Should Marriage be a Human Right?
Thank you for your actions regarding marriage equality. As a single by choice, I take issue, though, with your framing marriage equality as a human rights issue: what human rights are we exactly defending by asking for marriage equality? The right to discriminate against other forms of relationships? Marriage is an institution; not a human right. People have human rights simply by being human, not by their relationship status. By expanding who can marry, we are perpetuating the inherent discriminatory policies that are endowed on people because they “tie the knot.” As a single by choice, I find it frustrating that people ignore that many of the 1,100+ benefits have nothing to do with human rights or protecting anybody. They simply privilege those who are in a state-sanctioned relationship, aka marriage. This discriminates against all of us who are in relationships other than marriages.
While I think that everybody who wants to marry should have the right to do so, I do not appreciate that this private commitment comes with a huge package of rights and benefits that are not available outside of marriage. I would love to see True Majority fight against singlism (the discrimination of singles) and marital status discrimination in all forms. We should fight for human rights for all people, regardless of their marital status, relationship style, sexual orientation, race, or gender.
After I hit sent, it occurred to me that I failed to do some research. Maybe marriage is considered a human right. After all matrimania is so ingrained in our cultures… I decided to check the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. And, indeed, Article 16 states:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Wow. Marriage is a human right? And the family is a natural group unit of society? Am I the only one who finds both of this disturbing codification of discrimination and cultural assumptions? What is this based on? Marriage is a historical construct, an institution, nothing natural (unlike reproduction or even our need for interpersonal connections, even that might not be completely natural, at least once we’re beyond infancy). I find it sad that it is codified as a human right like this. What about my right as a single person to be respected as a complete human being without having to be married (or coupled)? I guess we have more consciousness raising to do than I thought before we can move beyond marriage…
Aside from the presumption that family is the building block of society, there are two interesting angles that we can look at here: The right to marry and the rights married folks get. I think, looking at it this way, it is clear that the right to marry is very basic: Everybody who wants to make the commitment that marriage entails, should be allowed to do so. However, this does not mean that these people should automatically receive benefits from the government, although that seems to be implied in the assumption that marriage is a human right. This second part – the rights married people receive – is what I take issue with.
Share this post with others:
Pingback:Rachel’s Musings » Happy Birthday Human Rights Declaration
Very good question, Tom! This is really the underlying issue: To what extend should society steer people toward one form of relationship and away from others. The religious wrong argues that marriage is the foundation for civilization, therefore they are pushing it with the claim that society will fall apart if marriage goes away. The evidence they present falls apart on closer inspection, though. For example, children leave poverty not by way of two parents but through better education (whether their own or their parents). Again and again, the push toward marriage does not address the underlying issues. Marriage is not the panacea that the conservative forces claim it is… So, I would argue that the state has no role to play in relationships because relationships per se do not address societal problems. The pro-marriage movement is ignoring that most of the societal problems they claim stem from the decline of marriage are really failures of policy.
And I think this reframing also points out that there are really two issues here: Should people have the right to marry anybody they want? Yes. But does the existence of this right dictate certain state policies? No, except in the removal of any barriers. In other words, the state should not be in the way of marriage but it also should not push marriage as a policy because it solves no societal problems.
(This argument is in large part based on the evidence presented in the excellent book by Nancy Polikoff Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage.)
There’s a related and in my view more profound question apart from rights (I find debates about rights too often muddy the waters). What is the role of the state in relationships and why? Should it use fiscal and legal policy to “social engineer” i.e. nudge citizens toward certain behaviours that the statespeople believe, through some sort of deliberation, should be supported. The bias toward matrimony stems in large part from the supposition that enabling and reinforcing families improves the health of the body politic. One only need look at the social pathology of the inner city to consider the validity (or not) of such an approach.
Thank you for posting about this, Rachel. I’ve been aware of the inequality that singles receive from the government, and from their neighbors, for a long time, having been single most of my life and having made the decision to not marry again. Marriage seems to me like the last strong-hold of a patriarchal system that no longer works for most people, but I don’t see a big change in our lifetimes.
Looking at the whole Universal Declaration of Human Rights , every right mentioned accept Article 16 deals with individuals. With Article 16 left out singles and married couples would have rights. I am not sure why its added that if you get married you will still have the same rights as before you were married.
Therefore the third point is just reassuring people who want to get married that they rights will be protected by the state. I do agree with you that its a very terse document and up for many different interpretations.
Thank you, Allix, for adding more international information! I suspect that the UK & US stories hold in many countries.
I agree with your interpretation of Article 16: It gives people the right to marry (and it does not specify how that marriage looks like, i.e., it doesn’t have to be between one man and one woman…). I am, however, still troubled by the third point, which assumes that the family is a natural unit…
In England there are tax benefits to couples as well
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/married-allow.htm
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
The table in the second link explains the differences clearly. So if one of them is under 75 they do not get to pay tax until they have at least £6,285 whereas a single under 65 starts paying tax when the have £5,225.
In regard to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , it does not explicable state that someone wanting to get married has “rights” and singles do not. It just says that if you want to marry someone that is from another country regardless of the law in that country you have a right to do so.