of Colorado cannot compel the designer to create work that violates her values. The case follows from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), which had dealt with similar conflict between free speech rights and Colorado's anti-discrimination laws, but was decided on narrower grounds.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.