The assumption that demonstrated sexual skills ought to be required for marriage is a telling one. I am inclined to think that the best reason why a marriage license is a bad idea is that it would give the government yet more control over something intimate and personal that thrives without socialist interference and founders with it. Some of the arguments in favour, though, are persuasive, but the issuing authority should not be the government (governments, after all, did not create marriage.)
Drivers require licenses because if they blunder around without any idea what they are doing, they will cause damage to bystanders and society. It is impossible to argue in the early 21st century that this is not at least as true of marriage. More people are killed by bad drivers, true, but arguably more people are made unhappy by bad marry-ers. In fact most responsible clergymen and/or their institutions require some sort of assurance that the couple who propose to be married by him demonstrate a certain level of maturity, forethought and stability before they will grant their blessing and that of their church. This is the best kind of "marriage permit", since it has the backing both of the institution that originated marriage as we understand it and presumably the support of the community behind it.
But what kind of classes might the government require, were it to issue permits to marry in the manner that it issues permits to drive a car? The possibilities are endless. Required courses would have to include: how to raise children in a fully egalitarian and democratic family; how to rise beyond antiquated sex roles and ensure not just equal but identical responsibilities for each spouse; the importance of being open to different and equally legitimate sexualities. Any notion that marriage is a binding and lifelong commitment would of course be eradicated from this curriculum; rather, the importance of each partner being free to explore personal growth, even if it takes him out of the marriage, would be stressed. One must, after all, be true to oneself.
All socialist societies recognize that strong familial bonds threaten the bond between the individual and the leviathan state. In the Soviet Union, spouses and children were encouraged to inform on each other and rewarded for doing so, even as the hapless parent or spouse was led off to a life of torture in Siberia. In Israel's kibbutz experiment, children were raised communally so that parents might devote more of their time to the polity and children might feel more connected to the kibbutz than to their parents. The milder version of this that encroaches upon even Canada and the USA is the "it takes a village" model of child-rearing, in which children are seen as a communal responsibility more than the responsbility of their parents, and in which one's responsibility to provide for "the children" through insane taxes and government controlled schools hampers one's ability to provide for and educate one's own children as one sees fit.
Too many people stumble into marriage and parenthood (or more often, single parenthood, or parenthood and then shacking up) with no real plan nor idea of how to behave. The solution, though, is the opposite of more government regulation and intervention. Let us strengthen churches, neighbourhoods and families, who in times past and in a better future will provide their own role models, safety nets, and ground rules for raising the next generation and keeping marriages together. They also provided something entirely lacking from our society: stigma and disapproval for those whose refusal to honour their responsibilities endangers their own families and the community.
Posted by Clio at May 18, 2003 11:21 AM