Against Marriage: An Egalitarian Defense of the Marriage-Free State

by Clare Chambers

Against Marriage is a radical argument for the abolition of state-recognised marriage. Clare Chambers argues that state-recognised marriage violates both equality and liberty, even when expanded to include same-sex couples. Instead Chambers proposes the marriage-free state: an egalitarian state in which religious or secular marriages are permitted but have no legal status.

Part I makes the case against marriage. Chambers investigates the critique of marriage that has developed within feminist and liberal theory. Feminists have long argued that marriage is a violation of equality since it is both sexist and heterosexist. Chambers endorses the feminist view and argues, in contrast to recent egalitarian pro-marriage movements, that same-sex marriage is not enough to make marriage equal. Chambers argues that state-recognised marriage is also problematic for liberalism, particularly political liberalism, since it imposes a controversial, hierarchical conception of the family that excludes many adults and children.

Part II sets out the case for the marriage-free state. Chambers critically assesses recent theories that attempt to make marriage egalitarian, either by replacing it with relationship contracts or by replacing it with alternative statuses such as civil union. She then sets out a new model for the legal regulation of personal relationships. In the marriage-free state regulation is based on relationship practices not relationship status, and these practices are regulated separately rather than as a bundle. The marriage-free state thus employs piecemeal, practice-based regulation. Finally, Chambers considers how the marriage-free state should respond to unequal religious marriage. The result is an inspiring egalitarian approach that fits the diversity of real relationships.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Feminism, Sociology, Gender, Marriage, Gender Studies

240 pages, Hardcover

Published September 27, 2017

About the author

Clare Chambers is University Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Fellow of Jesus College, University of Cambridge. Her field is political philosophy, particularly feminist and liberal theories of justice, equality, autonomy, culture, family and the body.

Reviews

[KT · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well written and thought-provoking read on a liberal egalitarian defense of the marriage-free state, although I don't share the same political or social views of the author, I thought they made a compelling case that marriage has played a significant role in maintaining the regime of gender inequality, since it has been used to consolidate legal, economic, cultural and symbolic oppression by confining women to a private sphere in which they are disadvantaged

The first half of the book sets out the basic egalitarian case against marriage; that it is an institution founded on patriarchy and heteronormativity, that its reform to include same sex couples falls short since the very idea of marriage remains rooted in forms of intimacy that are associated with heterosexual and male privilege, and that even a radically reformed marriage or civil unions brings inequality between those who are partnered and those who are not

I found the second half of the book less convincing, particularly the chapter on marriage contracts, however the book does offer a reasonable alternative: instead of basing regulation of the ideal-type of a married couple, which is neither ideal nor typical, an egalitarian state should be marriage-free
Relationships should be regulated according to their practices, with no assumption that practices coincide, with default regulations based on ensuring equality, both internal to a relationship and between those who are and are not partnered

Highlights included:
Laying out how state recognition of marriage involves the state endorsing a particular way of life and particular views about what makes life valuable

Marriage has traditional and cultural meanings that allocates a bundle of rights and duties to those who marry, effectively creating a hierarchy between marriage and non-marriage, violating liberal notions of equality and neutrality

The author exploring several assumptions that reject the state recognition of marriage as good, including non-monogamy, bohemianism, feminism, pragmatism and celibacy

[Laura R · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough discussion about why it might be reasonable to decouple marriage as a social institution from its bundle of legal rights that go along with. It dissects the whole concept of marriage, including its symbolic meaning and history. An interesting read, however not an easy one since it was written in a very academic language.

[Holly · Rating 3 out of 5]

In some ways I wasn't the right audience for this book because I'm interested in marriage without being invested in it. If no new marriages could be contracted after tomorrow, I would be OK with that, but I would also still be interested in what marriage had meant to the people who got married.

[Christophe Bousquet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Important book explaining why any State should not care about who is married to whom

[A YOGAM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chambers liefert die wohl radikalste liberale Absage an die staatliche Ehe. Sie argumentiert, dass die institutionelle Ehe – selbst wenn sie für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare geöffnet ist – strukturell gegen die Prinzipien von Freiheit und Gleichheit verstößt. Ihr Gegenmodell ist der „ehefreie Staat“, der rechtlichen Schutz nicht an einen Status (verheiratet/ledig) knüpft, tradierte Rechtebündel systematisch entkoppelt und stattdessen konkrete Beziehungspraktiken punktuell reguliert.

Intertextuelle Verankerung in meinem Bibliotheksbestand
Dieses Werk stellt die konsequente politische Umsetzung der Kritik dar, die Anika Maaza Simpson („Single Black Mother: Queer Reflections on Marriage and Racial Justice“) aus einer intersektionalen Perspektive formuliert hat. Während Simpson die rassistischen und patriarchalen Wurzeln der Ehe offenlegt, liefert Chambers die normativ präziserechtsphilosophische Architektur für einen Staat, der ohne dieses ausgrenzende Instrument auskommt.
Chambers' Modell der „piecemeal regulation“ (stückweise Regulierung) ist zudem ein Paradebeispiel für die institutionelle Überwindung der Dehumanisierung durch staatliche Kategorisierung (Mari Mikkola, „The Wrong of Injustice: Dehumanization and Its Role in Feminist Philosophy“). Indem der Staat aufhört, Bürger nach ihrem Beziehungsstatus zu hierarchisieren, schützt er deren grundlegende Interessen, ohne sie in vordefinierte soziale „Kinds“ zu pressen.
Schließlich korrespondiert der „ehefreie Staat“ mit der Suche nach neuen Formen der sozialen Kooperation, die nicht auf veralteten Konventionen beruhen, sondern im tatsächlichen Miteinander „funktionieren“ (Cheshire Calhoun, „Moral Aims: Essays on the Importance of Getting it Right and Practicing Morality with Others“). Chambers zeigt, wie eine liberale Gesellschaft die von Elizabeth Brake („After Marriage: Rethinking Marital Relationships“) diskutierten vielfältigen Lebensentwürfe rechtlich ernst nehmen kann, ohne eine „Normalbiografie“ vorzuschreiben, und damit Gleichheit nicht behauptet, sondern institutionell realisiert.

[DW Rowlands · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting read, though I felt that it focused more on the philosophical than the practical aspects of non-marriage-states. Also, I am not convinced that Chambers's reasoning in the last chapter, on regulation of private/religious marriages was entirely coherent.