“Yeah we can kiss, but I need you to sign this contract that guarantees me three more dates first.”; Goldman and Card Paint Marriage as an Insurance Policy

Emma Goldman sharply criticizes the institution of marriage and diminishes the construct to a lop-sided insurance policy with a very poor return rate, and a harshly binding contract.  Goldman characterizes the practice as an indemnity of financial security, state benefits, and social acceptance. Goldman argues that marriage is essentially a loveless practice, which is accepted primarily, for the social and financial bettering of the two individuals involved. Indeed, Goldman points out that the symbolic engagement ring bestowed upon a woman, began as an insurance policy within itself— If the husband-to-be deflowered and left his soon-to-be-bride before their wedding day, the young woman was left a ring valuable enough to ensure her financial security without the support of another man (support she is unlikely to get once deflowered). Goldman asserts that the price paid for the insurance policy provided in marriage, is steep. Women pay with their names, their respect, and their freedom, while men pay with cash— traditionally assuming their wives as financial dependents.

            Years later, Claudia Card develops a position on same sex marriage that seems to share a common ancestor with Goldman’s original assertion: marriage is an insurance policy.  Card is openly against same sex marriage, as far as she is against the institution of marriage itself. This author feels that while homosexual couples should have the right to marry, they should not want to! Card continues that no one, gay or straight, should want to participate in the failing construct of marriage.  Throughout Card’s damnation of the practice, glimmers of Goldman’s position seem to creep through Card’s argument— Proving that marriage is just as much of an insurance policy today, than ever.

            Card states that her ambivalence toward same sex marriage rises from her belief that legalized homosexual marriage may force gay couples into marriages for the same reasons straight couples feel railroaded into the construct.  Card fears that gay couples may fall victim to the over-bearing Aunt at Christmas parties, who corners you by the punch bowl and demands to know why you haven’t found “A nice girl like your cousin Danny” yet.  Card fears that gay couples will begin to feel pressured by the timeframe in which they are socially expected to wed (whether that be a particular time in an individual’s life, or a specific point in a couple’s relationship).  In an effort to secure an insurance policy of social acceptance and normalcy, gay couples may begin to wed for the wrong reasons.  Similarly, Card worries that the option for same sex marriage may pressure gay couples into unwanted wedlock upon the arrival of a child. Threatened by estrangement from the status quo, risk of financial desertion by a legally unaccountable partner, and possibility of solo child rearing, gay couples may begin to gravitate towards marriage simply to alive these worries and ensure their child the social and economic benefits of marriage. Both of these scenarios would constitute a participation in marriage solely for the insurance policy benefits carried within this construct.

            Arguably the most sought after perks, of the marriage insurance policy, are the state provided benefits. The benefits desired by every citizen, are only available to those citizens who have chosen to marry.  As a result, there is a strong incentive for individuals to pair off as married couples, in order to reap the perks.  This incentive essentially eliminates marriage as culmination of a love connection, and positions it instead as a financially practical unification. This renders marriage as just about as romantic as the mergers and acquisitions of actual insurance companies. Furthermore, this financially arranged marriage is maintained as within the best interest of all parties involved.  As a result, both partners gain incentive to lie to the other about the authenticity of the arrangement, as well as to lie to one’s self. In the end, the insurance policy fails anyway— everyone is living a sham, and the government is still taking a fourth of the couple’s income!

            Unfortunately, it’s not an arrangement that’s quite so easy to get out of. Card and Goldman agree that marriage is an insurance policy that totes a binding contract.  However, while Goldman suggests that the difficulty of divorce could lead to unfulfilled lives of those involved, Card is more specific about the negative effects of the inability to divorce. Because divorce is very expensive, many couples that should not for whatever reason be married, must remain so.  Couples that no longer love each other (or even those that –in the case of financial arrangements- realize they never loved each other at all) are given a clear incentive to continue participating in the construct. Couples who maintain unhealthy, abusive, or unstable relationships will be prevented from separating and moving on.

            After careful observation of all such patterns, Card and Goldman agree, if marriage is taken as an insurance policy, the price far outweighs the gain.