Tuesday

A Matter of Contract

Mellow-Drama linked to an article today by John Coleman, arguing for the privatization of marriage.

I suppose that your view on this depends on what you think the purpose of marriage is. If your view is that traditional marriage is a contractual relationship that allows for property to be divided in certain specific ways, and that's all, then privatization isn't a huge deal, because it's just contract. If you feel that traditional marriage is a social good, that the union of a man and a woman in a commited relationship and their bringing up children together is a fundamental part of basic human society, something that should be encouraged as a matter of morality, then privatization doesn't look good at all, because now marriage can mean anything. Morality is simply not a consideration of (most) contract law. I'm not sure I understood his whole argument. To be honest, I'm not sure what his argument was, other than we should call for privatization of marriage... because government will screw it up... because back in the day they used it to degrade women, among other things.

Mr. Coleman makes a reference to a quote from President Bush which ends "Self Government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self." Privatization means that instead of governing the self, we contract out the exceptions and loopholes we want. So he cheated on you, and you want out of the marriage? What if clause 12 stipulates an open relationship? Now there's NO BREACH. No breach means that if you want out, you've got to be the one to break the contract. So he's an immoral, backstabbing, lowlife scum. And now YOU have to pay HIM damages, because you a) were an idiot in love, and didn't do much negotiating in the contract, b) didn't have the negotiating power to make real changes in the contract, or who knows what?

Private contracts are not made to last forever. Marriage, however, will not survive that kind of thinking. You cannot enter a committed relationship under an escape clause. Marriage should be a committed relationship between a man and a woman. Commitment. Fidelity. Service. Love. Honor.

3 comments:

Mellow-Drama said...

I agree, marriage should be forever. But I come at that from a religious perspective; my church governs my ideas of marriage. And my church says we shouldn't get divorced. Privatizing marriage wouldn't leave it simply in the hands of individuals, it would also be back in the churches. Churches council people who are going to get married, and can help them think about their reasons, and the consequences of their decisions, and counsel them that divorce isn't really an option. If you get married "in" your church, and your church doesn't approve of divorce but instead, approves of counseling and working things out, isn't that better than the state's current answer, quick-in quick-out? The legal issues could be handled by contract, but that's the author's point, I think -- the legal issues are just legal. It's the other stuff that makes marriage sacred, and valuable, and should be private.

Mellow-Drama said...

Churches "council", heh, of course I meant "counsel."

Zach said...

So, how is what you're suggesting any different than the system we have now? The legal issues are just legal, churches (and other organizations, I'd betcha) counsel people who are about to get married, and in some cases counsel against divorce, some people don't buy that, and they get divorced anyway...

So what's the upside of the proposed change? I just don't see it.

ShareThis