Fraternal Unions Marriage Loophole: Rethinking Modern Marriage Dynamics

Two smiling men holding beer bottles against an orange background. Text discusses fraternal unions and modern marriage. UK flag visible.

Written by Abrie JF Kilian. fraternal unions marriage loophole

Introduction — The Legal Acrobatics of Modern Men

Once upon a time, the path from manhood to marriage was crowned with purpose, providence, and progeny. Today, it’s lined with subpoenas, alimony orders, custody battles, and a thousand cautionary Reddit threads. Men no longer fear commitment—they fear court. In a legal landscape where “till death do us part” has been replaced with “till the judge divides your pension,” many men have begun walking sideways through the marital system like legal hermit crabs—dodging predatory clauses by seeking unconventional covenants. Enter: the rise of fraternal unions.

These are not sexual unions, nor covenantal marriages. They are legal partnerships between two straight men designed to exploit the state’s loosened definition of marriage—securing tax breaks, inheritance privileges, joint property rights, and mutual stability, all without a hint of romantic entanglement. If the modern state permits two men to marry without requiring consummation, why not apply that rule to strategic brotherhood?

But this is more than a curious cultural development—it is a profound theological and legal signal. It signals that Biblical marriage, with its moral structure and covenantal obligations, has been evacuated from state law. In response, some men flee, not from marriage itself, but from the counterfeit marriage machine the state has become.

In this article, we will distinguish between Biblical unions under moral law and state unions under legal fiction—and why the former deserves revival, even as the latter decays into absurdity.

Biblical Marriage – A Covenant Institution

While modern marriage has devolved into a tax bracket and a legal liability, Biblical marriage has always been a matter of covenantal weight—not contract convenience. Unlike the state’s mutating definitions, Scripture roots marriage in a divine architecture: initiated by YHWH, bound by law, and administered through moral hierarchy.

Biblical marriage is not an invention of the state. It is a social covenant sanctioned by the Creator for purposes of dominion, legacy, and holy love. Genesis 2:24 outlines the archetypal union: man cleaves to woman—not for romance, but for representation. He images divine headship. She images divine cooperation. Together they embody sacred function. But nowhere does the Torah reduce this union to exclusivity. Monogamy is permitted. So is polygyny. What is commanded is fidelity and provision.

As William Luck shows, the “one-flesh” formula never implies numerical restriction. The Mosaic Law assumes plural marriage—not as a libertine indulgence, but as an equitable structure for social responsibility. Exodus 21:10 prescribes that if a man takes another wife, he must not diminish the food, clothing, or conjugal rights of the first. Not a prohibition—but a regulation. The standard is not how many wives—but how faithfully one governs them.

This stands in stark contrast to modern jurisprudence, which has absorbed Roman imperial monogamy and repackaged it as moral progress. The Church, having married Caesar long ago, now criminalizes what YHWH permitted and sanctified. But the Biblical witness is consistent—from Abraham to Moses, from David to the Messiah's own metaphors. One King. Many covenants. One Husband. Multiple brides.

Biblical union, then, is not about state recognition—it is about divine alignment. When a man enters covenant with a woman (or women), he assumes governance, not just affection. Headship, not hedonism. Provision, not possession.

In this light, fraternal unions—though legal fictions—highlight what has been lost: covenant, clarity, and masculine mission. Let us now examine what the state has done with this once-sacred institution.

State Unions – From License to Legal Gymnastics

If Biblical marriage is covenant, then modern marriage is cosplay—an elaborate pageant where paper replaces principle and the state plays priest. In place of YHWH’s design, we now have a bureaucratic Frankenstein: part tax policy, part inheritance law, part sexual affirmation therapy.

Historically, the state’s interest in marriage was pragmatic. Roman law, under Augustus, mandated monogamy not for moral reasons but to control inheritance and citizen birthrates. The Church, in its zeal to suppress Jewish distinctiveness and pagan promiscuity alike, doubled down on the imperial model. What followed was centuries of theological laundering—transforming a civil construct into a presumed moral imperative.

Fast forward to today: the state has redefined marriage so many times that even the lawmakers seem unsure what it is. Heterosexual, homosexual, now post-sexual. Once procreative, now expressive. A union once designed for households and heritage is now issued like a driver’s license: fill in the blanks, pay your fee, and voilà—state-blessed intimacy.

And yet this very elasticity has birthed unexpected ironies. Consider the modern straight man—statistically disincentivized to marry due to high divorce rates, weaponized custody courts, and the omnipresent threat of financial decapitation. His female counterparts, empowered by hypergamous instinct and modern success, aim ever higher. Result? The dating pyramid inverts: a top 20% of men orbited by a surplus of romantic hopefuls, while the bottom tier languish in economic and emotional exile. ("SHE’D RATHER SHARE A KING THAN KEEP A KNAVE”: WHY WOMEN ARE QUIETLY MAKING SOCIETY POLYGYNOUS)

Enter fraternal unions. Two straight men, legally marrying not for eros, but for economics. Shared insurance, housing loans, hospital access. No drama. No risk. No court-imposed indentured servitude. Just a state-certified workaround in a legal landscape that has made marriage a liability rather than a legacy.

Some call this absurd. But the absurdity lies not in the workaround—it lies in the system. When Georgia Republican Chair, Sue Everhart, feared straight men might "fraudulently" marry each other for benefits, she unwittingly acknowledged the perverse incentives the system had created. The problem is not that two men might game the rules—it’s that the rules make the game so appealing.

State marriage is no longer sacred—it is strategic. One can probably argue that state marriages was never sacred. However strategy, when severed from Scripture, breeds satire. The system has legalized everything except covenant—and men are responding with legal gymnastics.

A Case Study – The Pact of Two Young Men

Consider two eighteen-year-old friends—let’s call them Daniel and Eli. Both are straight. Both are bright. Both have watched their fathers drained by divorce courts and their uncles nod off in estranged apartments furnished by IKEA and legal arrears. Neither wishes to play the Russian roulette of romance in a legal system that punishes male headship and rewards emotional instability.

So they hatch a plan. Not a scheme for exploitation, but a pact of dominion.

They sign a civil marriage. Not out of affection, but alliance. They pool income. Share a mortgage. Build credit. Form an LLC. Draft mutual wills. One focuses on real estate, the other on high-ticket digital consulting. In ten years, their plan is simple: own land, steward capital, raise apprentices. Marry—if worthy women appear—or remain covenantally celibate if not. Alternatively, both men simply enjoy the fruits that the feminist modern women is giving away freely.

They do not touch each other. They touch destiny.

Holidays? Beers and books. No drama. No broken plates. No back-alley custody exchanges. Their union is not about romance, but Roman law. They use the state’s definition of “marriage” to create something far more ancient: brotherhood.

Call it what you will—a loophole, a satire, a legal LARP. But what Daniel and Eli are doing is not new. It echoes the Biblical principle of male companionship with mission. From David and Jonathan’s soul-knit loyalty (1 Sam. 18:1) to the Essene brotherhoods chronicled by Josephus, Scripture affirms non-sexual male alliances as fertile ground for leadership, growth, and legacy.

Yet today, it is only under the false pretense of marriage that such bonds gain legal recognition. And so Daniel and Eli play the game. Not because they believe the rules—but because they see the board.

This is not rebellion. It is realism. When the state divorces marriage from covenant, it opens the door not only to decadence—but to defiance.

Daniel and Eli have chosen not to suffer under a collapsing moral order—but to build something beside it.

Ethical Analysis – Strategic Prudence or Moral Erosion?

The sight of two straight men entering a state-recognized marriage contract—devoid of romance, replete with legal calculation—provokes bewilderment, if not outright ridicule. “Isn’t this dishonest?” some ask. “Doesn’t it trivialize marriage?” The better question is: which marriage?

If by “marriage” we mean the covenantal institution ordained by YHWH—a moral union, governed by headship and sanctified through righteous structure—then yes, it would be mockery. (Incidentally you will not find the word 'marriage' in the original text.) But if we mean what the state now offers—a moral void repackaged as paperwork, where sodomy and polyamory are more protected than sanctified patriarchy—then there is nothing left to trivialize. The state trivialized it first.

To be clear: fraternal unions are not Biblical marriages. They are not moral covenants. They are civil maneuvers—legal jiu-jitsu in a system that has rewarded disobedience and punished headship. And as such, they raise a sobering ethical dilemma: when the state weaponizes “marriage,” is it immoral to pick up the weapon and wield it differently?

Scripture does not endorse deception—but it does affirm prudence. David feigned madness before Achish (1 Sam. 21:13). Paul exploited his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25). Yeshua Himself said, “Be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16). There is a precedent for maneuvering through unjust systems without affirming them.

Yet prudence must never become perversion. If Daniel and Eli claim moral equivalence with Biblical covenant, they err. But if they simply exploit a civil fiction for mutual benefit—while honouring YHWH’s moral boundaries—they are not apostates. They are tacticians.

The true ethical erosion lies not in the loophole—but in the law itself. A system that punishes righteous men for leading, providing, or protecting within covenant is a system begging to be bypassed.

Thus, while fraternal unions are not sacred, they may be strategically permissible. They are not moral templates, but moral protests.

And in a world that now licenses sin but prosecutes righteousness, protest may be the last form of fidelity.

Theological and Legal Implications

When the apostle Paul urged the Corinthian believers to “use this world as though not using it fully” (1 Cor. 7:31), he acknowledged an uncomfortable truth: sometimes, navigating Babylon requires tactical compliance without spiritual compromise. Fraternal unions, while legally “marriages,” are not Biblical Convenants. They are survival mechanisms in a legal wasteland—a terrain where covenant is despised, and conformity is rewarded.

Theologically, these unions underscore the collapse of the state’s moral jurisdiction. What was once designed to reflect divine union has become a forum for expressive individualism. State marriage no longer mirrors Eden; it mirrors Babel—confused, commercialized, and increasingly coercive. When governments elevate sexual orientation over covenantal structure, and penalize patriarchal provision while subsidizing sterile alliances, they forfeit any claim to moral stewardship over marriage.

This is where the distinction between legal authority and moral legitimacy must be drawn. YHWH does not recognize the state’s redefinitions. He does not bless civil unions devoid of headship, chastity, or legacy. But neither does He condemn tactical navigation through unjust systems, when done without violating Torah. Daniel and Eli’s pact, so long as it remains celibate and honest, may be seen as analogous to Paul’s Roman appeal—not as endorsement, but as escape.

Legally, however, the implications are incendiary. If enough men adopt fraternal contracts to bypass anti-male family courts, the state may be forced to revisit the definition of marriage once more. This could catalyze a deeper crisis: either the state will double down on ideological control, or it will be exposed as a paper tiger—issuing licenses it can no longer define.

In either case, the Church must not be caught flat-footed. Pastors should not simply denounce these unions, but ask why their flock prefer legal gymnastics to Biblical matrimony. The answer is not rebellion. It is disillusionment.

And disillusionment, when met with truth, can become the birthplace of reform.

Conclusion – Kingdom Ethics in a Crooked System

Daniel and Eli are not prophets—but their pact is prophetic. In a world where the state has devalued marriage into mere paperwork, and the Church has sanctified cultural monogamy over covenantal plurality, two young men quietly drawing a line is more than irony. It is indictment.

They are not fleeing marriage—they are fleeing fraud. They are not mocking covenant—they are mourning its exile from law. And if fraternal unions seem absurd, it is only because the modern marriage market has become a carnival of contradictions. Gay marriages are applauded. Polygynous covenants are criminalized. Serial fornication is normalized. And righteous men are advised to “wait on the Lord,” while their legacy withers.

This article does not celebrate fraternal unions. It understands them. They are neither holy or unholy. However, they are honest. Honest about a system that rewards dysfunction. Honest about the risks of fatherhood without legal protection. Honest about the fact that many men, today, must choose between covenant and ruin.

The Biblical solution is not legal maneuvering—but legal reform. A return to marriage as covenant, not contract. To polygyny as provision, not perversion. To male headship as sacrificial strength, not systemic threat.

Until then, let us be slow to condemn what Scripture does not—and quick to restore what Scripture never revoked.

May we have the courage to rebuild—not just our families—but the frameworks they require.