Marriage is society’s primary institutional arrangement that defines parenthood.
–Jennifer Roback Morse
The idea of marriage privatization is picking up steam. And it makes strange bedfellows.
There are old-school gay activists suspicious that state marriage is a way for politicians to socially engineer the family through the tax code. There are religious conservatives who are upset that a state institution seems to violate their sacred values. Don’t forget the libertarians for whom “privatize it” is more a reflex than a product of reflection.
But they all agree: it would be a good idea to get the government out of the marriage business. Principle, it turns out, is pragmatic.
First, let’s disentangle two meanings for one word that easily get confused. When we say “marriage,” we might be referring to:
A. a commitment a couple enters into as a rite or acknowledgment within a religious institution or community group (private); or
B. a legal relationship that two people enter into, which the state currently licenses (public).
Now, the questions that follow are: Does the government need to be involved in A? The near-universal answer in the United States is no. But does the government need to be as involved as it is in B? Here’s where the debate gets going.
I think the government can and should get out of B, and everyone will be better for it. This is what I mean by marriage privatization.
Some argue that marriage is “irreducibly public.” For Jennifer Roback Morse, it has to do with the fate of children and families. For Shikha Dalmia, it has to do with the specter of increased government involvement, a reinflamed culture war, an…