January 13, 2011
-
For Discussion: Getting the State Out of Marriage
by John Silveira (cut for space)
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira127lw.htmlThere’s a new TV “reality” show on TLC called Sister Wives. It’s about a polygamous family: Kody Brown, his 3 wives, their 13 children, and a soon-to-be (maybe already) fourth wife as well as the 3 children she’s bringing with her. Because I don’t have a TV, I became aware of it as a news item on the Internet. In that news item, I also discovered that the Utah Attorney General’s office is supposed to be looking into Brown and his family. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and it’s a felony in Utah where the Brown family lives.
…As a libertarian, I’ve asked against whom that kind of felony is being committed. As near as I can tell, it’s committed against the sensibilities or religious beliefs of those who are against it. However, it appears as though the the Attorney General’s office is not likely to investigate it. They say they have just so many resources and they’d rather use them to investigate serious crimes. Good for them.
I’ve long thought I had the answer to the problems with polygamy… as well as gay marriage, another one that seems to stir emotions. It’s simple — get the state out of marriage. That’s right, no more marriage licenses. Even when I applied for and got my own license some 30 years ago, I didn’t understand why I needed the permission or blessings of the state, its politicians, and its bureaucrats to get married.
…You don’t need a marriage license to have babies, live “in sin,” and live as gay couples. In fact, a guy can have a retinue of girlfriends all bearing his children, just like a polygamist, and nobody looks twice, even if he’s not supporting them. But let him try to make them “legal” and, even if he’s supporting them all, the authorities are at his door with their pitchforks and torches.
However, even if the state comes after Brown, he may dodge the bullet because he’s only “legally” married to one of the women. The others, he says, are “spiritual unions.” In other words, they’re like the unions so many other people living, sleeping, and having babies together have who the police ignore. …a constitutional lawyer, Jonathan Turley… points out, “… a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry. However, when that same person accepts a legal commitment for those partners “as a spouse,” we jail them.” Just what I’ve said.
One friend told me he thought we should have marriage licenses because the state has an interest in the family. “What kind?” I asked. Do you want it to make marriage and divorce easier? More difficult? Make it illegal to have babies without its permission? What? He didn’t answer.
Another said his only gripe against gay marriage is that he feels as though members of a gay couple shouldn’t get tax benefits if single people, like himself, can’t. “You’re right!” I exclaimed to him. “When I say get the state out of marriage, I meant all the way. If an insurance company wants to confer benefits on married people, good for them, but getting the state out of marriage means getting rid of tax benefits or mandating that married and single people should be treated differently. Treat everyone equally.
There is only one reason the state should be involved in marriage. It’s the only reason I can think of that the state should be involved in any contract: to act as arbitrator if the contract dissolves and is contested. As a libertarian, I see mediating disputes as one of the few legitimate functions of government.
…And in case you’re wondering, I do not want multiple wives. However, if a bunch of consenting adults want to engage in such a marriage, I feel it’s none of my business, your business, or the state’s.
And, if you’re religious, keep in mind, getting the state out of marriage does not necessarily get God out of your marriage. You can still get married in a church, have it blessed, sanctified, and French fried, for all I care. You don’t have to pass up any of that. I just don’t think your marriage, or anyone else’s, has to be blessed by the state.
By the way, you do know what the actual punishment for bigamy is, don’t you? Two mothers-in-law.
aNNa’S NoTe: I wanted to put this up for discussion, because I’m MOSTLY in agreement with John. I wish, wish, wish I had NOT signed a marriage license when I got married, and I strongly urge everyone NOT to do it. The marriage between the couple and God then becomes a contract between the couple, (God), and the State… which means they now get to decide what happens with your assets, your life… it’s NOT. THEIR. PLACE. That’s the only think I don’t agree with John on – the State should have NO mediator status in dissolving assets. If you need help because of disagreements, seek legal help, but then that’s your CHOICE, not their right/place.
What do you think?
Comments (11)
I agree. Great post!!!!
You just love to delve into those touchy subjects. Hmmm, well I loved his joke at the end, as for the rest I’m just not sure. You’ve definitely got me thinking though and since I have always taught might kids the first comes love, then comes marriage philosophy, I guess I’ve got a lot to ponder about what the Marriage part really means….the license the promise or what?????
Well I agree and the boys at Hillbuzz said pretty much the same thing. The there is the state side of life and the religious side of life. So:
birth: the state issues a birth certificate, church baptizes/blesses
die: state issues death certificate, church does funeral/burial
So why should marriage be any different? If two people want to make a legal commitment to each other then let the state issue legal documents for that commitment & give it a name just not marriage. If two people want to make a religious commitment to each other let them get married in the church/religion of their choice. Call the religious union marriage.
With so many people living together without being married there needs to be different terms for those positions. Living together or civil union = partners while the terms husband & wife are reserved for religious marriage.
Europe has pretty much been that way for years – the state does not recognize a church wedding and the church does not recognize a state union. So many weddings begin at the registrars office and continue at the church. Of course in Europe many do not bother with the church portion but it seems to work.
Granted the state should not have its nose in people business but there does need to be some rules. I have seen too many cases of unmarried couples having children and absentee father deciding to take the child to try to get the mother to agree to demands. If there is not union then the mother has all rights, if there is a civil union the state has guidelines. Yes some mothers are not fit or keep also use the kids as bargaining chips but if a couple agrees why should it cost several thousand $$ to separate. Maybe the balance could be that if there is no civil union or marriage the mother has no right to child support but if there is child support the father has a right to a certain amount of time with the child (unless proven dangerous by named witness no anon garbage) with jail time or loss of custody for non-compliance.
Two wives isn’t my cup of tea but if the women agree, the children are cared for, no one is abused and tax money isn’t supporting anyone it isn’t my business. I can teach my children our beliefs, why we don’t believe x,y,z and how to be polite to those who do —just like everyday life.
I think that Stephanie has something… it’s one thing if two upstanding adults marry in the faith rather than in the state’s eyes, because they’re two upstanding adults, and if things pan out poorly, they’ll play fair and right. Also, to marry has some form of contractual understanding about it… if you’re in the faith, the faith must enforce consequences for breaking the contract.
Bigamy was originally prosecuted because of the deception – the women were presumed NOT to know about one another, and were being defrauded. So – the state chasing down a man who is spiritually married to five women is a whole different thing than someone who has a “wife” in every town on his truck route.
The state has assumed the responsibility for the education and support of our children in the event that we fail to do so. Also, it is supporting many a single mother. Therefore, it has a practical interest in marriage. I don’t think we can kick the state entirely out of its practical interest… well, not in this society, all though I’m personally all for starting from scratch.
That’s why I think Stephanie has a point – a secular contractual partnership (which could range from elderly maiden ladies supporting each other in their decline to communal arrangements) would work – but making it apply to more-than-two people at a time would take some major rewriting of a lot of our laws – it would
make people actually think about what they were bringing to the party before they agreed to it.
Religious marriages without the secular partnership would have to mess with paperwork at every turn – insurance, guardianships, etc. So having them in concert, yet separate… I can get behind that.
Just DON’T ask me to call gay “marriage” marriage.
There are so many multiple families now a days with people getting divorced, and re-married ,and then divorced again and then married again. My little sister for one… pregnant in high school, father is just now getting back into the kids life after 17-22 years… married another guy that had two other families to support, and didn’t. Luckily she had no children with him. Then she married another guy that had two families to support, and they had four children, and then after they split he had two more children. Now shes dating again. :crosseye: So four guys and probably eight or nine different women, and maybe thirty or so children, that none of the dads are supporting…. no ones being charged with anything, or going to jail there. I say kudos to the Brown family and families like them that actually commit to one another! :thumbsup:
AGREED! The state is already WAY too involved with WAY too much. Less government is more freedom.
For the record, should Brian ever cack off, and (it’d take a HUGE act of God, but) I should ever fall in love again, we marry under a chupah with NO license. And I’m teaching my kids not to get the license. Keep the gov’t OUT of the family.
regrettably we still have TV. I’ve seen one episode, or at least part of one. Frankly it was boring. Aside from family dynamics a bit different from Ward and June Clever, they’re fairly normal. As for the role of the state, I can understand your point. There are legal ramifications related to the contract of marriage which a state license does cement into place, but that’s something you can choose to accept or decline. Marriage before God and before the state are not necessarily the same thing and having one does not necessarily mean having the other. As the moral question of polygamy, I don’t think it immoral at all. Expensive, perhaps, but not immoral. Abraham and Jacob had multiple wives. Paul’s concern with multiple wives was not moral, rather it was pragmatic. A man with more than one wife was too busy to be a church leader. And I dare say he was wise about this. As for me, I wouldn’t want more than one wife even if I had the money. I don’t have time for the nagging of one woman. I can’t imagine what two or three nagging together would be like.
The only reason why you should need a legal contract is to show that you are joint owners of stuff. And so that when you die stuff goes to the right people.
Of course there is also the deal with being able to make medical decisions for another person if they are unable to do so themselves.
Course my dad has me signed onto all of his stuff – bank account, medical records – and we are certainly not married.
I think if people want to be co-owners of stuff that is their business.
Back when they were toying with the idea of allowing “domestic partners” on medical insurance – they did it for homosexual couples, but I was all for it, because I could add my sister (who was living with me, we were both single and she had no insurance) onto my company plan…alas it never happened.
I get annoyed at people fighting over having the right to have God bless something – as if changing the state law will change God’s law.
I believe that if two or more consenting adults (adult being a term defined by the law as over the age of 18) wish to be joined in some sort of legal union the resembles marriage, it is absolutely none of my business. The church does not have to recognize or endorse it. It would strictly be a matter of state and as long as all parties entered in to the agreement willingly, let it be.
I so wholeheartedly agree with the man who wrote this article – how is is “okay” that a man have babies with three or four different women but once he willingly enters in to some sort of commitment with those same four women it becomes a problem.
I also hate the argument that Christians like to throw out that if we give polygamous couples and homosexual couple a legal right to marry we’re opening the door to all kind of crazy like people being able to marry a cat or a curling iron or children. Why yes. Because those things have legal standing and can consent to the marriage so obviously it would be viable.
He makes a good case. The real problem would be to get weak-spined pastors to go along with it. Because most would rather renounce their faith than give up their tax-exempt status, the state will always have the church under its thumb.
How many pastors are proud to proclaim “By the authority vested in my by (no… not God… not the church… but by) the State of _______ (fill in the blank), I now pronounce you husband and wife.”
Better yet, I love the hypocritical phrase “what God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Out of hundreds of pastors I know, only a handful really believe in the sacred permanence of the marriage COVENANT (“contract” being the term for the state’s part of the union.)