Why You Should Consider Supporting Marriage Privatization

As Americans debated whether the government should permit gay marriage over the last several years, I found myself pondering a completely different question. Why do private relationships need to be state-sanctioned at all?

I’d like to introduce you to marriage privatization, the concept that the government should have no authority over a private romantic relationship between two individuals. Any marital contract between the parties involved would exist only between them, and would be agreed upon prior to the marriage. The government’s only role would be enforcing the terms of the contract, assuming one is even created.

Some of the biggest opponents of privatization were religious conservatives, who considered it a vote in favor of gay marriage. However, like it or not, gay marriage is now officially legal throughout the United States. It is highly unlikely that gay marriage will be overturned via a Constitutional amendment, so I think it would be wise to consider an alternative path forward, one compatible with the individualism promoted by the manosphere. Here are a few reasons to consider it:

It would invalidate sexist divorce laws

Marriage and divorce 2014

The terms of the marriage would be determined by the private contract, if one is created. With no state-sponsored marriage certificate, it would be far more difficult for the courts to dispossess a man from the fruits of his labor. If a man loses his ass in a divorce over a private contract, then it’s his own fault. Privatization would make no difference in family courts, as child support and custody are determined by the birth certificate, not marital status.

Since the feminist agenda is primarily the dispossession of male resources through governmental intimidation and coercion, we can expect them to be some of the biggest opponents to privatization. If it were to pass, far more women would walk away from divorces empty-handed, simply because they didn’t carefully consider the terms of their marital contract. In other words, women would be held accountable for their own decisions, just as men are. Marriage privatization would help bring real equality to the sexes, something most feminists fear and despise, so expect their opposition.

It may actually encourage marriage

types of girls

This may seem counter-intuitive, but the current divorce laws disincentivize marriage by making it financially risky for men. The current laws also incent women to divorce whenever they become the slightest bit unhappy, given that women initiate between 66% to 90% of divorces.

Little girls don’t dream about going to the courthouse and signing some government papers. Marriage has always been about a man and a woman publicly expressing their bond to each other, usually in the form of a ritual ceremony, and often recognized and approved by the religious institution of their choice. I highly doubt marriage will cease simply because they don’t have to stop by the courthouse anymore.

It may help protect religious freedom


Now that gay marriage advocates have won, the next logical step is to force churches to permit gay ceremonies, or risk losing their tax-exempt status. The Leftist argument will almost certainly be that churches can marry who they want, but the government shouldn’t be giving tax breaks to non-profits that “discriminate.” They’ll point to liberal churches that marry gays as exemplary, and focus their attack on traditional churches. By completely removing the government’s role in marriage, it would be far more difficult for Leftists to use the federal government to impose their cultural agenda.



A common argument against marriage privatization is that it would essentially “allow” polyamory and incest.

Concerning polyamory and polygamy, there’s no way to prevent a man from having multiple consensual sexual relationships with many different women even now. A man can easily father many children from many different women today with no legal recourse, assuming he pays his child support. In other words, the current law cannot and does not prevent such behavior. Like it or not, even today monogamy is purely optional. If the 14th Amendment can be used to justify gay marriage, it can certainly be used to justify consensual polygamy. I believe it’s inevitable.

Incest is actually extremely rare. There’s evidence to suggest humans come equipped with incest avoidance mechanisms, which suggests an opposition to incest is biological, not cultural. I can’t think of a single person I know who doesn’t shutter at the thought of inbreeding with family members. Thus, I’m highly skeptical that incest will ever become a real trend. It’s just an example of fear mongering. Even the current laws cannot stop a brother and sister from procreating, assuming they’re hellbent on it. Therefore, I don’t consider this a realistic criticism either.


Lawyer And The Law

Believe it or not, there was a time when people just got married, and there was no need to ask permission from the state. The historical reasons for why the government got involved in marriage had to do, of course, with social engineering practices. Historically, if those with power didn’t want certain races or religions to marry into the group, they would use the law to prevent the union from taking place. There is no reason for the state to be licensing marriages unless it’s to exclude and thus “violate” the 14th Amendment. The legal precedent has been set.

The statists, of course, will try to scare you. They say we just “don’t know” what will happen, although they’re sure it will be something terrible. They ignore that privatization is how marriage worked for almost all of human history, and how it still works in various remote places. It’s nothing more than fear mongering.

Gay marriage is apparently here to stay, so we need to plot a new course. Marriage is indeed an important institution and a vital component of the family unit. However, that does not mean it needs to be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the ruling authorities. I believe this ultimately does it more harm than good.

Read More: This Accidental Experiment Shows The Superiority Of Patriarchy

210 thoughts on “Why You Should Consider Supporting Marriage Privatization”

  1. What you refer to was once called :”Common law marriage”.
    If you look at the gay marriage laws passed in the states, look at the fine print. They have stuff in there that guts common law marriage for everybody else.
    Yes, that’s right. Read it. Washington state is a perfect example of “ohhhhh the gays can marry now! And by the way the rest if you in common law marriage, your’re fucked”.
    I will forever hate the gays, in their rush onto the trains (for marriage was never government’s job in the first place) to the death camps, for pushing everybody else on board ahead of them. They stupidly wanted their marriage “rights” so bad, they did it without any regard for freedom and condemned everybody else.
    It’s not innocence filling mass graves, it’s stupidity.

    1. I think they were told what they wanted, and being the confused individuals that they are, accepted it in a desperation to find purpose. If they were comfortable in their own skin, they wouldn’t be so desperate to prove it to themselves.

    2. I like to bring up gay marriage with a gay guy I know, when in the presence of liberals. He gets furiously pissed and goes on a tirade about how he now has to worry about another gay man robbing him of his income. He was the most vehemently anti-gay marriage advocate I knew. It’s hilarious to see the shocked look on liberal faces.

      1. My wife’s brother is that way. He’s gay and he hates the idea of legalized gay marriage. He’s lived with the same guy for almost 25 years. They had given each other power of attorney and basically got the spouse benefits without the detriments… now its not so clean cut.

  2. I always advise young men not to get married. Everything has changed with the man taking all of the risk and the woman risking nothing at all. The state has made it their duty to strip men of almost everything in the event that the woman is no longer happy. Sure, you may hear a story here and there about a woman (finally) paying but for the most part it’s a scam.
    Men need to stay away from marriage until the state works out all of those equality bugs.

      1. I think it depends on the generation you and your gf or bf are from… but with Americans under 40, Driver is 100% correct.

  3. “Gay Marriage” is like The term “Assault Rifle.” It by definition isn’t actually a thing. Stupid faggots can run around all they want, but we all know their “relationships” are little more than sexual arrangements.

  4. i’m wondering when lawsuits are going to start to spring-up from ex-girlfriends wanting the same treatment under the law as ex-wives (ie. at least 50% of everything). only a matter of time! if no men are getting married, bitches still gotta get paid!

    1. Heh.. Don’t be surprised.
      I remember as far back as the 1990s there were women I’d hear about, some I met, who would brag about how they sued their ex-boyfriends for something.
      Considering that the west is overflowing with scumbag lawyers, it’s a disaster waiting to happen. I would not put it past the divorce mills to expand into non-marriage relationships. It’ll be about money for them, it’ll be about misandry for the cuntocracy.
      And it’ll be about attacking those few men left who bother to fuck.
      This is why I don’t blame younger fellows for the porn and video gaming. When the two meet, through expanded VR technology, what is the cuntocracy and its state going to do then?

        1. If they’re smart they’ll find some way to make money off of it.
          Imagine if girls had the option to whore themselves out anonymously from the comfort of their bedrooms for some cash.
          All she has to do is talk dirty into a microphone while some dude fucks a blow-up doll a couple cities away. She’ll make 50$/hour just to pretend to give a shit.
          How many girls are going to pass that up for “moral” reasons? Why would they?
          EDIT: I bet more chicks would be doing this right now if there was a convenient app on their phone that didn’t require them to set up a microphone… camera… market to customers… etc… I bet there is money to be made if one developed a cell-phone app. Anyone got thoughts on this?

        2. They did just that back in the 90’s with the 900 number sex chat lines, remember? This was before the internet and smartphones.

        3. You’re right.
          My thinking (which I didn’t really flesh out) is to create the Virtual Reality version of this.
          Most women want to keep their anonymity, but they’d be willing to act or say some dirty shit for money.
          But probably what’s going to happen is VR will simulate sex with a woman so well that a real woman wont even need to be involved.
          But has anyone created the simple app version of what you’re referring to? Those old-school hotlines?

        4. I would imagine a kind of telemetric sex whereas for the men, “real” activity with the virtual women in the VR world would be driven by real women also hooked up to the matrix.
          We would see then, yet another “fuck the men over” situation. How? Simple.
          Men having to resort to VR will be wearing a headset with the VR goggles and an electronic pussy stuck on his dick, and he will have to PAY to use the service where the artificial construct he “fucks” will be driven by a real woman.
          The woman on the other end will have VR goggles (if she wants) and an electronic dildo stuck in her hole(s) and she will be getting PAID to do this.
          Meanwhile, MGTOW nerds who will see this as yet another con job will struggle to develop the proper AI to get real women out of the equation and free men from this new robbery of his resources, and feminists will claim that’s misogyny.

        5. Your predictions are on-point I think.
          Have you ever played the video-game BioShock Infinite? What is interesting about that game is you have a hot-chick who follows you around the entire time giving you positive feedback for killing bad-guys and finding money (no really YouTube it).
          What I found interesting about the game was how addicting it was to get her validation. I stopped playing as soon as I realized what I was doing, but the average young male gamer gets off on this I bet. It doesn’t take the acquisition of actual sex to register in a thirsty dude’s brain… All it takes is the simulation of the white-knight instinct.
          Just a thought… If the sex industry gets over-saturated all you gotta do is create the fairy-tale of “being a man”.

        6. hahaha.. wow…
          I haven’t made it to infite yet, still playing parts 1 and 2, but that’s pretty twisted!

        7. Well, it’s just an extension of having pretty girls handing you the trophy for winning a race or something of that line.
          White Knightery has been around for a very long time. It’s only in the last century that it has become so weaponized by academia working with cultural Marxists and technocrats.

        8. I found that bitch annoying following you around for no reason and the game a wee bit plastic. Give me the previous ones with grimey atmosphere and unpredictable storyline.

        9. If there are some kind of virtual glasses where a guy can pound his realistic sex doll while watching and hearing a real girl in sexual positions, similar to POV porn. Alot of girls would get paid to have their bodies used anonymously and millions of men might never need actual sex ever again.

        10. We will need some kind of neurological mechanism that causes a dream-state or sort of hypnosis that completely convinces us that it’s real…this is the real hard part about VR
          we would have to fall asleep with the vr headset on, than when it senses we have woken up, all we see is still VR, so we still think we’re dreaming or something
          this mechanism is as important as VR itself, and possibly more difficult
          but if this is achieved.. We will have large portions of the population who abandon themselves to paradisical worlds that they control , with a different type of physics where you can fly around like superman or something and download mods for your world
          in order to feel fully transported the dreamstate invention must happen….Graphics are already at a photorealistic level if you have a good card

        11. Agreed.
          I was a big Starcraft Brood War fan but Blizzard did the same thing to SC2.
          The multiplayer gameplay of SC2 is pretty amazing but it lost a lot of its grimey atmospheric vibe that made SC1 a timeless game.
          Over the years I’ve pretty much quit gaming altogether.

        12. They are already able to build synthetic neurons.
          The idea is to inject these into the blood stream, and they reach the brain, taking over/interacting the real neurons, which are then connected wirelessly to VR, all the parts of our brain which convince us “something is real” would be re-directed
          I dont know how far away we are to this “nano-tech” age, but apparently… Once we are able to build synthetic cells and so on, we will literally not age since these DNA bots will reprogram our DNA to think it’s young
          Our bodies are constantly making new cells, The body for some reason, decides, to let itself accumulate damage, and each cell makes a gradually more damaged copy of itself since it copies a damaged cell , it creates the same damaged cell with even more new damage so the process accumulates in something known as the hayflick limit, right now if you are 25, your body makes 25 year old cells so why not make these prime cells indefinitely and confuse the mechanism that allows cells to know their age?? this might happen within under 20 years depending on the trends in biotech and the shrinking of technology etc…
          This also means, the ability to enter a world of consequence-free-hedonism,
          Vr will enable the habitation of space. through avatars and end the idea of “travel”
          No need for planes, trains, and automobiles if you can just teleport your consciousness anywhere in the galaxy in an instant..
          these synth neurons will also be merged with computers and augmented so that your memory is limitless and photorealistic, we won’t need some “external computer” it will be biologically integrated.
          So our iq’s will be something in the 1000’s-10,000’s. and not 100-120
          a limitless world…

        13. Don’t know anything about SC because I’ve never been into sci-fi laser pew pew pew stuff. I’m still waiting for Activition to make a WW2 COD game.
          I play WOT from time to time, rarely. Is is me or games have lost their mystique?

        14. I cannot wait for that to be a reality. Imagine the possibilities if they could make it feel real.

        15. Maybe an Omegle of anonymous sex chat. That would blow up considering kik and snapchat’s seen wide success.

        16. I can’t tell if I’ve just gotten older or games have just gotten kinda lame and unexciting overall. The last game that blew me away was GTA5 and I don’t even own a PS3.

        17. I was seriously thinking of confiscating it from my 11 year old grand nephew, until I saw the tears in his eyes.

        18. I had the same reaction when I first saw it.
          People have been complaining about violence in games/movies for years and years and years. This was the first game I’ve ever seen that actually made me wonder if it would have a negative influence on kids.

        19. They will make it illegal saying it incites rape or is addictive to men and it can’t be made legal because it hurts people. They can’t allow a true substitute for vagina or they know their value would drop too significantly. Imagine the drop in power for attractive females if you could take a picture of them with your phone, take it home, upload it, and virtually have sex with them doing anything you want any time you want and it be very similar to the real thing… how in the hell would she get her unearned promotions, free tahoe, and million dollar mansion with her looks if you could do that?

        20. In that scenario, there would be no incentive for a woman to look beautiful so you would would not be able to even take a live photo. You’ll just have to draw one up on your own like an anime cartoon character. This is what women fear most.

        21. Jobs was secretly having Siri trained for that before he went to his just reward. No way he wasn’t going to eventually make some money off that ignorant bitch.

        22. Imagine if girls had the option to whore themselves out anonymously from the comfort of their bedrooms for some cash.
          Already been done, take chaturbate for example.

        1. Have you seen the stuff these poor guys have to do in order to ask a girl to prom these days? It’s like a darn marriage proposal. You have to buy props and plan this big event, just to ask them. If I were a kid today I doubt I would be going lol.

        2. I’d go just like I did back then. Show up alone, bang some poor bastard’s date while he was looking for someone to buy him beer for the after prom.

        3. well… you were a great friend and honest guy. Hope I’m never around you … Did you steal people’s stuff when they left it lying around also or did you just get off on hurting others?

        4. Yes, I’m a terrible person for shagging a bored girl who got all dressed up to be banged while her mangina date skipped off to find someone to buy him beer in the vain hope he might get lucky if only he could score a sixer of bud.

        5. No, you’re a terrible person because you don’t do unto others and you don’t care about hurting others. If you did, you wouldn’t intentionally do things like that. What you are describing is opportunistically taking advantage of another person’s trust or naivety. Either way, it’s wrong.

        6. Well, I think the guy’s only choice is to conform if they want a date or to get laid, because there are so many other guys willing to do whatever the girl asks that if they don’t they can’t get a date or any action. They basically have to go MGTOW or confirm… and MGTOW is just not much of an option for a guy in high school wanting to attend his prom.

      1. true, and mangina lawyers will offer to work for these women for free just for sex, and than go after alpha males who are the exes of these women

      2. “This is why I don’t blame younger fellows for the porn and video gaming. When the two meet, through expanded VR technology, what is the cuntocracy and its state going to do then?”
        They will then ban all porn and vr porn etc. Unless we get our long overdue civil war.

      3. Video games, porn, the upcoming vasalgel, the sexbots, the MGTOWS, the Japanese herbivores, the high percentage of men boycotting marriage etc. Indeed, men are checking out from society,
        The whole system is going to breakdown and eventually, more men will become free.

        1. You should check out the Mouse Utopia experiment article on here. It discusses the effects of overpopulation on stuff like men checking out of society.

        2. I saw that…. its a terrible result for the male mice though. They become completely meaningless. Hopefully if this happens prostitution becomes legal.

      4. They’ll just make it illegal, saying that the porn isn’t good for society the same way they have prostitution. They’ll say it encourages rape or that it’s bad for guys and addictive or something. They can’t and won’t lose their puss privilege and that would significantly reduce it. It’s the same reason pay for sex is illegal almost everywhere… if a guy could run down the street to a safe clean place anytime he wanted with no fear of disease or arrest men wouldn’t have to cater to women’s every whim.

      1. yikes.
        lessons: 1) regardless if you sleep at her place nightly, maintain your own separate official residence (even if it’s just a studio-apartment in the ghetto) 2) buy nothing together unless you’re ready to lose said-item, 3) leave no social-media history trail between you and the woman. 4) in fact, be careful about texting or any kind of electronic communication in general.

        1. in the US they can still try to claim “common law” and take your stuff… its almost impossible to keep it all separate. The best thing is to have a contract called a writ of cohabitation.

        2. 5) Ensure *all* of your assets are held in a trust and make sure she has no idea of how and where you keep said trusts.
          Now more than ever it’s important to have zero personal wealth on paper. If you don’t have any personal wealth, they cannot take anything from you.

        3. the problem there is you get double taxed. the trust pays taxes and so do you, so when you get paid it’s taxed by income, then you give it to the trust, the trust has to again pay income tax. Also, you can’t own the trust and the payouts must be regulated. Also, make sure you don’t live in a state with alimony, because in states like California, they’ll just order you to pay alimony to her from the money you take from the trust by percentage.

        4. I’m talking about unit trusts for the purpose of holding assets (property, company holdings). I don’t know how different things are in the US, but in Aus none of those factors you mention are an issue.

    2. There are already laws like that in Canada, she stays a little too long at your place and HALF!

    3. Lawsuit options will morph as the feminine imperative sees fit. To think you can just snicker about how tricky you are by avoiding ‘legal marriage’ and skate free is unrealistic. Bachelor taxes and all forms of insane legal decisions will just grow new tentacles. There is an oncoming (partially arrived) FLOOD of female judges. All those anthropology, lit., women’s studies, art, sociology, psychology majors can get into law school with a decent GPA. School is designed for them and especially the subjective majors like English, the females GPA’s would be very well protected. So, to law school they go (once they can’t find a a job) and on to judgeships. The feminist indoctrination/insanity of a typical female judge in the year 2025 will be something that wouldn’t even work in a crazed, dystopian parody novel because it would be too over the top for the world of fiction. Yet it will be real. Obama has obliterated this culture’s sense of respect for founding principles and law. He has instilled a sense of “I’m superior to the words of ancient white male slaveholders” and that disrespect is already seeping into all aspects of our legal/gov’t culture. Just wait. If your life is in the hands of a crazed, millenial feminist asshole judge about 15 years from now (or now), then you are absolutely screwed. Just by your identity as a white male, you will be screwed.
      Go to 6:20

        1. Well it’s just my prediction, so keep that in mind. I really do believe female judges are going to overwhelm the system though, just based on law school stats. I have a very hard time believing that their feminist war chant will not heavily influence their work. It’s too ingrained.
          I’m overseas myself. Also, I doubt I will have a child. It’s just too much of a hook back into the culture. It anchors you in the culture, if you will. Once that kid comes (and marriage), you are in the system, no matter how much you disagree with it and mouth off about it. I want to live a life outside of culture. It can’t be a totally culture-less life but as close as you can get it. So ‘drop out’ as the shamers would say. That’s my answer.

    4. In Australia after 6 months of cohabitation you are considered defacto and the laws are the same as if you are married ie half of your shit can be theirs upon separation.

    5. The provinces in Canada have been changing that so property division applies to common law relationships. Quebec, the only jurisdiction where alimony did not apply to common law relationships, went through a constitutional challenge. I don’t know the outcome of that case.

    6. In Mexico they can sue the Ex boyfriend for monetary compensation, after years of relationships and if he does not want to marry her yet or he just end the relationship after 7 years, she can SUE him for waste of time.
      Also if they live together for years the marital status is automatic, she have the same rights as a wife does.

  5. I believe that there a couple of states in the US which already were going in this direction. The laws didn’t make it out of the houses though.
    Funny thing is, a bunch of atheists opposed because the law “prevented atheists from marrying”.

  6. I always felt that the state allowing sodomites to marry was a trojan horse for its “Brave new world” agenda.
    Get ready for sexual socialism !

  7. Except this will never catch on because the economy would fall to shit. If we managed to stop the systematic state sponsored theft of a mans resources to women then women would actually have to assume responsibility for their own finances and stop spending loads of fucking money on stupid frivolous shit.

    1. Stop internalizing our trade deficit. We need less spending on frivolous shit and more american exports to fix this economy. Otherwise the people and the government will continue to borrow us into oblivion.

      1. Nail it. The Chinese economy would probably suffer, but it would help reduce our trade deficit.

    2. Child support laws will always exist. There’s nothing a man can do to protect his resources when children are involved.

      1. Keep,your assets in a foreign jurisdiction, have a second passport, make your income model non-fragile and mobile, etc.
        Those are four things right there you could do. But nothing on earth will help you if you approach from the failure mindset.

    3. “If we managed to stop”
      It has already stopped.
      Only the left over suckers are still getting married these days, and that chart shows a decline of 3% a year the marriage rate is less than 20% by now and still declining

    4. No, the feminist will stop it now that women will be making more than men. Because it will no longer benefit women to have these unfair divorce laws, women will actually change them. Studies show that women (under 40) make more than men (under 540) in the same professions now. This is mainly because of affirmative action in STEM, but regardless, when women start losing more money than they gain through divorce, the feminist will get the laws changed and call them archaic.

      1. Women tend to earn more in their late 20′ and 30’s ’cause they tend to spend more and hold more consumer debt despite earning more!!!! o.O Men invest money and spend less. A single man has no need to earn more ’cause he doesn’t need to buy the latest designer purse or shoes! o.O I know of women who got $30 000 worth of SHOES! Shoes for f*ck sakes! >:I

        1. (Peanut gallery speaking. Please feel free to ignore)
          $30, 000??? Were they gold?
          The most expensive shoes I’ve ever bought were on sale at $75 and they were proper leather boots!
          Why do some women buy into this mindset of expensive is best? I was taught to buy quality, not quantity or brand name.

      2. Female sexuality allows for multiple women to share the same man, so no, they won’t change the laws back to what it was, they will just make it possible for a number of them to secure commitment from a man they find attractive.
        Get this through your head: if you personally do not fight for your own needs then the world will let you die.

        1. I agree, but you should also understand that as soon as a law no longer benefits the majority of women, women will vote to get it changed. They are organized and vote as a group. If 2 women “marry” a man, and the man leaves, they will not let him have half of both of their assets. Once it is not in their best interests to have and split common property, those rules will be gone.

        2. I don’t think women really give a shit one way or another. The more I start to get red pill, the more I’m beginning to realize women will simply exist in whatever reality we men create for them.
          Basically, yes, if you let them do what they want, they will go feral and haywire and drive everything to shit. This is why they don’t want men who let them do whatever they want. That’s why they get turned on by men that know how to take them and master them. They love it. they need it and crave it.
          TL:DR the problem is the men of the West have no concept of what it is to be a Man. We’ve completely lost sight of it.

        3. Agree 100%… but because men are so thirsty and are willing to do anything for the one time lay, women today have gained power, especially due to social media. This has also allowed them to associate and have agendas for made up problems. They vote as a block for anything that is seen as taking something away from women, even if the take away is only to make things fair. It’s a problem.

        4. Well, what have men always done when they are suffering or in deprivation? They either go to pieces and turn on each other like a pack of rabid jackals. Or – they choose to tolerate their suffering with patience, focus on a vision of the future, then work together in brotherhood to collectively achieve that future, while focusing all their need and pain into achieving that vision.
          We have manuals on game, we have an understanding of the failures and victories of past groups of men. We have so much knowledge and wisdom available to us, as well as the resources to make use of that knowledge. And even if you want to say it’s hard to find men around you that share your vision, with the technology available, you can certainly find them around the globe.
          Basically, we have everything we need to achieve real goals. We don’t have to helplessly be cast aside. Personally, I think this is part of what God wanted for us.

    5. “women then women would actually have to assume responsibility for their own finances”
      Most are not capable of this so it would result in mass impoverishment for women. The proof —– This is how most of the world thinks and women are among the most impoverished around the world and they still spend their money of frivolous shit. I’ve seen this where women in many poor counties make large amonts of cash (relative to their country) through prostitution risking their lives but do they spend some of it on getting an education or open a bank account? Hell NO. They buy more crap like slutty clothes, expensive handbags, and cosmetics, beauty solons, and material crap. Women in America need the state to redistribute the wealth from the male population to them cause they don’t know how to take care of themselves.

      1. That’s basically the argument that feminists use to justify the current regime: without it there is too much female impoverishment.

    6. Even without extortionate divorce laws, guys still tend to hand over money or spend it on women voluntarily while they are in a relationship.

  8. Isn’t “Privatised Marriage” already an option? If someone wants to enter into a relationship akin to marriage, they have 2 options:
    1. Get married in the ‘normal’ way by signing the Government-created ‘one-size fits all’ contract.
    2. Hire a solicitor to draw up a tailor-made contract; upon signing, have a celebration party and a ceremony at your religious location of choice if you want.
    If a Red Pill man has found his unicorn and wants to get married, what’s to stop him going with option 2? Instead of wasting a few Ks on a pointlessly expensive wedding, invest a couple K in getting a contract drawn up which says something like “I promise to provide food, shelter etc as long as she provides domestic services, ‘companionship’ etc. If either party wishes to terminate the agreement, the terms of termination will be X, Y, Z. As long as this contract is in effect, we will be each other’s next of kin. Termination of the contract will result in a termination of the next of kin arrangement.”I see ‘normal’ marriage as a ‘standard’ contract that the government has drawn up for people who can’t or won’t draw up their own contract to use. Am I missing something here? What is there to stop someone from drawing up their own marriage contract to suit their own situation?

    1. the state will still presume you married once you represent yourself as such through any manner of things such as buying joint housing, paying bills from joint accounts. It’s almost impossible to avoid common law marriage living with someone of the opposite sex that you are not related to. It will be interesting now that gay marriage is recognized by the Federal Government if same sex roommates start to have the same issue with becoming “common law” married.

      1. Sucks to live in the states then, I guess. Here in England, in terms of the law there is no such thing as a ‘Common Law Marriage’ aside from rare exceptional circumstances where getting married officially would have been impossible (e.g. an English soldier who got captured by the enemy and ‘married’ a civilian woman of his captor’s country whilst a POW). On the other hand, pre-nups hold even less sway in the UK – from what little I know of the law, UK pre-nups aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. That’s why option 2 was “Draw up your own contract from scratch” rather than “Sign the government-created contract but modify the bits you don’t like with a pre-nup.”

  9. It’s the state coercing institutions to make changes through economic means. Just like education. If schools want Federal funding, they must adopt common core.

  10. I guess we’ll start seeing more marriages in Churches, which generally don’t allow divorce. Imagine the horror when your wife decides she can do better but it turns out she can never divorce you.

  11. An ex’s sister was “unofficially” married. The guy turned out to be “abusive,” and she just left. Of course said woman wasn’t very bright so still watch out.

  12. Stop treating married people different from single people and there’s no reason for the government to be involved in marriage.

  13. Why should you sign a legal document to solidify your love? Is a vacation with some vows and a ring in front of some friends not enough to promise each other monogamy?

    1. Only reason I would ever do it is to bring a foreign girl to the US permanently, but if you remove her from her culture and bring her to the toxic culture of the west, you are asking for trouble!

      1. Indeed. “Americanization” is a process that starts the first time she puts on the Dr.phill show. Western culture is so toxic for natural feminine behavior that you’re better off moving to her country instead.

  14. Marriage is now a mechanism for “reformed” party sluts to extract money from economically productive beta males. The state needs this because governments are broke and said females (outside of government jobs) are unable to support themselves financially for the most part.
    Marriage for many modern men is a taxation taking 65% everything they have ever owned, and 40% of everything they ever will

      1. “Marriage for many modern men is a taxation taking 65% everything they have ever owned, and 40% of everything they ever will”
        There is no exaggeration here. It’s actually an underestimate.. It’s more like 50% of what they will ever earn.

        1. Yea, its way worse in some states. In Texas there is virtually no alimony, but our child support is out of control, virtually enough to support the woman with no job for 18 years. Child support should be calculated by taking the total costs of the child (the custodial and non custodial parents both have costs) and dividing by 2. Then taking that 50%, subtracting what the non-custodial parent needs for the child’s cost, and sending the difference to the custodial parent. That money should then be monitored to make sure it is actually spend on the child and not the mother a boob job.

  15. Just listening to some Leykis and around 34:00 he is telling this girl how marriage is forming a business agreement issued by the secretary of state, just like any other corporation

  16. The criticism is that it doesn’t solve the problems it is supposed to.
    Privatizing Marriage is not the Answer to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
    Privatizing Marriage Is Impossible
    Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State
    Privatizing Marriage Is Unjust to Children

    1. Dude I read that first article and cant be bothered to read the rest its such a joke.
      The woman writer is a fool and no exception to the rule.
      Of course there will be complicated back-end decisions to be made but these can be taken by other institutions such as whoever sanctioned the marriage or what was agreed upon at start. Better yet couple only need need to agree at the start which institution will arbitrate in the case of divorce/dispute.
      Personally I do see marriages going in this direction over time.

  17. Privatise=making money
    Add human right of the parties involved and you’re still fucked.

  18. “Why do private relationships need to be state-sanctioned at all?”
    They don’t. As with everything else, those in the FED simply decided to exercise more power than what they were tasked with through the Constitution in order to further the reach of government into everyday American lives.
    I always tend to chuckle whenever i hear the libertarian remark that “opposing homosexual marriage is opposing liberty” when in reality the opposite is true. Whenever you allow the government greater access into your life beyond the scope of their powers you do so at your own Constitutional peril, as the government doesn’t just stop at doing what you want, it ends up pushing further until it establishes a firm grip on your very existence. That’s how autocratic dictatorships are born. The more you allow the beast of government to have a say so in others lives, the more they will have a say so in EVERYONE’s lives. Marriage laws will have to be expanded in order to include homosexual marriage “rights” in divorce, custody battles, and so forth. It is going to create a legal nightmare especially in instances where an ex homosexual wants to keep an adopted/surrogate child and the other homosexual does not want them to. Who gets to keep the kid when there is no genetic attachment involved? How do you establish the “saner” of two people with mental disorders? What if the surrogate wants to Marry one of them and wants to exercise “bodily autonomy” rights…what then? The lawyers will make bank trying to sort all this mess out.
    The only ones who will benefit from it are the lawyers and of course, the politicians who take “gay” money.
    Marriage itself came about from religion and not the government. Our modern understanding of it was established by the Catholic Church sometime during the 11-12th century, as they sought to give a formal definition to the holy unions presented in the bible. The word “Marriage” is the result.
    The morons on the left however, love to chirp about how “ancient marriage was secular” using the so called example of the Hammurabi Code among others. What they fail to realize is, the code they are speaking of as well as other pagan ones never once use the ancient word for Marriage in their works; the leftists simply ascribe that word unto those examples because of how similar the circumstances are. Apparently they consider clans arranging exchanges of property, goods and people with other clans the equivalent of “Marriage” which explains their profound ignorance. Similar doesn’t mean the same…ancient Marriage-like practices and the Catholic created institution of Marriage are likewise similar BUT not the same. The US recognized and adopted the second kind, it never did so for the first. They never seem to understand this, bless their stupid hearts.
    There is NO RIGHT to Marriage, never has been, and until a Constitutional amendment is passed that redacts part of the first amendment (which grants protections to religion especially) there never will be, SCOTUS be damned.

      1. Exactly, they had the freedom to bum each other in public toilets, parks, well any public area really. But as George Michael said, “its part of our culture!” Yes a totally degenerate culture.

      2. A lot gets lost on them, because they are so busy feeling issues instead of thinking them over logically.
        This is why there are so many similarities between females and your average useful idiot liberal, male or female. Because of how they were likely raised (by a female led household) because of who they associate with (feminists and other leftists) because of what they choose to stimulate their minds with (the religion of “jonstewartism” or left wing sites that do their “thinking” for them) the males end up changing how they think, by prioritizing feelings over logic, to the point that every issue has to be “felt” first before a proper response can be given…just as a female would.
        Men are just the opposite…we think an issue through analytically and only in an ancillary capacity do we consider the emotion involved. Unless the issue we are considering is intensely personal (like a family member getting murdered) we can exercise this kind of dispassionate logic in order to make the most rational decisions in the long run and not succumb to the emotional hysterics commonly associated with the traditional female.
        The reason why the term “bitchslap” has the word bitch in it, is not coincidental…back in the fun old days of the Patriarchy you could slap a hysterically emotional female in order to bring her back to sanity. Too much emotions, too much influence from emotion can lead one to a non compos mentis status and if that is done frequently, runs the risk of having you segue into insanity before long.
        This is why liberalism is a mental disorder, especially for males. It’s understandable that a female will allow herself to succumb to emotion, but for a male to do it is simply unbecoming and a thing of scorn.
        As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions aka feelings.

        1. “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.”
          -Thomas Sowell

  19. Bingo! This is why gay marriage is a fucking joke too and dumb victory for fags…..I have a good friend whose brother is gay…he lived with his “partner”…the gay slob lived on his couch for a couple of years, paid virtually nothing towards a condo. They break up, he goes to sell his condo…his fag partner takes him to court and wins $50 000!!!
    Great victory faggots!!!!
    Marriage is a business contract with the government. Men do not understand this until it is too late and they are being sodomized like the 2 faggots I just wrote about!

  20. From what I understand “registering” a couples marriage would magically provide said couple with tax exemptions and other advantages for providing a stable structure in which to propagate the species, providing the next generation of suckers for the meat grinders. Oh and in the case of the husband he would be subject to the full extent of the divorce laws.
    If I do decide to take the trip down the isle (only jokin’) I wonder what would happen if I go through the ceremony in the church then refuse to sign the register. I would be “married” in the church but not in the eyes of the government????

  21. In effect, with the legitimization of parental rights over illegitimate children, the enforcement of child support obligations upon unwed fathers, and the lapsing of all laws against fornication and adultery, marriage has already been nullified — and those who elect life commitments even so have reinvented it.
    Marriage is the cornerstone of every stable, healthy society — and the destruction of marriage through legal intrusions has put good people in a bind. The only way out of that bind is to return to when marriage was a contract that guaranteed the woman the support and fidelity of the man, the man the fidelity of the woman, and their children the support, protection, and nurturance of both. The proper enforcement agency for such a contract is not the State but the enveloping community.
    To preserve Western society, marriage must be returned to its contractual roots. That can only be accomplished through the exclusion of the State — i.e., by privatizing marriage.

  22. I’m against it for practical reasons.
    Civil marriages are not religious marriages, yet they are also the same under the law. The option for religious marriage outside of the law already exists. Just do a private ceremony, but do not get a marriage license. The couple just can’t get the tax benefits and other legal benefits from the assumption of a legal marriage.
    The option for prenuptial agreements still exists to help shield separate property. Bad prenuptial agreements and judges that revoke some is not an excuse to not have a properly written prenuptial agreement. Which leads to private contract marriages must be enforced somehow. Will we have a separate private court system or arbitration if the couple can’t resolve issues amicably? Once the contract can be decided by judges, your private marriage will be compromised.
    Spousal support is already on the decline with the obviousness of both spouses working. Therefore, child support is the new spousal support. This means privatizing marriage will have no effect of a man paying a lot to support his kids.
    Many marriages don’t have a lot of assets anyways. You’re dividing into half a house that isn’t paid for. There’s no money. If you’re a man with significant assets, then talk with your lawyer and financial analyst.
    Lastly, marriages are increasingly rare. So fixing a problem that’s already decided by society as irrelevant will resolve nothing.

  23. I think its a brilliant idea and I frequently use it to shut up homofacist. It would, imo, very much preserve this institution and rejuvenate it from its current unhealthy state. If you really think about it, as the state became more interested in marriage all it really did was to disrupt it or, in the least, cause severe problems (typical of government). Case and point it was the state i.e. judicial activism that ONLY sided with homosexuals. Also, I suspect that if it were privatized the luster of homosexual marriage would be dimmed and the ultimate goal of homosexualism (normalization) would be sought elsewhere, if its even possible. You see, homosexual marriage is really just a political canard created by the broader left for a host of reasons (marxist family disintegration), but for homosexuals, its not about marriage so much its about being made mainstream. Privatization neuters this tactic and, frankly, it will save scores of innocent children unfortunately caught in the middle of an un-natural union between two people more concerned about themselves and how others perceive them than the welfare of the kids they’re suppose to raise.

  24. OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Instead, we have the government making an official decree that GAY MARRIAGE is officially AS MORAL as straight marriage and MORE MORAL than OTHER TYPES OF MARRIAGE! We have the state making an OFFICIAL MORAL DECREE that HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE is OFFICIALLY MORAL and that having a different view on this is oftentimes ILLEGAL and PUNISHABLE!
    Why the FUCK aren’t more people pissed about this?! It’s not about the morality or immorality of homosexual unions, it’s about BIG BROTHER being the ARBITER of morality–and making moral judgements/laws that RUN CONTRARY TO THE BELIEFS OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS!
    A: Because so many fucking gays and SJWs don’t WANT freedom! They passionately OPPOSE THE PRIVATIZATION of marriage. They don’t simply want adults to be able to get into whatever kind of relationships they want to. They want to OFFICIALLY CRAM THEIR LIFESTYLES DOWN THE THROATS OF THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THEM! They want to reserve the right to call polygamy, for instance, sick and immoral–in CONTRAST to homosexual unions, which are officially ruled to be beautiful and moral.

    1. ^^^marriage privatization is the ANSWER and for this the libs/lefties don’t want it . They want us at each other’s throats.They want the issue. Have you noticed that gays only approach christian bakeries or photographers and not muslim or orthodox jews who are both staunchly anti gay marriage. NO coincidence there….

  25. The economy is the “elephant in the room”.
    Without good pay, betas and simps can’t white-knight/beta as effectively. And the betas who are in worse shape financially can’t even support themselves or are stuck living with parents. Most betas even if they are blue-pill, understand that no woman wants an unemployed or poor dude, excluding the bad-boy types of course.
    And then there is low-T men, overweight guys, MGTOW, incel, PUA, porno and other factors. Couple that with hypergamy on the female side of things, women flocking to alphas and entering into harems, and it’s one giant shitstorm.

    1. Yes indeed. Only Alphas will fuck (their harems) moving forward. I’m not sure how much wanking the betas can take before they take it to the street. That remains to be seen..

      1. It’s only going to get worse for sure.
        I don’t think there will be a “beta male revolt” as predicted in some parts of the manosphere. Too many factors preventing it such as low-T, drugs, general pussification of Western men, soft men, weak men, men who are broke or just barely surviving, etc.
        In other countries were guys still have their T-levels/balls intact you do see revolts and riots from time to time, but in America? Nah, I don’t see it happening.

        1. I agree. America is too pussified. However, these are primal instincts they’re fucking with. So I don’t know. You’re probably right. Most men will turn into herbivores just like they are in Japan.. Here’s the thing though.. As fucked up as this may sound, I think in the end the ones that will ask changes will be women themselves. I don’t want to expand too much here, but give it a thought..

      2. “I’m not sure how much wanking the betas can take before they take it to the street.”
        Even if they eventually snapped and took it to the streets (unlikely) over pussy-inequality and lack of access, the alphas would put a stop to it quickly with their sheriffs, riot police, army, judges, prosecutors, etc

        1. Mmmmm no.. Keep in mind that the Betas have all the money. Alphas by and large are not at the top of the food chain…
          The current laws and this society was created by the betas.

        2. Yes, but remember that most men are blue-pill, so their money inevitably ends up in women’s hands and ultimately, flows up to the alphas

    2. this will all change soon. The average woman (under 40) now makes more than the average man (under 40) according to the newest studies. As women begin to be the most powerful financially and not need a beta … betas and even lesser alphas will become more and more desperate for vagina and money and/or support will not be a way to get it for most men. They will literally have NOTHING to offer the woman. We’ve done this to ourselves as men by allowing them legal priority and social priority making them king of our needs while helping them achieve their needs independent of us. Men are not smart. Sucks.

    3. 99% of all humans who ever lived did so in economies less prosperous than the contemporary developed world. Still, that didn’t prevent the development and appearance of a patriarchal sociosexual paradigm with the man as the main provider.

  26. ^^Marriage privatization is the answer which is why libs/leftist don’t want it because they want the issue. Now since the supreme court set this precedence you will soon see polygamy, harems and probably even incest. If I had “F-U” money I would fund some pranksters to form some harem and then try and get married and then sue when they were denied….

  27. It’s like roosh mentioned, rather than ask the government for things like this, just don’t get married, don’t sire children with American/Wesrtern women.

  28. The first picture is so wrong – Betting someone half your shit that YOU will love them forever – should read – Betting someone half your shit that THEY will love you forever – enter cash and prizes lottery.

  29. A new study came out that women under 40 now make more than men under 40 across the national average and within professions. My guess is marriage laws will very quickly change to protect women’s wealth in divorce now that they will be the higher wage earners and women will also have very little need or want to get married. While as a man it seems like this would be “unfair” because we have been on the losing end for so long and won’t get our day in the sun (getting money from them for free because they’ll make more) it is actually still good for men, because if it keeps women from wanting to get married, men will still wind up being better off in the end than they are now as far as legal cuckolding goes.
    As women begin to be the most powerful financially and not need a beta … betas and even lesser alphas will become more and more desperate for vagina and money and/or support will not be a way to get it for most men. They will literally have NOTHING to offer the woman. We’ve done this to ourselves as men by allowing them legal priority and social priority making them king of our needs while helping them achieve their needs independent of us. Men are not smart. Sucks.

    1. The solution for men is to go MGTOW. Don’t try and commit to those or any other woman. Get some gandarusa, a surrogate child if you want a family and just live your life. Have a rack of booty calls for sex. Don’t even bother with the relationship crap.

      1. I agree that sounds good if it would work. My question is, if women truly start making significantly more than men, mainly because of affirmative action policies, what incentive will any woman have to “be a booty call”. Since women can get a guy literally at any time for sex how at that point would any man over the age of 30 be able to beat out the hundreds of other thirsty guys competing for a shot with her? Today, women still tend to need the man for support and the more money you have over 30ish the more viable you become. It allows you to offer more to the woman since you can’t compete on looks or physique anymore… even if you aren’t going the relationship route, you still have to have something to make her pick you over the 28 year old in the bar that’s willing to have sex with every girl there.

        1. Men are not competing with young men she is competing with young women. The booty call is a woman getting sex from any guy she wants. It is perfect because in her mind she is getting sex with out having to leave her home or any obligation to a “lesser ” being a man. Also the support women need from a man is not money they just want him. men need to give up the provider stuff and just use her for sex. As strange as it sounds that is want modern women want. In no circumstances do women want the slightest hint of obligation to show appreciation for anything done for them. So don’t do for them.

  30. There is no such thing as a private marriage. The government rules all. Any woman at any time can point at any man and the government will gleefully kick the guy’s ass. The guy can jus be a name in the phone book. Every man here knows it. The Author just has to face the fact that maybe a 4-5 year old boy today may have a chance at an actual marriage where he is respected by law. The Author needs to know he will never know freedom from misandry ever he will die under misandry. There is no cute work around.

  31. Legal marriage already is a private contract, enforceable by the government. and prenuptual agreements are already available in many cases. You’re not really proposing anything very new and different here.
    A preferable alternative would be that marriages, whether or not a church is involved, are not recognized or enforceable at all by the state in any way. A man would truly be as good as his word. It would be up to him, according to his conscience and at his pleasure, to continue providing consistent sustenance, leadership and protection.
    A woman most intensely loves a man she can not take for granted.

  32. the idea is over complicating the issue, the best solution is just go back to old testament marriages (Genesis 29:18) aka common law marriage. that means a man and a woman must live together AND tell others they are married for at least seven years before the state makes it official. that means either can say, this isn’t what i want (or do want) right when the seven year itch starts to kick in then they can divide up their stuff like they want without lawyers.
    think about it, if a women’s prime marriage years are between say 20-35 (15yrs), 7 years is about half that term so she is going to have to be very selective with whom she gets involved with and commits to (as compared to cock sampling in her 20s) if she wants to lock down a quality man for long-term provisioning during her peak SMV years. (and that will also give men some time to think about being involved with a single mom, like laters not for me anymore).
    the other thing that needs to occur is no welfare support for single moms, that’s the rationale state’s use to be in the child support business, i.e., cuz single moms end up on state welfare programs. and there is no auditing or fiduciary responsibility in requiring child support payments go to the child’s health and well-being. it’s essentially baby sitting payments that she can use as she wants, including shoes, purses, sushi, cell phone payments, clubbing, etc. make ppl completely financial responsible for the children they have and they will start making better lifestyle and survival decisions. along with banning abortions, that will make women think big time before getting pregos.
    men need male contraception besides condoms too, especially with this stupid female viagra business. can’t want for the class action lawsuits to start popping up cuz women “didn’t know” they would pass out all the sudden while driving home after a few drinks. and all for one horny night a month, go figure.

    1. except in texas common law can become effective after only 6 months….
      I wonder if now that gay marriage is legal if guy roommates have to worry about this happening?

  33. I read somewhere that a woman after the age of 35 had a better chance of getting struck by lightning than getting married, which means there is in fact a marriage strike. So men might be starting to gain traction with their own lives… The truth is that anyone who goes to the state to obtain a marriage “license” is in fact a polygamist. How you ask ? Well there are 3 names on that paper, you, your bride and the “state of”…… so why the fk do you need the state to sanction your union.? It makes zero sense. Marriage is a religious institution going back thousands of years. Why now allow the state to come into your home and tell you what you should do with it ? The actual rights and responsibilities of marriage are not codified into law (of said state) which further exposes the fraud..compare to getting a “drivers license”.. but never having to take a test & learn or obey road signs, traffic laws, heck there aren’t any….., but try to get divorced and have a penis..she will get 50% off the cuff and primary custody to the children even if she never brought home a dime, not to mention payments in the form of child support while she tries to block visitation and demand alimony for her lazy fat assed lifestyle to which she has become accustomed.. !. No fault laws have basically made the whole institution a sham on men, that is if you are the one getting screwed by the system..and chances are you will get screwed, if not now, maybe 25 years down the road, but you will get screwed.. Those days of leave it to beaver with June in the kitchen are fucking long, long gone. . Build your empire by yourself, own it, be responsible for it, keep the keys to your kingdom in your own pocket. You want a child, make sure you can afford it, and RAISE not DRAG up little one.. pay a surrogate with a donor egg all legal from a fertility clinic… Unless you have have a really good reason to get married today, because right now if you are male, and have some of your shit together, there is no reason to… Your snowflake is NOT special, all women have in them the capacity to deceive, lie, cheat and steal from you, if not money, then love, if not love, then your future. Why give them anything that they do not earn and allow some 3rd party dictate what you owe some worthless slouch. (exceptions to that rule non withstanding..) You want a partner then find one that puts some skin in the game, in the form of blood, sweat, tears and $$. not just moments in the bedroom and some clean laundry. hire a maid / housekeeper. you can fire them at will if they don’t do their job. You cannot do that with a wife. You want easy sex on tap, hire an escort. What you don’t pay for it ? Really tell that to a divorced guy who is paying his ex who shut off the sex 3 months after tying the knot. and now does not fk him at all and still collects a check cause she pooped out a kid, leaves it at her mothers why she takes your money and gets a boob job, parties all week with smarter guys than you. Naah, seen too much to ever recommend marriage to any guy. The last issue is that if you do believe in the religious element of the institution.. I am not aware of any religion that endorses divorce, or in Gods law, allows divorce. Something to think about, because you are really agreeing to 2 different lawmakers, the state, and the covenant with God. Of course I was told, there is always Gods grace to consider when you just can’t take the bitch anymore and call it quits.

    1. Christianity allows divorce in the event of infidelity only and I agree with that. With regards to legal marriage this comment is incredibly true!

  34. That’s one of most important articles in RoK. I thought some similar when I read the Spanish civil code, it made me sick even the most libertarian form of marriage was overregulated. If there’s freedom why state has to regulate intimate relationship?? Absolute transgression of the individualistic rights, the “same” in which are “based” homosexual marriage and kill babies. I want to know when we lost our minds. Ah wait, when suffrage was given to irrational women and others.
    Free surveillance relationship is a basic right that we must fight.
    Great article, seriously.

  35. I command the GODS to give me the strength to banish you from these lands. I here by strike you from this place !

  36. Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.
    Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.
    Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else. No one.

    1. They need to separate the 2, the legal coupling and religious concept. they just need to give them different names and allow anyone to get legally coupled under the law for the state privileges and let religions define their own guidelines for their marriages. That would fix this confusion because I agree with you, I think the state reducing “marriage” to what they have hurts marriage and confuses people because too many people think that it is nothing more than legally joined roommates.

  37. It would be a good deal, marriage, if our culture had not changed. As soon as we got married, my stuff become hers and hers mine. And it has always worked just fine.

    1. I’ve been okay with that, its the states that make you keep paying her after the divorce through ridiculously high child support designed to support the ex wife or alimony that I have such an issue with.

  38. I suppose the main objection to full marriage privatization would be the same as that to full freedom of contracting: Disparities in bargaining power lead to inequal contracts. High-status, high-SMV men with options would be able to dictate terms and next! any woman who won’t comply, and feminists can’t abide that. Ignoring the fact that regardless of the state of marriage law, these men have the option of not marrying in the first place, and the easiest access to pussy in or out of marriage.

  39. Face the facts. Marriage and all the benefits has been ruint by the feminist agenda. It will take a major societal reset to change that. What that means is the only thing that will change this sad state of affairs is feminists being hunted down and brought to justice. Islam is all about that, right?
    Think about this……fat feminists are actually worthless. Who will fight to protect them? Nope, not me either. Here’s the really sad thing…..Feminists have tried to destroy the very people who would defend them. So, fat little heifers, ya’ll be careful going out and about. You just might encounter BLM types, or worse, Islamic beheaders. This is real life, heifers. Just think, your feminist professors trained you to hate young men. It’s all out in the open. Best learn to protect yourselves. Concealed handguns are an idea. But, then, that means you actually have to protect yourselves.
    What about the children? Best be preparing for major civil unrest.

    1. The other thing that will change it is the fact that women are starting to make more than men. It is already true that women under 40 make more than men under 40 on average. When women start losing more money in divorce than those that gain money they will have the laws changed and call them archaic.

      1. Well, current events are showing that civil unrest is starting. Are you going to protect a feminist whale? Nope, didn’t think so. I’ll let nature take its course. Let feminists be hunted down. White girl bleeds a lot, as they say. The best feminist is one who isn’t an oxygen thief. Karma is a huge equalizer. Those young men you’ve demonized? They’ll watch you get beat to death.

        1. I haven’t demonized any young men, and I am a man btw. I certainly wouldn’t help a feminist or any other woman in the type of event you describe… if you’re equal you don’t need my help right? But believe me, there would still be more men that would help than wouldn’t, simply because they would think it would get them access to the vagina… and they might be right for a short while. Women ultimately always win because men are too stupid to understand how to stick together and work for their own long term best interests.
          In the meantime, the women will work together and fix the marriage laws now that the marriage laws don’t benefit them because they’re actually smart enough and work together enough to do that.
          Also, these young men don’t seem to understand what women have done to them. They don’t hate women even though that seems rational. Look at how dumb they are… check this article:
          If guys will do this for nothing in return just to get to talk to the girl you don’t think they’d protect a woman in such an event? They’re desperate sheep.

        2. True, if they have time. Islam is going to really spread in this society. Think about it…..Islam factually promises revenge for feminist hatred. Deep down, masculinity will have its revenge. Feminists don’t understand that if you beat men down, well, beheading just might be a result. Go Pro HD video showing feminists lined up to meet the beheader. That’s what’s coming. Here in the good old USA. What will surprise folks is the approval among young men.

        3. while there are many things about radical Islamist that alarm me, not all the things they do are totally bad… some of it might just be needed.

        4. Snowflakes lined up in the dirt…..effective recruiting tool. Been used for time immemorial. Kill their enemy in front of them, humiliate and debase them. As I’ve pointed out, masculinity will have its revenge. Real primal stuff.

  40. Your argument is too simplistic. You have committed the straw man fallacy.
    Marriage is about love. Divorce is about children. The state will never let a man off the hook for his children. Nor should it! I believe men should get custody way more then they do, but both have to pay to raise the children. You are the one who chose not to wear a raincoat. Actions have long-term consequences.

    1. And if women choose not to use birth control, they are allowed to surrender the child to the state “safe haven law” and no longer be financially accountable or abort the child and no longer be financially accountable. How is that equal protection under the law (which is supposed to be guaranteed to all citizens)?
      Your argument that Divorce is “about children” is also ridiculous. There are many men who lose everything in divorce who don’t have children. Men who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to women in alimony when the woman has no children and does not work. Men who marry a woman with no prenuptial agreement and have 2 million dollars when they marry the woman, divorce a year later and have to give her 1 million of their assets plus pay her alimony until she remarries. How is that “about children”?
      I think it is you whose argument is a bit too simplistic.

      1. I asserted the article’s argument and solution were too simplistic and they were. The author did not address ANY of the challenges you attacked me for not addressing in my simple commenting space, yet you attacked me, not him!
        My comment was not intended to answer every grievance, every problem, nor every hurtle men face today in the marriage and divorce maze. It was to point out that the author did not cover enough of the subject to make a useful article.
        My point about divorce being about children was directed at his solution. Even if he got private marriage, et al., the courts would STILL be involved because of the children.
        I suspect what you found most objectionable was my placing the onus on men to protect themselves even in marriage and I did. Why? Because unlike women, men can be made to understand personal responsibility and consequences from their actions and will sometimes change their behavior. I wore a condom during my 19 year marriage because I insisted on being in control of if and when we had children.

        1. Okay. I apologize then. I also agree with a lot of what you said…. but if marriage were privatized at least the courts wouldn’t have to get involved with division of assets.. only the child custody which would be way better, so I think his point is still valid.
          You did say however, “The state will never let a man off the hook for his children. Nor should it!”
          Do you believe this with should be true with women? They let women off the hook through adoption, abortion, and safe haven laws. Why should men not get the same type of remedy where possible?
          You stated, “You are the one who chose not to wear a raincoat. Actions have long-term consequences.”
          Again, they don’t have to have long-term consequences for women because the women have legal choices… so should me don’t you agree?
          Also, I appreciate your taking accountability, but it is the wrong approach. We shouldn’t argue that men should have to take accountability on themselves (although it’s a good idea for them to do so like you did) we should argue and advocate we have the same ability to legally correct mistakes that female citizens do to the greatest extent possible. Currently, too many people just say “don’t be a dead beat dad” or “you should have thought about that before you had sex” to men when NO ONE ever says that to women in the same circumstance. Men should force it to be fixed legally and yes, wear condoms to avoid it in the first place, but when it does happen, they should be equally protected and we should all advocate that. I think what you did there detracts from what should happen because some look at it as a substitute solutions or alternative instead of what it is which is simply an additional protection measure that should be used but not a replacement for the legal remedies should an unwanted pregnancy occur.

        2. Of course you are making excellent points. And I would be a fool to argue that the system is not legalized sodomy against men. And the courts have pretty much gutted prenuptial agreements. And the reason they have is because women as a class cannot take care of themselves, let alone their children. Period. And the current system while refusing to acknowledge that fact tacitly operates on that truth. And it will continue to do so even if we change the laws to allow private marriage contracts. Just look what the Supreme Court did with both ObamaCare and gay marriage. They literally WROTE NEW LAW in direct violation of the Constitution and their own oath of office. Therefore, all bets are off!
          No matter what laws we get passed, judges will shred them to protect women from the consequences of their actions and they will use men to do it.
          That is why the only hope I see is in the breaking up if the No-Longer-United States of America.
          As I said in a speech recently, “if in this technology-enhanced and individualistic society I can unfriend you on Facebook becuase I don’t like your posts, why can’t I unfriend the federal government because it’s destroying my life?
          Viva la revolucion!

        3. To address one if your specifics, let me say I believe men should be given some rights with regard to giving up the rights to their unplanned children, such as adoption or even straight up surrendering of Rights, just as women can. However just as a person has responsibility for lost rent if they break their lease, that should only be possible if you can first find someone else to assume financial responsibility for the chid, i.e. adoption. And if the women doesn’t want to surrender the child for adoption, she must assume full responsibility for the child from that point on.
          Oh, and Newsflash from RealVille:

    2. The state will never let a man off the hook for his children. Nor should it!

      Did you read the article?
      “Privatization would make no difference in family courts, as child support and custody are determined by the birth certificate, not marital status.”

  41. The biggest issue I see with this is that it would effectively reduce marriage to a legal contract not unlike a business contract. Sure it would enable both parties to include their own created rules and regulations to protect themselves but it harms the union that marriage is intended to be. Instead of encouraging the two to be joined as one for the creation of family, it encourages the two to remain two backed by their established legal protection from one another.
    Although I’m not big on the state intervention in marriage I don’t think privatization would end up helping marriage at all and in fact I think it would just further degrade it for the reasons I gave above.

    1. ‘the union that marriage is intended to be’.
      then remind women of that fact since they initiate the majority of divorces. Who suffers the most severe consequences? men do.
      I don’t care about feelings or ‘intent’, men get fucked over the worst. wake up

      1. Reducing a marriage to a legal contract might help reduce the number of men getting shafted in divorce. But it also establishes the fact that the two people are entering into a partnership based not on trust, but fear of each other. By setting down contractual protections from the other person you show that you do not trust them and are afraid of what they could potentially do or take from you. That is not a foundation for a lasting marriage. It’s why marriage is in such dire times right now. People are afraid of commitment, afraid of the person they are marrying because they go over the what if’s and they stand out above the trust and commitment.
        Men have a unique role in establishing a lasting relationship. We are intended to be leaders of our family, our wife and children. We are supposed to guide them toward virtue by our example and our teaching. Many men have given up on this or don’t understand it or are completely ignorant of it. We can blame women all we want but I guarantee you that many of those men facing divorce initiated by their wives have not lived up to what they are supposed to be. The women can’t explain what it is any more than the men and nobody tries to figure it out. They just go for each others throats fueled by emotional hatred and resentment. Rationality and logic are thrown out the window by everyone in divorce and we focus on what is and not the reality of what brought us to where we are. We say she did this and that but hardly ever do we look at ourselves to find what we failed to bring to the marriage. Women won’t tell us, they let it simmer until the pot explodes so it’s up to us to be aware of ourselves, our actions, our responsibilities and do what is necessary to be the leader of our family and guide it toward virtue instead of destruction.

        1. that sounds like WAY too much work man. Seriously. You’re talking 24/7/365/LIFETIME virtuous, alpha ‘leading’ behavior. no thanks. maybe some other men can ‘man up’ and marry these broads tho lol.

    2. Eh. I’d see a variety of marriage contracts available on legalzoom and the like; not much the risk of so many custom contracts that marriage is rendered moot.

      1. They are standardized because much of the rules and regulations of marriage are law, overseen and enforced by the government. Without government those contracts would necessarily need to be expanded to cover more.

    1. Actually useless in a feminised court. You see, it’s just not fair…..snowflake needs your shit to thrive. And if you marry or live with it, you deserve what happens to you.

        1. Good luck with that. As with many other matters, time will tell. Just who is gonna wife up a fat feminist? That’s why they act up so much. Disgusting, really. However, civil insurrection is at our door. Will you help a feminist? Hey, they’re equal. Let’s see just how well they can protect themselves. When you know someone hates you, let them die. Problem solved.

        2. Yes. Your point?
          The events with Roosh in Montreal and Toronto are a good spectre of the things to come. To boil a frog, you turn up the heat slowly. Otherwise it will hop out of the pot.

    2. In several jurisdictions, judges can arbitrarily decide to ignore them on the basis of them being “inconscionable”, aka make her actually suffer disadvantages for divorcing you.

      1. I did read something about that. Crazy shit. Imagine if companies arbitrarily broke contracts, if they don’t already.
        I also recall the possibility in some states of getting a jury trial for divorce cases. While I have never personally been to court (and hope never to), a mention of jury nullification it would make it that much harder on her depending on how you spin it.

        1. Well, the idea of inconscionability is already in contract law, which mainly exists for the purpose of preventing too exploitative uses of imbalances of bargaining power. Which is why you can’t legally sell yourself into slavery, make a death pact, or waive your labor rights protections.
          Thing is though, these cases are finite and enumerated. Everything which isn’t specifically contrary to contract law goes, and whether something is legally enforceable is (at least in principle) predictable. Not so with the inconscionability of prenups, which depend on whether the judge likes your face.

  42. A big lie that sjws tell is that marriage has always been government controlled. Civil marriage actually started with the Edmunds Act under President Arthur. He required married couples to register with the government. Prior to that government had no involvement whatsoever in personal relationships.

  43. You are trying to save marriage by doing an end run around the state. This is like trying to get around the local mafia protection racket by selling your fruit under a different word for fruit. It doesn’t matter how you slice it, the state wants to make sure that it and not you owns your business. To be clear: this isn’t about right or wrong, it’s about CONTROL.
    There are only two ways around this
    1. Leave
    2. Fight
    If you leave, the state may follow (making the world safe for democracy yo!), or you will run the risk of going through the same process with a different state.
    If you decide fight, then understand you are not just fighting against random bureaucrats with guns and money, but you are fighting against all the selfish stupid people who put them there. Women AND Men. And even if you succeed,the price of suffering may very well not be worth it.
    Those are your only really options. Pick one.

  44. Wouldn’t happen. Women are too comfortable/dependent on having the government and laws to force men to do their bidding. Privatizing marriage would be too unstable for them. They’d have to rely on themselves too much. Without being able to call a lawyer to monetarily ham-string a husband they’d lose interest.

  45. Nice idea. Exactly how it should have been.
    But will men make this an issue? If men were to make the politicians seeking public office to take a stand for reform of family courts, or make marriage a private arrangement between consenting adults, they will be forced to do it. We all know the power of one man–Grover Norquist–in forcing Repubs to respond to tax issues.

  46. Another point in favor of marriage privatization is that all state-sanctioned marriages are bound by current marriage law, not necessarily the marriage law under which you originally got married. You may have gotten married under Marriage 1.0, a reasonable and honorable institution, but got your marriage forcibly upgraded to 2.0. Making any contract whatsoever, no matter how good on the face of it, a hazard if the state can go Darth Vader on it whenever it decides to.

  47. Things have been moving in the other directions (at least in Canada) to the point where palimony was asserted as a constitutional right. Divorce laws became progressively (pun intended) lop-sided so that they were easier to secure and allowed more booty for women to carry off, but then the next step was to liberalize “common law” criteria (ironically, using statutes to allow for more judge-created marriages). The final step has been to erase the differences between legal marriages and common law marriages.
    Common law marriages basically arise if you act like you are married for two years. You don’t need a contract or explicit agreement, it just happens if a judge says so. Feminists have been pushing this and have resisted this whole idea of “privatizing” marriage because it puts the onus on the men to specifically deny that they are in a marriage like relationship rather than putting on women to get the guy to agree that they are married. I’ve lost more than one girlfriend after telling them flat out that the relationship was not leading to marriage; guys know well enough that they will be probably torching an otherwise stable relationship if they have to make a public announcement that it is not like a marriage. Meanwhile, women know that there are many guys who would never agree to getting legally married so they get the government to change the legislation so that it becomes automatic if they can string the guy along for two years.
    Over the last several years property division has been changed from something that only occurred on divorce from a legal marriage to something that happens at the end of a common law relationship. Leading up to this, courts because using the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment so that women ending common law relationships could cash out. However, it morphed from being the value of what a woman did that helped a man, to the value the man produced through the help of a woman. So a millionaire with a stay at home partner ends up paying based on his income or the value of his house rather than the market value of a housekeeper/gardener.
    Meanwhile, in terms of child support laws, guys can be corralled into becoming step fathers after as little as one year if they make the mistake of supporting the children at that time. It’s not an issues usually where the biological father is making money and paying the proper level of support, but in the case of absentee fathers or where the woman is “voluntarily single” you can get tagged.
    All of this shows how bad the situation is, which also means how fiercely feminists will fight to resist the ideas presented in the above article.

  48. The content of this article is funny considering it was actually unconstitutional from the very beginning for the government, state or territorial, to regulate marriage in any way.
    A lot of people say we have a separation of church and state in the US and that is one of the biggest and quite frankly, most agitating untruths that I hear people espouse on a regular basis. NOWHERE in any founding document is there literature that defines such a separation. The only thing that comes close, is the 1st Amendment and a part of it says verbatim “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” They didn’t mean establishment as a verb, it was a noun in this context.
    Essentially, their goal was to say that congress cant make any laws that regulate an issue set forth by religious principles, such as a commitment to your spouse between the pair of you and “God”. That way, the founding fathers who contrary to the Prussian Education System, were very open and honest about America being a Christian Nation, could allow the Federal Government to maintain a Christian center without denying religious minorities their rights as well.
    So whats really going on here, is they have found a way to convince people that the 1st amendment says “God” shouldn’t be a part of anything managed by the government and simultaneously make themselves a profit by robbing people of their rights and selling it back to them on a piece of paper. It says right there in the 1st amendment that the government cant make any laws regarding religious institutions yet you must have a license to get married. Other examples include driver’s licenses and Concealed Weapons Permits, the list goes on and on. Granted, these things exist for a reason, but if their sole purpose was to keep track of things or ensure the person is competent enough to carry a gun, get married, drive a car etc. then the license would be free, wouldn’t it?
    The only thing they are doing is stealing an abstract idea from you and telling you that you can have it back if you pay the appropriate fees and taxes. I don’t know whats more sad, that our elected officials are that greedy? Or that the American people are so dumb today that its completely invisible to them.

  49. Privatization, which is just restoring the historic norm, is totally the way to go. But the “marriage industry”, mainly lawyers, will oppose it.

  50. Actually, people have gotten married before state marriage licensing via “common-law marriage”. State marriage licenses came about after the Civil War and it was to prevent interracial marriage. After WW1, the purpose of the state marriage license was extended to providing a means for veteran benefits to be giving to actual spouses and families of vets. There’s always been a marriage before state marriage licensing.

  51. pre-nups can help but you still run the risk of some feminazi judge voiding the agreement and giving the bitch anything she cries for. All women are fantastic actors and master manipulators. They can all find the required tears when its something the want. its very simple, DO NOT GET MARRIED. when enough men wise up and stop marrying social parasites, there wont be anything to cry about. family courts will be empty, divorce lawyers will starve !!! control your emotions. learn how to feel and not feel. make smart decisions. the woman you shack up with will be a large influence on how happy the rest of your life is. unless the woman is a hard worker and has all the required parts to make a relationship work only date them, never ever marry them. If they are broken cookies like most women are, then enjoy them but move on. You want a kid, pay a surrogate and do it under contract from a reputable fertility clinic. That way you maintain control of your child and its upbringing. You want to control your life then you need to take control..before someone you end up hating controls it for you.

  52. if you do own a home or an apartment, check with your local laws how long a woman can stay before they “ESTABLISH RESIDENCY” -in a particular domicile if you make the mistake about shacking up, or test driving a future wife. Because once they establish residency in a home or domicile they do not own it can take 6 months to evict-throw the bitch out. A friend of mine is just learning about that now.

Comments are closed.