Marriage privatization: A thicker wall of separation



(Photo by Jeff Belmonte)

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his famous “wall of separation”

letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, it’s not likely that he was including marriage in this divide.  His own state-sanctioned wedding to the wealthy widow Martha Wayles Skelton was  presided over by not just one, but two Anglican priests.

These days, however, those in favor of marriage privatization are trying to add some additional bricks to this initial wall of separation between church and state.  Proponents feel that the state should not be authoritatively involved with personal relationships such as marriage.  The marriage “contract” should instead be a private one that is defined by the individuals themselves.  These proponents come from both the liberal and conservative sides of the political fence.

Libertarian David Boaz applies this thinking to the current controversy over whether same-sex marriages should be legalized.  In the opening paragraph of his Slate “Privatize Marriage” article, he claims that both sides of this intense controversy are simply “missing the point.”  He asks why anyone (gay or straight, minority or majority) should have the need for a state-sanctioned private relationship.  He continues with this compelling question:  As governments around the world contemplate the privatization of everything

from electricity to Social Security, why not privatize that most personal and intimate of institutions, marriage?

Although marriage privatization would not necessarily include the state - it would not necessarily exclude it either.  Private individual marriage contracts could be designed religiously, legally – both, or neither.  In an enterstateright.com posting, Wendy McElroy advises:  Make marriage an enforceable contract between two people who agree on the terms of union and of divorce, including the terms of child custody and support.  The contract could be as broadly or narrowly phrased as people wish.    

McElroy concludes with this statement:  A legal marriage is whatever contract for a committed relationship is agreed to by those involved.  Had Jefferson been freely able to do this during his later years, overall life might have been a lot more equitable for Sally Hemings and their children.

Resources

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/jefferson/section3.rhtml

http://www.wvculture.org/history/ahnews/0604news.pdf

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0702/0702marriage.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2440/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization

Copyright June 18, 2011 by Linda Van Slyke   All Rights Reserved