Marriage

From Free Talk Live

There are basically three views of marriage, each of which makes valid points. In the end, however, only the libertarian view addresses all the requirements of the other two views, namely:

• The traditional institution of marriage must not be compromised.
• People must not be discriminated against on the basis of their relationships (provided such relationships are consensual, see below).
• Nobody may impose their values regarding marriage on anybody else.

The Liberal View

Liberals contend that same-sex couples being able to marry is a matter of equality. They claim that if opposite-sex couples are are allowed to marry, then same-sex couples must be allowed as well. Of course, this logic could also be extended to include other arrangements such as polygamy, and it is therefore unappealing to the sensibilities of many.

The Conservative View

Conservatives contend that if marriage is made to be anything besides a union between a man and a woman, then it will lead to a whole host of bizarre possibilities, thereby make the institution meaningless and logistically unmanageable. Liberals retort that "nobody wants" to legalize polygamy, for instance, but this is counterfactual and is also an example of the type of bigotry and discrimination against minorities that liberals claim to so much abhor.

One invalid argument often made by members of the Religious Right is that the arguments for same-sex marriage could also be used to defend pedophilic relationships. This is not the case, because a child lacks the capacity to consent to such a relationship, and it is therefore invalid in any case. This is in contrast to same-sex marriage or even polygamy in which all parties are consenting adults. Of course, nobody supports any type of relationship where one person is forced to join against his/her will.

The Libertarian View

The libertarian view of marriage is that it is a private agreement between two individuals in which the state should not involve itself, other than as an enforcer of contract. State granted marriage "licenses," after all, were originally issued only to prevent interracial marriage.

State recognition of marriage would seem to demean religious belief by implying that ecclesiastical rites are not efficacious. If a couple sincerely believes that God has joined them together in spirit, then there is no reason for them to seek further validation of their union by a third party. Unless, of course, in so doing they can receive special tax breaks and other welfare benefits from the state. But such economic benefits are discriminatory against single persons and also encourage couples to start families that they otherwise would not be able to sustain.

Of course, the real reason why people seek recognition of their marriage by the state is to resolve disputes relating to property rights in the unfortunate case of death or divorce. Because the husband and wife generally accumulate property as a single unit, it is not readily apparent which party should get what after their union is dissolved. But situations like this are handled every day in the business world through the right of free contract. Indeed, those who deride the supposed materialism and self-centeredness of celebrities who sign prenuptial agreements do not realize that a marriage license is simply a generic prenuptial agreement.

If the terms of marriage were determined by contract, a world of grief could be avoided. The state would need to take no position on the issue of marriage, because it would simply be enforcing a contract. This would mean that the phony debate over the "sanctity" of marriage would end at once. The church could once again assume its rightful role as the sole administrator of sacred rites. The couple would not need to go through the process of hiring a lawyer in order to draw up their contract; rather, private lawfirms and religious institutions would place various pre-made contracts into the public domain for the purposes of advertising their services or helping their faithful embrace a form marriage fitting to their beliefs. The contract could contain a provision stating that any dispute over the contract would be resolved before a private arbitration agency (the majority of business disputes are already resolved in this manner). This would make the tragic process of divorce more bearable, as the couple would not have to go through the pain associated with the government court system.

Thus, libertarians believe that it is time for the state to get out of the marriage business and into the contract-enforcement business.