CLARE CHAMBERS Against Marriage 2017

Methinks: discussions on abolition of marriage, are you saying throughout the world, muslim
countries religion?

Feminist critique: gendered division of labour, sexist imagery in the ceremony itself (Eg white dress,
reception men speech) p 12.

If it is to exist as an institution, must be available to same-sex couples. Introduction of same-sex

couples and civil unions in many countries, eg UK, Nordic, Ireland.

Her point is, despite advancements, best way to meet feminist and egalitarian concerns is to support
the abolition of state-recognised marriage.

1) Marriage as Oppressive to Women: “confining women to a private sphere in which they are
seriously disadvantaged”: trap, state of imprisonment, brutality that they must escape. Legal
subordination to their husband. Duty to obey, could be legally raped, cede property, no vote, not
own property. J Stuart Mill: “the lowest degradation of a human being, that of being made the
instrument of an animal function contrary to her inclinations”. After, developments and these
aspects changed (p 14). Simone de Beauvoir: only socially accepted way to experience sex and
childbearing.
Then movement that viewed marriage as oppressive because conditions set by state so push for a
contract to change this.
p 19: Claudia card marriage bad because giving up privacy and therefore vulnerable to abuse.

Contemporary critics (20): view of husband as the breadwinner, gendered division of labour, women
earn less and less independent, more housework.
Marriage is the norm, and the default state which is endorsed by the state, as a response to possible
criticism that bad aspects result of cohabitation but relationships in general. 22: cites studies causal
relationship between marriage and housework and domestic violence.
22ff “Symbolic violence”: view that being single is undesirable, shame.
Abolish because of history, even if reform, institution rooted in the subjection of women: methinks
what about marriage between two men. But problem of historical ties whether should lead to
present abolition controversial p 24. Eg democracy women not have before. She says even bc
reforms can still be bad if still excludes certain people: non-monogamous relationships, those who
don’t want to solemnise, against because culture, politics, uncertainty, people with non-conjugal but
significant relationship like family or coabitatns they arguably should also benefit from tax breaks,
immigration rights, health rights. Methinks: marriage exclusionary by default as opposed to
democracy, goal is not universal participation, if everyone were married then no one would be
married. Maybe find way to tie benefits to purpose of marriage? What is marriage intended for? But
then does her logic mean that polygamy should be accepted?

Marriage not only benefits but about symbolic meaning and given this meaning (eg tradition=,
cannot escape ties to past (27).

2) Marriage as Heterosexist: methinks maybe in the past but that tied to religion. Societies now
increasingly non religious. But perhaps still viewed as sacred. Heterosexist if denied to same-sex.
Practical and symbolic criticisms, make same-sex feel humiliated.

3) Is same-sex Marriage Egalitarian? Fear that downsides of marriage also applicable in same-sex
relationships. Methinks: gendered division of labour not applicable, if gay men how come criticism
women more likely domestic abuse. Would never rub off.
Egalitarian, benefits would apply to all. But this could be provided equally to unmarried people. So it
is about having equal right to marry (28-33ff). Right to marry someone not equated to rifht to
polygamy.

Have to find rationale/meaning for marriage: could be heterosexuality, procreation, stability, love
and care etc (34).

38: “Both advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage— those, that is, who are feminist or at
least egalitarian—share the view that traditional, dierent-sex-only marriage is deeply problematic.
Egalitarians identify the problem as one of inequality; feminists rene it as patriarchy”. One solution
would be to open up marriage to same-sex, others argue abolish institution.

Feminists argue that marriage is oppressive to female and lesbian and gay non-participants.
Methinks: if oppressive to female, then this only in relation to man so when two men not have same
problem or two female. Plus, if only oppressive to men then if women get same position as men in
terms of division of labour, equal pay, then logic would suggest marriage would not be oppressive.

1.4) Civil Union

Marriage but untainted by patriarchy or religion. Available to all eg Fr or only same-sex eg UK.
Advantages: access to practical benefits of marriage and “break away from the patriarchal symbolism
of historically-oppressive marriage”.

Whether exist in combination or in replacement of marriage (39). Trend is to slowly extend marriage
to same sex after having civil union for same sex only and then marriage to all and abolish CU (40).

Alternative to her (re marriage-free state) is civil unions for al and no marriage, but METHINKS then
wouldn’t civil union become “marriage”, in the sense that problems applicable to marriage (domestic
violence, gendered division prevail) and symbolic significance harm women?

1.5) Inequality between Married and Unmarried people

Argument that rich people more likely to be married? METHINKS: so what, about basic level of
stability, poor people marriage essentially costless, easy. So then it’s about choice, fact that poor
unmarried about individual choice nothing about problems of marriage. If cannot achieve baseline
level of stability in relationship eg homeless of course should not be entitled to benefits of marriage.

Tax breaks: so what, incentive. Good for society family structure.

45: claim that marriage provides stability as opposed to non-marriage racist and sexist in her view.

Conclusion:

“The basic egalitarian case against marriage that this chapter has set out is that it is an institution
founded on patriarchy and heteronormativity, that its reform to include same-sex couples does not
do enough to make it egalitarian since the very idea of marriage remains rooted in forms of intimacy
that are associated with heterosexual and male privilege, and that even a radically-reformed
marriage or civil union inevitably brings about inequality between those who are partnered and
those who are not. All of these arguments are returned to and strengthened in the book as a whole”

Jonathan Herring “Law and the Relational Self”

“understanding the self in relational terms means a very different set of rights, values and interests
will be at the heart of the law, compared with more individualised understandings of the self”.
“Avoids the person being seen as merely part of a group, with no regard for what makes them
different”.

Traditional Conception of the Self

Self as unique
The Self over time: conception of the individual only arises because there is a morally significant link
between the past self, the present self and the future self (3).
The Self, Property and Bodies: self combination of mind and body not just self inside a body. Weight
attached to bodily integrity reflects acceptance of connection of self to body. Things which are mere
“property” and things which are our self (3).