Privatizing and Protecting Marriage

A few months ago the newsletter of the Independent Institute (simple called "The Independent") had an interesting blurb called "Privatizing and Protecting Marriage". Here it is in full:

The institution of marriage could better meet needs if couples had more options than taking or leaving the terms of marriage offered in the one-size-fits-all version provided currently by government, according to Doshisha University Law professor Colin Jones (“A Marriage Proposal: Privatize It”).

“Couples entering into marriage should be able to use a partnership agreement that is tailored to their own circumstances and aspirations, one that reflects the values and expectations that they themselves attach to marriage,” Jones writes. (An op-ed based on his article ran in the San Francisco Chronicle, January 22.)

Ending the government’s monopoly on marriage, Jones argues, would foster innovation in the design of marriage contracts, resulting in better legal and relationship counseling, better protection for children and spouses, and better marriages. Couples could select from a variety of marriage-document kits. They would also be free to form or join marital corporations— organizations, including churches, whose members share the same values about marriage—which might arise to cater to the needs of different kinds of couples.

This privatization of marriage, Jones further suggests, might also help defuse the controversy over same-sex marriage because opponents and proponents of same sex marriage would join separate marital corporations and thus would see their version of marriage protected. See “A Marriage Proposal: Privatize It”.

This is in line with my own views on the matter, which has come up for me whenever I've heard in the news all the controversy over "protecting marriage", the attempted constitutional ammendment, and so on. The one new thing here that I hadn't thought of is the idea of "marital corporations" as described above... an interesting idea.

I'm sure many religious conservatives would passionately disagree with most or all of the above. But I have yet to hear a good, rational argument from them on these matters. The one most commonly tossed out is that by allowing homosexuals to marry -- which they usually think would be wrong in and of itself -- you are starting us down the slippery slope to all kinds of insanity, a list they then immediately rattle off that usually includes at least polygamy, child abuse, and some kind of beastiality (a guy marrying a goat, or a woman marrying a frog that she thinks will turn into a prince or whatever).

Well, this is an obvious straw man argument against allowing homosexuals to marry. First, it doesn't deal directly with the rights issue for homosexuals at all. But second, the slippery slope makes no sense. Marrying a child or marry an animal would not be allowed, because children do are not eligible to have the full rights of adults that come from having full ethical personhood status -- and this is based on the rational faculty reaching a certain maturity level. On this basis, obviously animals would not be candidates to be wed to humans either. (I'll note that if intelligent, rational aliens were ever discovered on other planets, this criterion would permit a human adult to marry them, and that makes complete sense... why not?).

The point is that if two persons (as just briefly described) wish to marry, wish to commit to each other, and wish to have a particular joint legal and economic status as such in the eyes of the society in which they live... why shouldn't they be allowed to? Most today would agree that people should be "allowed" to marry other people from any economic class, race, ethnic group, and so on. It wasn't too long ago that this was not the case, but fortunately, most societies have gotten at least this far. But why not two homosexuals? And why not multiple men with one woman, or multiple women with one man (polygamy)? I see no rational reasons to disallow these -- that is, arguments based on the individual rights of persons (not on utilitarian grounds, and not to mention faith-based supernatural and mystical "arguments"). If you can think of any such arguments against homosexual marriage and polygamy -- that are based on the individual rights of adult persons -- I'd be interested to hear them.

Having said that, I'll note that I don't believe that married couples should be given tax benefits. This is a form of social engineering by the government. The point of marriage is mostly a private matter between the people getting married -- and a sign of commitment in the eyes of the society in which they live. It could (and perhaps should) also serve as a proxy for things like implicit permission for hospital visitation rights, default inheritance in the event of death, and so on. But marriage should not be a means to get tax benefits or other special treatment from the government (positive or negative).