Perhaps Government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business?

“By the power vested in me, by the state of California, I now pronounce you Husband and Wife.” declared the minister in front of the altar of God.

We have heard it so many times at weddings, movies and television that we forget
the significance of this pronouncement and how it blurs the vast difference between the government meaning of marriage and the popular meaning of marriage.

The word “marriage” conjures in our minds and emotion the promise of love, caring, committed relationship, living together, making babies, families, and continuity. A government marriage license does not require or address any of those things. The couple does not even have to declare that they intend to like each other or live together. In this respect it is a hollow document, only a voucher for a bundle for exclusive government benefits and privileges. These subsidies have grown with little thought, challenge or debate during the 20th century.

There is a popular misconception that marriage in the eyes of the government is a contract between the bride and the groom. This is not quite true, “Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage, the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves” There are three parties: The bride, the groom and the government. The bride and groom merely agree (assent) to be governed by the government’s rules. The government reserves the exclusive right to itself to change the rules at anytime. No one reads the unsuspecting couple their “Miranda rights” or informs them about what they are agreeing to.

Our minister conducting the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is a government official, an “agent” of the State of California. There is a conspiracy of Church and State. If a couple wishes to have the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in their own local church they will be forced, as a practical matter, to get a government marriage license in which they assent to this contract with government which binds them to whatever marriage laws the government wishes to enact or change.

The controversy over same-sex marriage should cause us to ask: Why is the government involved in marriage? Equality? Fairness? Why is the government giving exclusive financial benefits to people with marriage licenses and not to people without marriage licenses? I submit that people will fall in love, live together, make babies and perpetuate families with or without the government. Why do we want the ministers of our faith to be government agents?

I recommend that churches stop being agents of the government; that the state governments stop issuing marriage licenses or special civil unions; and that the federal government stop giving exclusive subsidies to people with marriage licenses. Benefits for all or benefits for none.


The elements of “government marriage” are the exclusive financial benefits, the exclusive privileges, and the legal responsibilities of the husband and wife. We can imagine that the financial benefits were originally motivated by concern over the “little woman” staying at home raising the children with no career, and not having any Social Security. That concern is not so applicable in recent years and makes even less sense for same-sex marriage. The exclusive privileges such as hospital visitation and exemption for testifying against a spouse could be made available in some form to all people, single or married. The legal responsibilities, in any case married or not, are better managed by explicit documents such as wills, durable power of attorney, living wills and partnership agreements.

The arguments against getting government out of the marriage and special civil union business break down into convenience; singles can get married if they want government benefits; and that single people don’t need the benefits. Pretty weak arguments compared to the passion generated in the recent marriage debates.