In her 2007 essay “
Gay Divorce: Thoughts on the Legal Regulation of Marriage,” Claudia Card argues that marriage is an evil institution. An evil institution consists of two foreseeable and causally linked components: “Culpable wrongdoing and intolerable harm” (30). Marriage, according to Card, meets these criteria. Spouses – predominantly women – are exposed to intolerable harm, including death, through domestic violence. The emergence of such violence was foreseeable and it is tied to the institution of marriage that the threat of violence can only be mitigate by abolishing the institution. And, finally, there are people who have the power to do just that (31). Card refers the reader to her 2002 book The Atrocity paradigm: A Theory of Evil for more information. Since I don’t have the book, I will leverage her analogy to slavery to extricate some underlying assumptions to Card’s argument. Slavery, too, is an evil institution. Slaves are exposed to violence, which is foreseeable and causally linked to the existence of the institution. But what exactly constitutes the link? Surely with laws against such violence it should be preventable, thus the abolishment of the institution should not be a requirement to the end of violence within the institution. But, at least according to Card, laws do not prevent the violence. So there must be something inherent in the institution that overrides the law, at least in the minds of the violent perpetrators. I suggest that this something is a power imbalance: Slave owners have power over slaves. This power is inherent in the institution and cannot be legalized away except with the abolishment of slavery itself. Slavery without this power imbalance would be absurd.
If we apply this underlying assumption to marriage, it gets really interesting! If we assume that a power imbalance that enables the violence is created by the institution, there must be a power imbalance within marriage. Clearly there is: Men have (generally speaking) power over women. If we then take the next analogous step, we get to this conclusion: Marriage as an institution creates though the intimate access clause the power imbalance between men and women that leads, at least in some cases, to the violent abuse of women within marriage. That is, marriage is an essential component of patriarchy. I am not sure if I am putting words into Card’s mouth here but this seems to be her underlying claim. To me it raises at least one question: If we abolish marriage, would patriarchy also go away?
While I’d love to believe it, I don’t think so. If marriage were the only form of patriarchy, then maybe, but it exists everywhere and in everything. Especially religion, which isn’t going away anytime soon.
I think that abolishing marriage is a step in the right direction toward decreasing the effects of patriarchy. I do have to agree with April’s statement that patriarchy seems to be everywhere. I feel it is important to constantly question the arbitrary demands that society is constantly forcing on people. Men complain that they are “tricked” into marriage, but they still keep getting married. Maybe they need to question the institution of marriage too.
Thank you, April & Paula, for your comments! They are especially welcome since I’ve spent too much time in the last few days arguing with a guy who claimed that patriarchy no longer exists. My first response: You must be living on a different planet!
Marriage is evil for at least 50% of people and 50% of time for most people.
It curtails human rights of individuals, imposes unbearable burden on them
It cause excessive consumption of world resources and leads to greed in humans
The wrong side of the institution of marriage need to be studied further
I completely agree with your (and Card’s) assessment that marriage is evil, and for all of the same reasons that you mentioned. However, I feel that the abuse and slavery components do not apply to just women. Men are equally as likely as women to be the victim. Contemporary American society displays a disgusting and hypocritical acceptance of the abuse and exploitation of males, clearly visible in movies, on television, in books, and every other form of media. But to answer your question, yes, I do feel that patriarchy would go away for the most part. It would, thankfully, also take matriarchy away with it. I do not point this out to be combative in any fashion, but merely to indicate that there is support for the basic principle you presented on the other side of the gender divide as well.
Marriage is an institution of inequality, and thus is inherently evil. From a human rights perspective it is an abomination that allows one person to control and take advantage of another.