Listening to debates around marriage equality, you’d probably think that there are only two sides to the marriage debate – the “traditional marriage” side versus the “marriage equality” side. But the reality is that there’s another position available – one which questions the legitimacy of marriage licensing altogether – and that is the “marriage privatisation” side.
In most countries, marriage is ‘nationalised’. Marriage is regulated and ultimately controlled by the state. But there are growing movements around the world calling for its deregulation, and the separation of marriage and state. In the U.S., some Republican states are adopting this proposal as a way to protect religious freedom in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. But perhaps there are other reasons to privatise marriage – perhaps it has some universal appeal, to people of all political persuasions.
Conservative? Traditionalist? Evangelical?
The trend of marriage regulation restricts religious liberty. Denominations or religions that believe in voluntary, polyamorous marriage, are stopped from practicing their religion because of the state-enforced definition of marriage, and similarly, liberal denominations are stopped from marrying monogamous gay couples. The current definition of marriage as monogamous is based on conservative Judaeo-Christian ideals, and infringes on the religious liberties of minorities. The freedom to pursue your own destiny according to your God should be a given, and is trampled on by the government monopoly on marriage.
Theologically, marriage licensing is condescending and narcissistic. Marriage licensing is a seal of approval from the government saying “now that we agree with the marriage you’re having, it is now official, and it wouldn’t be otherwise!” But what’s the theological implication? It is that the state is more important than God, and that it holds authority over the word of God – which is an offensive idea to those who are religious. The concept makes no sense, for God by definition must be omnipotent and God’s word must hold highest authority. For the Christian, proof is evident in the Bible:
Lord, the God of our ancestors, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you. – 2 Chronicles 6, The Holy Bible (NIV)
This essentially makes marriage licensing the awkward plus one to the Holy Trinity – you have The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit… and the Bureaucrat. And question ultimately is that if your marriage is seen as official in the eyes of God, why does it need government approval? We can see that marriage licensing is not just theologically incoherent, but also undesirable and unnecessary.. If you want to see any evidence of this, all you need to do is turn to the internet, and read evangelical blogs giving you tips on how to avoid marriage licensing!
It also goes without saying that privatisation would also cut government spending and bureaucracy. If you’re really so worked up about needless spending and public sector over-staffing, one of your biggest pet-peeves should be marriage licensing. Spending taxpayer money on people running a database and printing bits of paper to verify your marriage? Surely there isn’t a better example of Western bureaucratism.
Liberal? Progressive? Queer Feminist?
Whilst marriage equality serves as the mainstream liberal position on marriage, the more consistent praxis should involve the entire abolition of a state definition.
I mean, marriage equality isn’t even equal in the first place. When we consider that polyamorous marriages are still deemed illegitimate by the state, it’s difficult to conceptualise equality between all, freely-consenting marriage arrangements. And such delegitmisation negates the natural right to bodily sovereignty, as well as the proper role of a progressive government – promoting inclusion. . In fact, if we consider the place of polyamorous relationships within the queer community, we could say that marriage licensing actively does many LGBTQIA people a disservice.
But we should also regard marriage licensing as anti-secular – it is nothing more than a remnant of theocracy in our legal system. In the UK, where marriage licensing was introduced, it served to inscribe the Catholic Church’s policy on invalid marriages in to law. From that point onwards it has been little more than a way for conservative lobby groups and organised religion to enforce their views, and set cultural norms. The same goes for the USA, Australia and New Zealand, where we can see marriage licensing as an attempt to prohibit interracial, indigenous and same-sex marriages. If marriage traditionalists are on the wrong side of history, so are advocates of marriage nationalisation. In the end, then, marriage licensing is anti-secular, and the result of a consolidated conservative state apparatus.
I’m not sorry that we can now enter the military and not sorry that we can marry, but frankly I come from a radical vision in time that never made marriage or the military my criteria of success. I didn’t want us to have wars, I didn’t want to register my relationship with the state. So are those victories? They are. Were they discriminatory? Yes, they were. Was it my idea of what it was to build as a liberation movement for queer people? No, it wasn’t at all. – Queer feminist writer Amber L. Hollibaugh
Marriage equality also means assimilationism – it necessarily implies folding queer people into the state institutions of marriage and adoption, assimilating them into the state-sponsored white picket-fence life and mainstream family model. This trajectory contradicts the struggles of queer liberationists – the initial activists who fought this very state, and fought to create their own identities independent from mainstream society. It makes no sense for us to turn to the government for their blessing, when that same institution has been complicit in systemic violence against us. Stonewall is an evident example of this: the catallytic moment for the modern queer rights movement was gender and sexual minorities rising up against queer bashing and police brutality – a reality which was not experienced long ago, and still is with the ongoing War on Drugs and Sex Work(ers). And so my question is: why should we turn back and conform to the same state which have beaten us down? Why should we forget the perpetuating, violent tendencies of the state when we debate its role in marriage?
And once marriage equality becomes reality, we will see straight cis politicians taking credit for our struggles. After all, they have managed to draft the legislation, they pushed the law, and so they to become queer rights icons. Yet politicians don’t deserve this place. They should be out of our lives and bodies in the first instance. They tokenise our rights for their careers. And so the nature of reform-within-politics inherent to marriage equality really misses the point of queer politics – to take back what is ours, to reclaim our lives and bodies, that cis straight society tries to discipline, punish, contain and classify.
Libertarian? Classical Liberal? Voluntaryist?
Any libertarian recognises that the government cannot define civil institutions for themselves. Marriage is a social construct – it arises from society, it is an institution built up by social groups, whose meanings evolve and are contested by individuals. There is actually no need for the government to define what is marriage and what is not, and to codify it in law – and any attempt to do so would involve deferring to some idealised, homogenised society, and asking that society what marriage is.
But instead of constituting a body which tries to sustain certain some groups’ conception of marriage and morality by force, we could just be left to decide what is marriage ourselves. The government could accept that we are all different and perceive things differently, and respect that marriage is a matter of subjectivity. Then, if I perceive marriage as one thing, I should be able to act upon that definition, practicing or being in that marriage, and the state shouldn’t tell me otherwise, or stop me – and likewise, I wouldn’t be able to stop someone else doing the same.
John Locke probably explains this best, that: “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” I should be able to marry whom I want, or however many people I want – and any government decision to limit the fulfilment of desires constitutes a harmful act – because it limits my pursuit of happiness.
And contrariwise, we have to ask who the government thinks it is to tell us who we can and cannot marry? When did we cede our property, bodily, even symbolic rights to the coercive state? When did the government gain the power to dictate our relationships, and pick and choose with whom we spend our lives? The answer is obvious: never! A state-enforced definition of marriage involves affirming this lie of a social contract – that the state has some legitimate claim to our natural rights.
…
The debate around marriage isn’t two-sided – there is another option. Marriage licensing lacks purpose, contradicts the principles of many social groups, and principles of many social groups, and can simply be replaced by, well, freedom. If a Justice of the Peace wants to marry my partner(s) and me, then I should be able to engage in this voluntary contract, no license required. Governments can simply restrict the definition of marriage to restricting harm, and treat it as a voluntary contract between private individuals. Marriage licensing is no longer a necessity nowadays, and is logically flawed on many different levels.
So why not privatise it?
This article is an updated and edited version of one published in Australia and New Zealand Students for Liberty’s magazine, The Gold Standard, which you can read here.
ANDIE'S ÉCRITS 