As Americans debated whether the government should permit gay marriage over the last several years, I found myself pondering a completely different question. Why do private relationships need to be state-sanctioned at all?
I’d like to introduce you to marriage privatization, the concept that the government should have no authority over a private romantic relationship between two individuals. Any marital contract between the parties involved would exist only between them, and would be agreed upon prior to the marriage. The government’s only role would be enforcing the terms of the contract, assuming one is even created.
Some of the biggest opponents of privatization were religious conservatives, who considered it a vote in favor of gay marriage. However, like it or not, gay marriage is now officially legal throughout the United States. It is highly unlikely that gay marriage will be overturned via a Constitutional amendment, so I think it would be wise to consider an alternative path forward, one compatible with the individualism promoted by the manosphere. Here are a few reasons to consider it:
It would invalidate sexist divorce laws
The terms of the marriage would be determined by the private contract, if one is created. With no state-sponsored marriage certificate, it would be far more difficult for the courts to dispossess a man from the fruits of his labor. If a man loses his ass in a divorce over a private contract, then it’s his own fault. Privatization would make no difference in family courts, as child support and custody are determined by the birth certificate, not marital status.
Since the feminist agenda is primarily the dispossession of male resources through governmental intimidation and coercion, we can expect them to be some of the biggest opponents to privatization. If it were to pass, far more women would walk away from divorces empty-handed, simply because they didn’t carefully consider the terms of their marital contract. In other words, women would be held accountable for their own decisions, just as men are. Marriage privatization would help bring real equality to the sexes, something most feminists fear and despise, so expect their opposition.
It may actually encourage marriage
This may seem counter-intuitive, but the current divorce laws disincentivize marriage by making it financially risky for men. The current laws also incent women to divorce whenever they become the slightest bit unhappy, given that women initiate between 66% to 90% of divorces.
Little girls don’t dream about going to the courthouse and signing some government papers. Marriage has always been about a man and a woman publicly expressing their bond to each other, usually in the form of a ritual ceremony, and often recognized and approved by the religious institution of their choice. I highly doubt marriage will cease simply because they don’t have to stop by the courthouse anymore.
It may help protect religious freedom
Now that gay marriage advocates have won, the next logical step is to force churches to permit gay ceremonies, or risk losing their tax-exempt status. The Leftist argument will almost certainly be that churches can marry who they want, but the government shouldn’t be giving tax breaks to non-profits that “discriminate.” They’ll point to liberal churches that marry gays as exemplary, and focus their attack on traditional churches. By completely removing the government’s role in marriage, it would be far more difficult for Leftists to use the federal government to impose their cultural agenda.
A common argument against marriage privatization is that it would essentially “allow” polyamory and incest.
Concerning polyamory and polygamy, there’s no way to prevent a man from having multiple consensual sexual relationships with many different women even now. A man can easily father many children from many different women today with no legal recourse, assuming he pays his child support. In other words, the current law cannot and does not prevent such behavior. Like it or not, even today monogamy is purely optional. If the 14th Amendment can be used to justify gay marriage, it can certainly be used to justify consensual polygamy. I believe it’s inevitable.
Incest is actually extremely rare. There’s evidence to suggest humans come equipped with incest avoidance mechanisms, which suggests an opposition to incest is biological, not cultural. I can’t think of a single person I know who doesn’t shutter at the thought of inbreeding with family members. Thus, I’m highly skeptical that incest will ever become a real trend. It’s just an example of fear mongering. Even the current laws cannot stop a brother and sister from procreating, assuming they’re hellbent on it. Therefore, I don’t consider this a realistic criticism either.
Believe it or not, there was a time when people just got married, and there was no need to ask permission from the state. The historical reasons for why the government got involved in marriage had to do, of course, with social engineering practices. Historically, if those with power didn’t want certain races or religions to marry into the group, they would use the law to prevent the union from taking place. There is no reason for the state to be licensing marriages unless it’s to exclude and thus “violate” the 14th Amendment. The legal precedent has been set.
The statists, of course, will try to scare you. They say we just “don’t know” what will happen, although they’re sure it will be something terrible. They ignore that privatization is how marriage worked for almost all of human history, and how it still works in various remote places. It’s nothing more than fear mongering.
Gay marriage is apparently here to stay, so we need to plot a new course. Marriage is indeed an important institution and a vital component of the family unit. However, that does not mean it needs to be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the ruling authorities. I believe this ultimately does it more harm than good.