Should marriage be privatized?

Here’s a basic intro: link Marriage privatization would mean that the government no longer endorses any relationships or privileges some relationships over others. The government won’t set the terms of any relationship. You and your partner voluntarily set the terms, as broadly or as specifically/extensively as you want, or you could sign a prepared contract that a private organization, company or law firm might offer. You can have whatever relationships you want and call those relationships whatever you want. As with other contracts, you could, in the last resort, go to the courts to enforce the terms of the marriage contract that you and your partner voluntarily entered into. On the other hand, you and your partner might voluntarily agree that your relationship, even if you call it marriage, should have no contractual force at all.

I personally support marriage privatization. Even if the government recognizes same-sex marriage, it will still be discriminating against people who can’t or don’t want to get married.

I think there are some ways that marriage privatization is becoming increasingly likely:

1. The battle for same-sex marriage is being won. The justification is that people should be able to marry whoever they want. The logical conclusion of that is that government should not have a role in defining marriage at all. It should be for individuals to decide voluntarily. I think the battle for polygamy might be the next big battle.

2. The flip-side of this is that social conservatives are losing. They might realize that now they are the minority, it would be better to abolish government marriage, which imposes the view of the majority on the minority.

3. The libertarian world-view is growing in popularity, especially among young people. We live in an era of globalization that erodes the government’s power to control us. The government finds it increasingly difficult to enforce drug prohibition, censorship and all sorts of things. Even many people who don’t identify as libertarian are losing trust in government and want as little to do with it as possible.

4. The divorce rate is very high. And there’s a widespread belief among men (some of it justified) that government marriage harms men. Let’s face it: almost every one of us in the West knows a man whose life has been ruined by the family courts (of course some women are ruined too). That probably isn’t the only reason for the declining popularity of marriage among men, but it is undoubtedly declining. At the same time, I don’t think the desire for love and companionship has decreased at all. But clearly, government marriage isn’t working. It’s becoming ever less popular, and it’s failing in its stated aim. I think many people are looking for something other than government marriage on the one hand and non-commitment on the other.

As you can probably tell, I have very little respect for government. I don’t need it to be involved in any of my relationships. Actually I find the idea ridiculous that a government certificate can make a meaningless relationship meaningful or that the failure to get a government certificate can make a meaningful relationship meaningless. I want a government marriage certificate as much as I want a government boyfriend/girlfriend certificate, which is to say not at all.
If I meet the right girl, I’d love to commit myself to her through a privatized marriage. But, government marriage seems pointless to me, and I don’t like the idea that other people should be forced by the government to recognize my relationship.
Interestingly, though, the number of men receiving alimony/maintenance (not the same as child support) in the US is higher than you might expect. It was 8% of all alimony cases in 2009 (though presumably a tiny number of the payers were men): link Maybe alpha women will join my pro-privatization coalition lol.


Most Helpful Guy

  • yes yes yes without a doubt


Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 2

  • Should marriage be privatized?

    Not in my opinion going by what seems to be your reasons.

    1. I doubt your proposed marriage privatization would win same-sex marriage as the issue with same-sex marriage isn't a legal issue or government definition rather religious issue and definition despite how church and state are supposedly kept separate and I find religion tends to butt in what people do in their private life so...

    2. It's quite illogical to state social conservatives are losing as this loss depends on your assumption the a minority of people hold the view of 'government marriage'.

    3. Libertarian world-view growing in popularity is a bit irrelevant to me as I find it a toss up as to whether libertarians oppose 'government marriage'.

    4. In my opinion the fallouts of male ruin by family courts isn't due to 'government marriage' but patriarchal bullsh*t biting males on the ass as the gender roles and stereotypes of gals being the caregivers and guys being the provider understandably translates into gals get kids and guys pays.

    • 1. I don't understand this point. It clearly is a legal issue. That's the whole point of the argument for SSM. No supporter is saying that religion has to have anything to do with it. They just want legal recognition. 2. I mean social cons are losing over SSM. 3. I've yet to come across a libertarian who disagrees with privatization once the idea is put to him. The occasional point of disagreement among libertarians is whether SSM is a step forward to privatization or a step back.

    • Show All
    • They don't disagree on whether it should be legal, which was my point.

    • Okay then your wording was stating they don't disagree and don't have disputes not that they don't disagree on whether it should be legal or not. The only mention of legal was much later on and you stating they don't disagree on the legality which can be many things other than whether it should be legal or not.

  • I guess I would support this, although I don't have super strong feelings about it either way. But I don't really see how any sort of marriage can be discrimination against people who don't want to get married- if they don't want to get married, they don't want to get married. How are they being discriminated against?

    • Because the people who do get married get privileges from the government that others don't get. Gay/straight/bi is just one level of sexuality. Mono/poly is another. Commitment/Non-commitment is another. It's like saying to a gay person in a state/country that doesn't allow same-sex marriage, "You have the same right as everyone else: to marry a member of the opposite sex". It's missing the point.

    • Marriage is marriage, and non-marriage is non-marriage. As long as there is equality within marriage, I don't see a problem, I really don't.

What Guys Said 3

  • Marriage should be completely privatized. It is not a function of our government to dictate which two (or more) people should enter into what is essentially a legal partnership.

  • There is absolutely no reason for the government to be involved in marriage.

  • I agree. It should be privatized.