Marriage Privatization - Arguments Opposing The Privatization of Marriage

Arguments Opposing The Privatization of Marriage

Opposition to marriage privatization, like its endorsement, is equally likely to be found arising from conservative or progressive sources and a wide variety of objections are made.

Some opponents of marriage privatization can argue that such a policy will simply shift the current debate over same-sex marriage to civil unions.

Conservative religious opponents of same-sex marriage may feel that privatizing marriage is still a state endorsement of what they consider to be immoral unions between homosexual couples. Thus many of the same religious arguments aimed against same-sex marriage might be applied to marriage privatization as well. Conservative evangelical baptist R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has stated the he opposes the privatizaton of marriage because "markets do not always encourage or support moral behavior" and he believes the proposal would " marriage as a public institution."

Princeton professor Robert George has argued that marriage has an important cultural role in helping children develop into "basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill– citizens– who can take their rightful place in society". Thus, he concludes, "Family is built on marriage, and government- the state- has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake". This position is seconded by Jennifer Morse of the Witherspoon Institute, who argues that if literally anyone can define marriage as whatever they want, the state forfeits the ability to sufficiently secure the best interests of children. She goes further, arguing that the logic of marriage privatization "at the expense of children, is a concept developed by adults that will benefit only adults."

Stanley Kurtz of National Review has written that privatization would be a "disaster". He argued that government "still has to decide what sort of private unions merit benefits... under this privatization scheme", and then "we also get the same quarrels over social recognition that we got before privatization." He commented that the government will have to deal with polygamous, polyamorous, and incestuous relationships attempting to obtain contracts under the new scheme as well as attempts by heterosexual acquaintances to make "marriages of convenience" to obtain things such as spousal medical insurance. His National Review colleague Maggie Gallagher has also called privatization as a "fantasy" since "here is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, mental and physical health problems."