My philosophies about the government regulating partnerships between lovers fit into my general view of the world and humanity. I kind of had this overall sense that people did not need laws to tell them how to behave properly. I operated from the premise that people have a basic drive towards good, and possess enough wisdom to act out of an internal sense of fairness and justice towards one another. I was often labeled (sometimes affectionately and sometimes not) an anarchist. I never particularly called myself one, but my general world view did, in fact, have a strong similarity to classic anarchist theory.

As I continued to debate with proponents of marriage through the years, they continued to point out flaws in my anarchist premise that people did not need the government to regulate their family relationships. I was prompted to see that many of our current family laws arose as a result of problematic behavior. For instance, in the past, husbands sometimes deserted their wives, leaving them penniless, with no compensation for the years of energy and support they donated to the marriage. Thus, the concepts of child support, alimony and divorce settlements were devised. Wives sometimes packed up and left their husbands, and denied the father any visitation rights to his children; this problem resulted in joint custody arrangements and visitation rights for fathers. In general, husbands and wives sometimes reneged on their agreements and promises resulting in extremely unfair treatment of their spouses.

Likewise, there is substantial evidence that non-married partners are also sometimes incapable of treating one another fairly, and honoring the agreements they make with one another. The courts are full of estranged co-habitating partners attempting to sue their ex-partner because the partner has wronged them upon severing the relationship. Some estranged co-habitants have even received court settlements. Lee Marvin's ex-girlfriend made headline news in the 1970’s when she received a million dollar "relationship severance allowance." As I listened to these arguments, I had to agree that there is evidence to support the notion that, quite often, people do not treat one another honestly and fairly in their lover relationships. Given the fact that husbands and wives, and persons in non-marital relationships, sometimes treat one another extremely unfairly, a case can be made for marital and quasi-marital relationships being regulated by society at large.

I think what finally convinced me of the desirability of governmental regulation of marriage was seeing some of the inconsistencies in my own arguments. When I argued against legal marriage, I said it was because I didn't believe in governmental regulation. Yet, on the other hand, I was in favor of governmental regulation in many other instances. I supported environmental protection legislation, child abuse laws, international fishing regulations, food labeling, drunk driving laws, animal cruelty regulation, and on and on. I was confronted with the inconsistency again when I saw a friend who seriously criticized everyone she knew for getting legally married (because she opposed governmental regulation) take someone to small claims court for reneging on a debt! I was confronted again and again with the fact that our local, national, and global societies are all based on the philosophy that society will intervene in the personal relationships of its members when one member appears to be treating another in unfair and unhealthy ways. I came to realize that even in tribal societies, mediators and arbitrators were sometimes appointed to settle conflicts.

I came to the painful realization that my anarchist theories sounded a lot better on paper than they actually worked with real live human beings. I began to see that though, in general, most human beings might have positive intentions towards others, they were at times unable to manifest this positive intention into real behavior. I also concluded that, even when every person in a given situation is trying to do what he/she believes is right, different people have very different visions of what is right and wrong, true and false, etc. All of these observations led me away from anarchy towards what I would call "low-key democracy". I want to throw in a quick definition of low key democracy so I can make some connections in regards to this discussion of marriage.

The basic tenets of "low-key democracy" are as follows:

1. Whatever facets of a society operate successfully with no laws, rules, etc., should be left unregulated.


2. Facets of society which do not seem to operate in healthy ways under #1 operating procedure should have the minimum laws/regulation set up as is necessary to correct the problems.


3. The members of society responsible for designing and enforcing laws and regulations should be elected via one person/one vote democracy.


4. The citizens at large should maintain the right to impeach the elected representatives at any time for not making decisions which reflect the needs/rights of the majority of citizens.


5. Representatives should come up for re-election at regular intervals.


6. The elected representatives should attempt to use creative problem solving and compromise at all times, such that laws/regulations do not unduly infringe upon the rights of the minority.


7. Citizens should have complete access to their representative's voting records, and whenever feasible, all meetings of elected representatives should be open to citizen observation, so citizens are able to determine if the representatives are operating in a manner which fairly represents them.

When I applied these political views about governmental regulation to the issue of marriage, I had to admit that there were centuries of evidence to support the notion that a substantial percentage of couples do not treat one another fairly in their lover relationships, and therefore, governmental regulation was warranted.

In summary, having spent a great deal of time rethinking the issue of whether marriage should be regulated by the government, I have come to see the merits of governmentally regulated marriage and I wholeheartedly support it as a valuable institution of our society. My discussions with hundreds of couples made me see that having the government regulate marriages helps to insure that marital partners treat one another fairly. However, there are many problems with the way state governments currently go about protecting the rights of marital partners. In the remainder of this chapter I will outline the problems associated with the legal protection state governments currently offer marital partners. I will also discuss some other problems with traditional marriage rituals and outline some ways marriage ceremonies can be updated to better meet the needs of couples in the 21st century.