Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 3
Lesson 2: Political- Political: Original Position
- Political: Race and the Carceral State
- Political: Race and Racist Institutions
- Political: Government and Marriage (Government's Role)
- Political: The Prisoner's Dilemma
- Political: Tragedy of the Commons
- Political: Collective Action Problems
- Political: What are Public Goods?
- Political: Government and Marriage (Minimal Marriage)
- Political: Government and Marriage (Friends with Legal Benefits)
- Political: Government and Marriage (Polyamory)
- Political: Government and Marriage (Just Care)
- Political: Why Vote? Reasons to Vote
- Political: Should We Have Children?
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Political: Government and Marriage (Minimal Marriage)
In this video, Elizabeth Brake (Arizona State University) considers the question "Should marriage law be minimal?" This is part 2 of a series on Government and Marriage.
Speaker: Dr. Elizabeth Brake, Associate Professor, Arizona State University.
Speaker: Dr. Elizabeth Brake, Associate Professor, Arizona State University.
Want to join the conversation?
- Suggesting that Marriage isn't a good way to promote child welfare is akin to saying that funeral parlours aren't a good way to promote respect for the dead. Just because some embalmers practice disrespect for the deceased (let's even say 40%) doesn't mean that the institution in and of itself doesn't do good for respect for the dead, above and beyond what a society would be if burying the dead was left up to the individual families. The same logic applies to marriage and children. You can't enshrine defensive pessimism in law.(5 votes)
Video transcript
Hello. My name is Elizabeth Brake. I teach philosophy at Arizona State
University. and today, I want to talk to you about
minimal marriage. In the last talk, I suggested that one
line of argument for same-sex marriage leads to the conclusion that marriage law
needs much more radical reform. Keep in mind, I am talking about marriage
law. Not private, religious or social practices such as church weddings, Elvis
weddings or jumping over a broomstick. Within the theory of political liberalism
associated with John Rawls, law, at least in important matters, should not be solely
based on controversial religious views or ethical views concerning the best way to
live. Reasonable people disagree on these
matters. They have different religious beliefs and
different beliefs about the best life. So reasons for important legislation
should be able to slot into these competing views and be the
basis of an overlapping consensus. Think about it this way. State action uses resources provided by
tax payers. How could the State justify it's use of
those resources to those tax-payers? How can the extensive legal entitlements
of marriage be justified to singles, or people who oppose marriage? Often we hear the reason that marriage has
a special value or dignity. But this is just the kind of contested
ethical belief liberalism excludes. When we think of the diversity of beliefs
people have about good relationships, it's obvious that the value of marriage
argument reflects a contested ethical view. Some people oppose marriage because of its
history of oppressing women. Under the law of coverture, a woman's
legal personality was covered by her husband's, and spousal rape was not a
crime until the late 20th century. Some people oppose marriage because they
see it as about possession, a ball and chain. Some people embrace free love and multiple
partners. Some people believe that finding the
perfect lifelong match is a nice ideal, but delusional. The value of marriage argument employs the
kind of contentious ethical beliefs which political liberalism bars. Not all reasonable, ethical views hold
that marriage is valuable. Some people justify the value of marriage
in a widely shared, publicly acceptable reason that spans many different ethical
and religious views, child welfare. Indeed! That's the foundation of the US
marriage promotion policy. But not all marriages have children. And about 40% of US children are born
outside marriage. And that doesn't even include children
whose parents have divorced. Furthermore, high-conflict marriages
aren't good for children. So marriage promotion seems like, at best,
an indirect way to promote child welfare, and at worst, a highly inefficient way
to do so. While contested ethical claims and child
welfare don't justify the extensive entitlements in legal marriage, I think
there is a reason which can be given for marriage-like law. The value of caring relationships isn't
controversial in the way that the value of marriage is. Caring relationships are valued from within
almost all ethical and religious views. A caring relationship can be with a spouse
or a domestic partner or a close friend. Psychological research shows that stable,
caring relationships boost people's well-being. This widespread value of caring
relationships is a good reason for the State extending marriage-like entitlements
to stable, caring relationships of all sorts. But if this is the foundation for marriage
-like entitlements, it extends to close long-term friends and small groups,
when it's applied consistently. These are caring relationships too. In my book, I call this idea
minimal marriage. It's minimal in that it minimises entry
requirements into marriage. It doesn't require that one partner be
male and one female. It doesn't require that there be only
two partners. And it doesn't require that they
consummate the marriage sexually. It's also minimal in that it would scale
back the extensive benefits associated with marriage now. Minimal marriage is just a name for
this proposal. You can imagine it as a form of domestic
partnership law which is open to friends and small groups as well as romantic
couples. But why would someone want to marry someone
who is just a friend and nothing more? Does this mean I can marry my chess club? The friend I met a couple of times at Yoga? I'll talk about friendship in marriage in
the next lecture. Subtitles by the Amara.org community