You Don’t Need the Government’s Permission to Get Married


One thing I’ve been guilty about saying in the past is, “no one should need the government’s permission to get married!” I agree. No one should have to get government’s permission to get married. However, is that really the case today? Does someone need to apply for a government license in order to be married?


Government isn’t stopping anyone (straight or gay) from having a wedding ceremony. Go ahead. The couple can write up their own contract and call each other husband and wife. There is such a thing as stateless weddings.  Sure, the government won’t recognize your marriage.

That’s not the same thing as permission.

The real fight is over government benefits to legal married couples. Legal gay marriage advocates have long argued that it’s unfair that these benefits are available to straight couples, but not gay couples. These benefits include tax breaks, an expedited immigration process, hospital visitation rights, being able to add a spouse to health insurance, social security payments if a spouse dies, etc. Even couples who hate the thought of government in their marriage might bite the bullet and decide that the pros outweigh the cons.

You don’t need to have the government in your marriage, if you’re willing to forego the benefits.

When someone says that government should be out of marriage, what they are really arguing is that these government benefits shouldn’t be tied to marriage or done away with altogether. The debate isn’t about permission, it’s about government benefits.

Julie Borowski

Julie Borowski is a political commentator living in the D.C. area. She is best known for her YouTube channel where she discusses current events in often a humorous manner. She has two cats.

You may also like...

  • Robo

    I understand your point, and its a true point. However, the argument around gay marriage has always been about equal treatment when it comes to the benefits portion of “legal marriage” Gay people have had unions for decades despite the lack of benefits. The gay community felt as though they were not respected as human beings, being denied simple legal benefits that straight people got and they were correct. They were being denied these benefits. Now they aren’t and that is a good thing for America.

    • GCaram

      “they were not respected as human beings”, like if they were treated like slaves or farm animals. C’mon.

      • Robo

        I didn’t say they were slaves. Black people weren’t “Slaves or farm animals” In the 1960’s when they finally got equal rights. However, They also felt at that time that they were not respected as human beings. Having a different set of rights for different groups of people would naturally make them feel a difference of respect as a human being.

        • GCaram

          Gay people didn’t have a different set of rights, drama queen. Nor have they been dehumanized. Not liking something isn’t dehumanizing.

          • Robo

            I’m really having trouble replying to such an ignorant comment. Are you being serious with that reply? I could lay out the number of advantages/rights that come with legal marriage, but I think I may be typing at an ignorant brick wall. Please do a little research on the large number of rights that come with legal marriage. After you have educated yourself a little bit then you can come back and tell me how stupid I am for thinking that everyone should have access to said rights.

          • GCaram

            Not having had those rights previously doesn’t mean they were being dehumanized. Educate yourself about what dehumanization actually means. What an idiot.

          • Robo

            I never once said the word “Dehumanize.” In fact, the only person that said anything about dehumanization is you. So, while I appreciate the name calling and the putting words into my mouth, I think its time for you to just go away Mr internet troll.

          • GCaram

            “The gay community felt as though they were not respected as human beings” That’s the same as saying they were being dehumanized, you darn idiot. I’m just using the term instead of the whole sentence. Disagreeing with your exaggerated description of how gay people “have been treated” isn’t trolling. It’s just calling on your bullshit drama.

            Benefits are not the same as human rights. Not having had a specific benefit isn’t the same as not being treated like a human being.

            How stupid are you that I have to explain something so obvious so many times?

          • Robo

            Marriage is a Civil Right. One that was not granted to gay people. Calling me an idiot and saying you are calling me on my BS drama is just you covering up the fact that you are wrong with name calling.

          • GCaram

            Did you even read the article you’re commenting on? Nobody was preventing them from getting married. What they didn’t have were ONLY THE FUCKING LEGAL BENEFITS from its legal recognition. And even if they “weren’t allowed” to get married, than wouldn’t mean they weren’t being been treated like humans, like if the acknowledgement of marriage was necessary for people not to live like animals.

  • Noha

    GOOD ONE !!

  • AIG

    I understand your viewpoint. But how do we prevent hospitals from turning us away and preventing us from seeing our significant others? They have done it to us in the past, multiple times.

  • Proud Truther

    The argument is also about segregation. The benefits of government sanctioned marriage create a privileged class. Those that lament the treatment of homosexuals as second class citizens don’t oppose the existence of a second class, they just want access to the privileged class.

  • Fullname J Warrington

    – Land a marriage contract in a government office with a friend of the opposite sex
    – Have your own marriage ceremony (that doesn’t involve the church that many hate so much) with lover of the same sex

    Boom. All the marriage benefits with all the ceremonial marriage fluff!

    • LongLostFriend

      I know a guy who officially married a lesbian while in the Navy to get the military marriage benefits. The system can always be worked.

  • Justin Joseph

    You needs The Lord’s permission.
    Can’t argue around that.

    • Andreas


  • JohnnyAngel Advocacy Group


  • TKList

    Marriage is a contract. Government should not be discriminating about who can enter into contracts.

    As far as government is concerned all marriage should be considered civil contracts, leave marriage to the private sector.

  • Sam

    I personally would love to see all the “benefits” granted to married couples go away. Take religion and the government out of peoples’ lives with whom they might want to spend their lives. Get rid of tax differences, remove insurance reductions and requirements. Inheritance should go to whomsoever they dictate in a document. Make the only “benefit” of being married that of contractually owning the other person for whatever terms of the contract may be: raising children, splitting living costs, etc.