Marriage is an institution of government (and other things)


A lot of lies about what marriage is, and what it can be, are spread in popular culture. Let me explain what marriage really is by imagining a world where there is no marriage.

Suppose you lived in a world where marriage didn’t even exist as a concept. Suppose also that in this world, you believed, as our Declaration of Independence says, that governments exist solely to protect individual rights.

You notice a few facts of this world, which are born out of biology:

  • Males and females copulate, impregnating females.
  • Copulation comes with emotional baggage, and jealousy, and all sorts of things.
  • After nine months (in the ideal case), the female delivers a child.
  • There is a profound emotional connection between the natural father, mother and child, such that the mother and father have an intense desire to protect and rear the child.

Going from this alone, you realize that little humans are humans too, and government has a job to protect their rights. How is this to be done, particularly because the children are so incompetent?

In the world of adults, we expect adults to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, and to advocate for their rights and thus maintain the semblance of freedom. You expect the government to step in when one adult tramples on the rights of another, to set laws and procedures and appoint people to certain positions to ensure that this is minimized.

But what of the children, who cannot think, act, or even voice their concerns?

Perhaps you might be tempted to do the obvious: Let’s appoint a state actor to represent the child, a sort of guardian that can watch the child and advocate on his behalf. This seems reasonable, but you’ll soon find a problem: There are a lot of children, and it takes time to find someone competent to stand in as guardian. But you also notice that this is a big job, more than one person can handle, and so you might be tempted to appoint two or three, but they are ever in short supply, and it is an administrative nightmare, what with courts packed with people filing petitions to gain guardianship or transfer guardianship and whatnot.

But wait — you have an idea. Let’s take advantage of the natural affection that a child has with his natural parents and appoint the parents as the guardians. Now we have a real system in place, in fact, a minimal system. The law reads as follows:

Let every child have claim on their natural parents for protection under the law. Parents who fail in this duty will be held accountable and punished accordingly.

This would go swimmingly, except for one problem: It seems that the humans keep trading sexual partners. Thus, one female may have several children, each with different fathers. And so things get confusing, especially in cases where it’s not clear who the father is. Not to mention, when people fall out of sexual favor, there is a tremendous amount of animosity and bitterness, and it makes the whole business of raising children difficult. Very well, let’s write a new law:

You shall have only one sexual partner your whole life. You may not ever be separated from that sexual partner. Any children born out of that partnership, no matter who the natural father is, has claim on your sexual partner. To prevent this, the males are allowed to exert their privilege by keeping other males away from their female sexual partner.

Almost done. Now we have some disagreements over who the lifetime sexual partner of a female is, particularly when these partnerships are new. Let’s simplify things further with a new law:

You shall declare your sexual partnership before engaging in sexual relations. Your name will be recorded by the government. You will make it public so everyone knows who your sexual partner is.

And that’s how you get marriage, naturally, when all you have is what biology gave us.

You could say that marriage “evolved”.

Now, granted, the above rules are very strict. At various times throughout history, the punishment for sexual relations before or outside of marriage were harsh. You can see why societies would naturally do this: Imagine being forced, as a man, to raise a child who was fathered by someone else.

I want to close on this note: There are religious and societal and familial impacts of marriage beyond the government aspects I describe above.

  • The church is interested in marriage because there is tremendous guilt and emotional pain from having multiple sexual partners. The church knows that a married couple is far happier and productive than an unmarried couple. (Some people say that church created sin; but ask people who live without church whether they still feel guilt or emotional pain — indeed, they see psychiatrists too!)
  • Society is interested in marriage because it brings together different parts of society. IE, Rome and Juliet could’ve been the union of two powerful clans, to the peace of the entire town, had they been married through proper channels. Indeed, how many feuds have been solved with marriage?
  • Families are interested in marriage because it expands upon the power and influence, and wealth, of the family.

In short, marriage is what turns a people built on the ideals of individual rights into a cohesive society of powerful families and a unified government with a singular purpose of protecting its people’s rights.

11 Responses to “Marriage is an institution of government (and other things)”

  1. Jason Gardner Says:

    Yeah. Marriage is a convenient way to assign a male guardian to every child. It sets rules by which a woman trades her reproduction for material support from a male. In order to keep a stable society, in everyone’s interest, the church, state and family all enforce the bond in functional societies.

    There is good reason as well. We now have a full view of what happens when women make illegitimate children. Single women by choice are not noble, they are little crime factories. The statistics are bad ( to brutal (

    Further, what no one discusses, is this: A child is far, far more likely to be killed by mom’s boyfriend or the baby’s step dad then his natural dad. Even worse, is when the new guy in mom’s life is of a different race.

    There was a good reason our ancestors shamed single motherhood… The women aren’t noble, they are disasters.

  2. Jason Gardner Says:

    One of the problems with this is you cannot legislate feelings. It’s easy to say that everyone should have one sexual partner for life quite another thing when your partner turns into a bitter land whale or proves to be utterly useless.

    Women’s reproductive strategy to find the highest possible source for her offspring’s genes and find a male (or the state as a male substitute) to help raise the child. Sometimes it is even the same person! But often it is not.

    Studies show there is a rather large chance that a children born “in wedlock” are not the father’s offspring. If the couples are not married I’ve heard of paternity fraud numbers up to 60%.

    In short, marriage is no guarantee of paternity. Women will find a way, regardless of laws and institutions. (For example see all of human history.)

    So what can you do?

    First, recognize reality. Women are, and always were and always will be, the biological gatekeepers of the next generation. Their sacred duty is to keep losers from fathering the next generation. (God bless them for this. I fully support them in this endeavor.) They usually take this job quite seriously as studies show that the more unattractive a women’s partner is the more likely she is to cheat on him.

    Good. I’m glad they do. Again, God bless this holy endeavor. God speed women! (Imagine a people or nation where the next generation is fathered by these guys ( Yikes!)

    Once you accept reality the next step is to become an attractive man. Women are attracted to high status, physically dominant and powerful men. (Duh.)

    This is a tough pill for young men to swallow because it is so much easier to be a loser than a high status man. Remember though, women want a powerful man that they can tame. Not a useless man they dominate.

    (The tale is “Beauty and the Beast” not “Beauty and the Wimp from Accounting.” No love stories resolve around the beautiful young heroine falling for a useless man-boy who whines constantly and is afraid of his shadow. Ok, no love story written by women.***)

    The point for a young man is… Work hard to become a useful, physically powerful and competent man. Work in your teens on hardening yourself physically and mentally, in your 20s establish your career and in your 30s become wise. At all times be ruthlessly honest with yourself and humble yourself before the time honored growth process.

    You wont need to worry about legislating monogamy at that point. Your girl will be your girl.

    Men who don’t take the time to become worthwhile mates often look to the law to protect their woman from competitor males. Sad! Another sign of weakness. Even if you “lock her down” there is no guarantee that her genes will not stir and she will seek a better quality of man when it’s time to reproduce.

    So, if you want a stable society you need to encourage men to become attractive partners for women. If men cannot attract their own women then surely that society is doomed.

    Weak men will either never find a partner or will soon lose them. This is a universal truth that no law or religion has found a way around.

    *** Seriously, if you want to know what women really think read a romance novel. Pretty crazy stuff. They somehow never features a pale nerd who likes to read comic books in his mom’s basement. Wonder why that is…..

  3. Jason Gardner Says:

    Think about this as well. Economics standpoint.

    High status males are a scarce reproductive commodity. There are only so many men that are worth a damn in the reproductive sense. In fact, MOST men are pretty worthless in the reproductive sense to women. I mean most men are good enough to pick up the trash, write software and drive the bus but NOT worthy enough for sex.

    Cruel, but welcome to reality.

    It is a perfect example of the Pareto principle, or the 80/20 rule. 20% of the men have sex with 80% of the women. Alternatively, the higher the status you are the more women are sexually available to you.

    Brad Pitt could, if he wants, have sex with probably hundreds of millions of women across the globe with nary an effort. Tom Brady as well. A very low status men will have a monumental effort ahead of him to just convince one woman to have sex with him. Again, duh. This is obvious and should not be a shock.

    Now, imagine your are a female making reproductive choices. Obviously, choice number one is to marry a man who is reproductively desirable, i.e. in the top 20% of men. Tall, athletic, handsome, smart, witty, excellent career prospects and from a excellent lineage.

    Great, but for most women the top tier of men is available for sex but not commitment. Meaning, top men will have sex with lower status women but will not marry them. (See all of human history for an example.) These men will “play the field” for a bit then marry high status women.

    So…. what to do? These second tier women are not going to land top men, but at the same time they have had a taste for them (far more exciting than being with a low status man) and have difficult time settling for a low status man.

    Several strategies:
    1) Keep the difference between high and low status man minimized. Try to keep everyone basically the same. In this case it is much easier for a woman to settle for a low status man because he isn’t terribly different from a high status man. In an old society you life would be terribly different if you married the butcher over the baker. Keep homogeneity.

    2) Discourage pre-marital sex. Pre-marital sex means basically “sex with a hot guy that aint going to marry you.” Try to make it so the young lady doesn’t know what it is like to have a relationship with a high status man, so she doesn’t know what she’s missing.

    Now, in our society (thanks in large part to the work of conservatives!) we have destroyed the first strategy and, as a result, made the second strategy very unattractive.

    Free markets allow people to get rich, but they also amplify the differences between men. For example, a feeble, short, overweight, jobless, comic book loving, mom’s basement dwelling dweeb and Tom Brady are yuuuugely different on the marriage market.

    Add the current multicultural society we live in and it gets worse as it amplifies the differences between men. Imagine a normal white woman looking for a mate. If the dweeb is now some sort of weird non-white race with bad genes (short, ugly, dull, etc) the differences are as huge as it can be. For the woman the dweeb is simply a non-starter. No way. No how. No. No. No. She’d rather date her cat.

    Here is the key…. As the differences between the high status male and low status male get larger, it becomes better for her to be a second wife (mistress) of a high status male than a first wife of a low status male.

    I’d rather be Jeff Bezos’ second wife than the first wife of some loser who doesn’t have a job. Duh… Cold, hard reproductive math that women calculate in the real world.

    Alternatively, If I can’t have all of him, I’ll get what I can. I’ll get his good genetics (white, tall, smart, handsome, athletic) at least and possibly some financial support.

    The reason? Well, it should be obvious that a woman who is poor but gives her children great genetics from a high status man is doing more of a favor to her kids than the woman who takes a bit of money but stiffs her kids with the stink of loser genes. Poverty and loneliness is better than passing the burdensome genes of a loser to the kids. (God bless her. It is the right thing to do in the long run.)

    Viola! Modern the modern day harem dating market! Thanks conservatives! The sexual revolution has been absolutely fantastic for the top men. They get to have sex till they drop with a different woman every night of the week. But at the same time… It’s been a disaster for low status men and family formation.

    A low status man cannot get a wife (she’s too busy having sex with the high status men) and a high status man doesn’t want to settle for one woman. Multiple sex partners is just too much fun.

    This is the fruit of messing with the natural order. Homogeneity is stability and harmony. This has been known for thousands of years. Why do “conservatives” want to mess with it so badly? Well, in either case you cannot cheat the natural order. Debts must be paid and mistakes punished.

    You have daughters. Do you think they are going to want to be “assigned” to or married off to some weak-ass dweeb? If you do… Boy are you in for a surprise.. :)

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I guess that’s one way to look at it.

      Here’s another way: When women have relations, they’re committing their entire lives to the result. The bonds between mother and child are virtually inseverable. Men, on the other hand, have no such loyalties. They get their jollies, then they can move on, emotionally, economically, whatever.

      We used to have a system where women were economically disadvantaged. If I was a woman and wanted to have a regular meal, I needed to hitch myself to a man, any man. That’s my gravy train. That’s the way women used to look at men: They’re the meal ticket.

      Men, meanwhile, treated women like prizes won for their excellence. You couldn’t attract a mate without demonstrating economic success. If you were a poor man, you had no wife, and nothing you can do except earn more money could change that. I get the sense that 99% of what British men used to do was to amass wealth and honors just so that they could find a woman willing to give them the time of day. The entire feudal system boiled down to getting your wealth and status assured so that you could then go out and get the woman of your dreams.

      Regarding polygamy, I don’t see the big issue with one wealthy and virtuous man marrying multiple women. I know a lot of conservatives get all upset about that sort of thing, but none of them can explain why. I guess if there are too many men (men are born at a slightly lower rate than women) it can be an issue. Or if the men marry the women and then don’t have children with them, but create a sort of harem. That seems wasteful.

      Anyways, our ancestors lived in a different world where men and women were attracted to each other not for aesthetic reasons, but as a matter of survival. In fact, when I read the Mosaic Law, I see a lot of things in ther, like forbidding women to own property, that compels marriage as the ideal outcome.

      One of the arguments against equal rights was that by doing so, women no longer need men and men no longer need women. By having two opposites, you draw them together, but when everyone’s the same, who cares and why should we bother getting married and raising kids?

  4. Jeffrey Liakos Says:

    People who claim that marriage is a government institution are idiots. Traditionally, marriage ceremonies are either performed in Churches or in private ceremonies.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Again, name calling — the last resort of people who have no logic on their side.

      Marriages have always been functions of state. Go back to the earliest recorded histories, and marriage and government were always hand-in-hand. That’s because marriage is where church, state, families and society all come together into one complementary whole.

  5. Jason Gardner Says:

    You do see the problem though? Your sons face a much tougher marriage/sex/woman landscape than you faced.

    In the last 60 years women have voted, incredibly successfully, to remove responsibility from their lives. They have, again successfully, made the state their husband. (Alternatively, in some cases, the corporation/boss is their husband.)

    We have successfully allowed our ideals as a culture to be destroyed and dilutes so women generally don’t know what is important or sacred any more. They are not taught to value family, their people, their society or their race.

    They certainly are not taught that they have a sacred responsibility to their people. (Thank God we won WW2! Can’t have any of that crap around anymore!)

    What they have been taught, mostly from your (((natural allies))) in the media, is the you-go-girrrrlism of whatever feels good now is good.

    If it feels good, it is good. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. My body, my choice!

    “Conservatives” in the sense of the word you use (those who value money and individuality over the culture and the people) have done an outstanding job destroying them as well. Teaching that nothing matters more than everybody making money. I mean, what could matter more than a few shekels and trinkets, right?

    Money, right? Money is the highest good, no?

    The result is that your sons, and most sons, are not needed. If they aren’t sexy or dynamic they serve no purpose to women. Women need to be entertained. They don’t need husbands. They certainly don’t need “boring” husbands.

    You only live once! Why waste life not making as many shekels and getting as much bling as you can? And why in the world would a woman tie herself down to a boring man??? Lame!

    So your sons have to compete with the government and men who are not at all interested in being husbands but are dynamic the cool guys. Men who are alpha. Men who always seem to know what to say. Men who stink of the last woman they just slept with.

    That is tough. For any man it is tough. But for your sons it will be especially tough as they must navigate that hellscape a much maligned minority, Asian men.

    Your choices in family formation makes it so much harder for your sons. And, contrary to the past, Christianity is no longer a protection. Christian women are just the same as other women, except that they believe in Jesus so they are forgiven if they roll with a few bad boys whist finding themselves.

    You must be honest with your sons. They are going to have to work far harder to find a wife than you did. Prepare them for what will be a shocking reality. Don’t lie to them. Let them know that it will be an uphill struggle where the winners take all.

    There was a reason people cautioned you in your choice. It wasn’t about you… It was about your sons. They are the potential losers in your deal.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      This is why I tell my son, “Don’t even bother dating outside of the faithful members of our church.” There lies heartache.

      You’re looking at the outside of the refuge that the church is creating. Here on the inside, we have well-defined morals, we have strict gender roles, we teach people to govern themselves. The siren song of popular culture is mostly extinguished here.

      The fiscal conservatives (those who don’t see the point to morality and religion) are definitely in a dangerous spot. I try to expose the weakness of that sort of philosophy whenever I get a chance. You’ve hit the nail on the head: Money? Jobs? For what purpose, for what end? Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” explores this and points out how laborers work so they can have a family. Once they have achieved that, they are satisfied economically and there’s no point in trying to push them to create more wealth — you need new fathers with new families trying to push forward to economic success to drive the economy forward.

      I am completely honest with my sons and daughters. I have explained that marriage is serious business, that they are expected to get married young and have lots of children, and that I all but require that they consult me before making that decision. I have tried to demonstrate to them successful vs. failed marriages, what sorts of attitudes you need to bring to it and what sorts of things you look for in your spouse. They are definitely not going to enter the marriage marketplace of the general population, just like I never made myself available there either.

      Yes, it’s going to be tough for my children as they span two cultures. Well, really, they are no more Korean than I am, it is simply an idle curiosity to them with no real significance. But seriously, I haven’t been programming them to live in the American culture either. It was all mormon culture from day one, just like our parents tried to program us. They too lived in perilous times, what with the 1960s and sexual “liberation”. Sure, our times are tough, but is it really that much tougher than when there weren’t a lot of people like myself and you who could point to the pillars of society and explain clearly how they are cracked and what the consequences of them falling are? The 1960s blindsided our grandparents and parents, and it was truly difficult to try and navigate that time. They had to relearn why things like marriage and child-rearing are so important.

      Our day is faced with rampant materialism and the vacuousness that is social media.

  6. Jason Gardner Says:

    “They too lived in perilous times, what with the 1960s and sexual “liberation”. Sure, our times are tough, but is it really that much tougher than when there weren’t a lot of people like myself and you who could point to the pillars of society and explain clearly how they are cracked and what the consequences of them falling are? The 1960s blindsided our grandparents and parents, and it was truly difficult to try and navigate that time. They had to relearn why things like marriage and child-rearing are so important.”

    Except that the 1960s cost us our culture. The traditionalists lost. If they didn’t lose it they certainly failed to pass it on to their children.

    For example, you don’t understand why marriage and children are important. Marriage and children are not playthings for your random preferences. The purpose of marriage is to ensure the culture continues. To pass along a heritage. To keep the race alive. To take the inheritance you have been given, improve it (or at least do not degrade it) and make sure your children know how to properly care for it.

    The 1960s, under the influence of you know what group of people, turned it into either a mockery or just an expression of where you prefer to stick your private parts. Love is love, right?

    And, once the Pandora’s box is open then we can have gays marrying, dudes marrying kids, women marrying themselves, their cats, a door or whatever.

    It’s all about rights, no? Gimme muh rights! Except that it is not. You cannot do whatever you want and have a culture. Choose one: Doing whatever you feel like doing or having a properly functioning civilization.

    You are a man. Men have duties to their culture, country, family and people. Civilization requires duty. Rights are only there to help you properly execute you duty. Duty first, rights a far second. This is western civilization. Not that weird rights BS you’ve been taught.

    Men do not march into battle out of rights. They do it out of duty. They do not protect their families and people out of rights. They do it out of duty.

    Duty. Duty. Duty. First to yourself, then your family, then your people and then your country.,

    Res Publica, the ideal of the Greeks of public minded duty has been replaced by Res Idiotica, from the Greek idiōtēs or a private individual.

    So it’s fair to say that conservative ideals, literally, advocates for a nation of idiots. The end game of all this work by all these innumerable great people is a nation of literal idiots. Awesome.

    I strongly encourage you to watch this video.

    I understand your affinity towards Mormonism. But you have to realize that religions come and go, countries come and go. A people is, or should be, forever. The culture you were born into is infinitely longer and more complex than Mormonism, which is yet a small subset of western civilization. Your people span tens of thousands of years, as opposed to something like 160 years for Mormonism.

    You civilization is built from innumerable great men and women. This cannot be refuted only forgotten. Your religion is, at best, tenuous as Mormonism’s survival is anything but certain.

    The rock should be your culture, history and people. I have no idea why conservatives cannot grasp this. It is truly mystifying.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I never bothered looking up the etymology of “idiot”. That is amazing.

      Regarding mormonism, Joseph Smith was very careful to NOT make it a protestant or a “new way of doing things” movement. He insisted that what he taught was taught from the very beginning of the world, that it is a conservative movement, aiming to conserve what made humanity great and to restore what was lost. From that point of view, mormons don’t see Greeks and Romans or any of the ancients as “foreign”. They were all part of God’s plan. In all honesty, when you dive deep into mormon theology, you see, obviously, the Judeo-Christian aspect to it, but it goes way deeper and has connections to all of the ancient world religions. To mormons, Judaism, modern Christianity, these are all perversions of an original truth, and that truth is what we are seeking after.

      Regarding duty: I teach my kids that on the opposite side of the coin that says “right” is the word “duty”. If people don’t render their duty, there is no right. Thus, if you aren’t willing to kill, to fight, to preserve your rights, and the rights of others, then there are no rights. You are absolutely right about how the Baby Boomers ruined us. I look at their parent’s generation, though, I hear stories of how the baby-boomers were raised, and I see a generation of people who saw the world changing and didn’t think the old ways had any part of the new system. What was the message of mormon leaders during this critical moment from 1900-1930? “PRESERVE THE OLD WAYS. DO NOT DEPART.” The 1850s were a time when people began to put into practice the ideas that were merely discussed in the 1700s, and the 1900s was the time when people began to wonder what, if anything, was worth preserving.

      Well, we have our answer. It’s time to go back to the 1600s, to our puritanical roots, to create a culture for the purpose of survival and perpetuation of the culture, to firmly believe in our beliefs with such tenacity that dying for them is not even a question that is worth asking because the answer is all the same. Whether we preserve aspects of the 1700s and the 1800s is a question we can consider, but it’s a moot point if we are all dead and there is no culture but corruption.

      When I study the 1600s, I see a British people who saw their leadership go corrupt, and then I see the puritans burst on the scene. They offered the people of England a bargain: “Put us in power, seal away your passions, and embrace this harsh life. For what? For survival.” They banned Christmas carols because they were too riotous. They banned all sorts of things. Victorian England was nothing compared to the puritanical movement in England. I don’t think even the strictest of Wahhabists have any conception of what life was like in the 1600s. We mock and laugh at our ancestors, but no one ever seems to ask, “Why?”

      Well, I know why. When your life is falling apart, when you are continually beset upon by your enemies, when victory isn’t even a possibility, there is only one Source to turn to. And turning to that Source, you find comfort and solace, but most importantly, *power*. Power to do what is right, power to face all of your enemies and win. You have to give everything up, but you get everything and more back.

  7. Jason Gardner Says:

    I think going back to puritanical roots is a great idea actually. Not much in the modern world is worth saving.

    I mean for all the Facebooks, Googles and Apples… How much has our life gotten any better? How are we better as humans?

    Sure, we have more crap but how is the human part of us better? The real part of us?

    People need to fit. People need a place. People need to know that they have responsibilities. That their people will miss them if they die. Only very few people (those with personality disorders or those in cults) can function without meaning and without community.

    Buying crap simply isn’t meaning. People need to know something greater than them exists. They need to be both horizontally integrated with their current time and place but integrated with their ancestors and descendants. If they are not, they will go insane.

    I think people like this have the right idea.

    The problem with conservatism in the current form is that it does not address people’s deep need to be connected with their own history and their own kind. (And, it is not conservatism but a controlled reaction to Marxism.)

    You are not interchangeable with another person. Your ancestors are not interchangeable with another’s. Your good is yours alone. Your people are yours alone. Your family, your history is not fungible.

    You are not an economic unit. You have a culture, one of the greatest of all time. You have a people that need you. Serve them.

    If you want to know where modern conservative values were created read the book below. You, and I, were sold a bum deal with what it means to be conservative.

    We need to preserve what we have. Look again at South Africa. This is the future that awaits us if we keep voting for “conservatives.” I cannot imagine that is the future you want.

    The true tragedy of the 1960s is that it destroyed the European roots and culture of this country. Our institutions were invaded by (((God’s chosen))) and turned against us. We grew up with media, universities, art and government that absolute loathes us. We absorbed this hate and began to loathe ourselves.

    Before this foreign infiltration (and that is exactly what it was) we had institutions that actually cared for and were of the traditional American population. We need that back. We need to do it soon.

    Recognize what has happened. That’s the only way to stop it. We all need to stop the denial. Soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: