Social Commentary, Activism, Robot Rights, Matrilineal Law
Marriage. Over time, it has become a milestone in modern life. People flock to declare their undying love before their friends and family. You don't even have to be religious— everybody's doing it. Tying the knot is now so popular, that there are entire stores dedicated to nothing but weddings. You buy cake, and dresses, and suits, and flowers all so that you can look somebody in the eye and tell them you love them. For most, the whole state of affairs is filled with mystique and magic. For most…
As with all things, my view on marriage is a bit… unorthodox. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much a fan of public displays of affection as the next guy. If people want to spend thousands on a massive party, that's their prerogative. No, my issue is with the law on the matter. Specifically, I don't think marriage should be legally enforceable.
Think about it for a second. If marriage truly is a union of love, why is the threat of costly litigation necessary. Either you love somebody or you don't. The fact that you might lose the holiday home in France may stop you divorcing, but it won't save your love. Pragmatism takes over, forcing you to spend a life paying for your past decisions. Traditionally, the legal chains of marriage could be explained as a way of asserting male dominance. Women were seen as property, meaning marriage was a sort of transfer between the father and husband. The fact that the bride's father had to give permission for the union only further supports this view— they had to consent to giving up their property.
In civilised society, there is no longer justification for such treatment. To be clear, I'm not talking about social forms here. In specific cultures, fathers still play a significant, informal role as the family's head. As part of this purely social role, it is the duty of the father to protect their children's interests. Asking the bride's father for permission is merely respecting this position, a courtesy which has traveled down the ages. Any legal form the practice imposed has long since been abolished. Nor do I see respecting tradition as creating problems, so long as the father does not abuse their position. On the other hand, marriage being legally binding still represents old values of ownership. When you are bound to another person, you lose a sense of personal ownership, of choice. The point of marriage is to make it harder to walk away when things get tough.
I'm of the view that when love is no longer enough, it is not the law's job to hold couples together. I'm well aware that love is not the only reason for marriage. Money. Lust. An unexpected pregnancy. There's are all factors which play into a couple's mind. Nor is the tie of love necessary for a marriage to continue. The phrase "we did it for the children," echoes through the ears of councillors and psychiatrists all over the globe. At times I may be an optimist, but I am not totally naive. Instead, I approach the topic with more nuisance. As free, autonomous beings, people often consider many things whether to stay married or not. That's okay. Life is rarely simple. I just don't think it's for the law to interfere one way or the other.
Yes, I'm well aware none of what I've said so far remotely relates to robots. To be fair, few of my introductions ever do. Still, I better connect the dots at some point— I might as well start now. As you probably know, machines don't age like we do. With the proper care and attention they are basically immortal. Think back to those tacky post apocalyptic films. Even after a hundred years of rusting in a deserted car park, our hero always manages to find the one car that still works. That's what I'm on about here.
Accepting that starting premise allows us to begin creating a hypothetical future. In a world where robots are people, there will be a section of the population that do not know death. They shall need no children to inherit the earth because in theory they shall always be present. Humans on the other hand will be as squishy as ever. We will live and die under the sun's warm watch. In this world, marriage could still play the same role as it does now. Conscious beings have a right to bind themselves together however they choose. The only thing that changes is that robots should also be able to marry. They too would be conscious beings with autonomously thoughts and feelings. Their right to marry is just as an innate part of this autonomy as being able to vote and drive. Only by allowing robots to participate in our social forms can true equality occur.
However, allowing robotic marriage, or more specifically allowing robots to marry humans, carries with it a whole host of problems. As I've said, machines don't age like we do— they're likely to be here long after we've gone. That makes the whole 'til death do us part thing slightly problematic. A machine will lives forever will just marry again and again and infinitum. Every time their spouse dies, they will become that little bit richer. Wealth will complete accumulating into the hands of a select few until one day, there's nothing left for the rest of us. Marriage just becomes a massive money vacuum.
Preventing marriages from having legal force begins to alleviate this problem. If spouses are in no better position than your average Joe, the chances of them inheriting anything by accident are greatly reduced.
There are of course work-arounds. Couples could enter into a secondary agreement merging their assets during the marriage ceremony. If the partnership ever breaks down, then they've already agreed for the assets to be distributed in a certain way or selected an arbitrator to deal with their dispute. Alternatively, they could 'divorce' whilst still reaping the benefits of financial cooperation. Wills would also play an important role deciding whether the spouse has any entitlement to the deceased's property. Removing marriage's legal relevance does little more than reverse a legal presumption. Instead of assuming spouses meant for their worldly possessions to be held collectively, the courts would require expressed legal documents to that effect.
However, all these work arounds require a conscious choice. Although the result in individual cases would be the same as if the decision resulted from legal presumption, the impact is very different. A surprising number of people don't have wills. Instead, they trust the State to properly distribute their property on death. Normally, this involves tracking down the closest blood relative. If nobody steps forward, then the government takes the lot. Removing spouses from the equation doesn't change this system a whole lot.
Most couples purchase big things, like cars and houses on the assumption they'll be held jointly. Whether your spouse is made of flesh or silicon, you're probably going to follow the same approach. How could it be otherwise? Marriage is a life long bond of trust and cooperation. It's sharing your life with somebody you truly care about— that involves sharing your assets too. Therefore, changing the legal status of marriage will only chip away at the tip of the iceberg.
My suggestion no doubt appears extreme. Given how limited the impact is likely to be, removing marriage's legal significance might seem to go to far. I understand why people will view the change with apprehension. It's a lot to ask. But doing what's right requires us to make difficult changes. That's really what this whole post has been about. Marriage can no longer be a legally enforceable commitment. Ensuring equality demands this sacrifice. Equality demands the sacrifices to come.