As we look to the future, it is only a matter of
time that same-sex marriage will become the law of the land. The question is
not whether, but when. Yet past this horizon a new one awaits. Advocates for same-sex
marriage argue, correctly, that the civil privileges that the state grants to
straight couples should not be held back for gay couples. Everyone agrees
there. Yet not many advocates of gay marriage consider that if an existing
institution, in this case, marriage, is unjust and flawed – there is another reform
possibility. We can just abolish it. As crazy as this may sound, let me make a
case for it today.
The problem begins precisely because the case
for same-sex marriage is iron tight. Proponents of same-sex marriage have
argued, I think correctly, that if two consenting adults choose to have a
relationship with one another, that should be that, and the state has no
business withholding the status of marriage to these two individuals. Usually,
a secondary argument is presented alongside this primary argument, namely, that
no one is harmed in this consensual relationship. Ergo, same-sex marriage
should be legal. Remember these two arguments: A. consent, and B. no harm done.
The problem is that one can imagine many types
of relationships that satisfy both these arguments, not just same-sex
relationships. Arguments A and B appear to be over-inclusive. Social
conservatives are right on this front. Let me demonstrate this with two
examples.
Consider the case for incestuous same-sex marriage.
Let's call this twincest. Wouldn’t both the primary, and the secondary
reasons I have just presented for same-sex marriage apply to justify
legalization of incestuous same-sex marriage? As long as there are A. two
consenting adults, and B. as long as there are no negative procreative
consequences, I see no reason to deny marriage to a pair of sisters or
brothers.
What argument can we adduce to separate same-sex
marriage from twincest. To make the former admissible, but the latter
inadmissible? Let me right off the bat throw out the argument from procreation,
since neither pairing is procreative. Let me suggest that the only remaining reason
one can adduce for separating same sex marriage and twincest is an emotional
reason: i.e. C. disgust or moral indignation. Same sex marriage doesn’t repulse
us, incest does. Not so fast. This won’t work either, since revulsion or moral
indignation is exactly the sentiment shared by opponents of same-sex marriage.
If advocates for same-sex marriage want to deny incestuous marriage on the
basis of moral indignation, they can hardly offer a reply to those who think
that same-sex marriage is morally repugnant. This is the problem of legislating
morality – one man’s virtue is another man’s vice.
Let me present a second example that highlights
the same problem. Plural marriage. We want to say yes to same-sex marriage, but
no to plural marriage. Plural marriage can come in the form of polygyny (one
man many women) or polyandry (one woman many men.) Now, I will not recommend
polygyny, that is marriage between several women and one man, since there are
legitimate issues of gender inequality that such an arrangement implicates. It
fails argument B. But I propose polyandry, that is marriage between one woman
with several men. Again, the same reasons that permit same-sex marriage would
also appear to legitimate polyandry. As long as A. consulting adults engage in
activity in which B. they do no harm, they should be permitted to proceed as
they please. Now, if you counter-argue that society will crumble, remember that
this was the same reason that opponents of same-sex marriage had used years
ago. As in the case of twincest, we have failed to find a reason to permit
same-sex marriage, but disallow another type of relationship, in this case, polyandry.
Where do we go from here? I suggest that the
reason why we cannot find a rule for permitting same-sex marriage but not
twincest or polyandry is that the whole institution is arbitrary. There are no
good answers because we haven’t asked the right question. And the question is:
what reason could the state possibly have to elevate and privilege one type of
human relationship over others? I can think of no reason. It is not that we
haven’t found the elusive discriminatory criteria that would allow one
relationship but not the other. It is that we cannot. My point is that neither we,
nor the state, should be in the business of selectively endorsing and
sanctifying one type of human relationship over another.
What the debate over same-sex marriage is going
to do is to draw us to this inevitable conclusion. Once we realize that our
reasons for establishing a cut-off point to a law or institution is arbitrary,
the law or the institution must unravel. When it comes to traditional marriage,
our society has defended an arbitrary cut-off point, determining for the
longest time that marriage should only be limited to one man and one woman,
bestowing the privileges and attendants benefits to those in such a
relationship. The point I am trying to make is that shifting the cut-off
point, as we are attempting to do today, draws attention to the arbitrariness
of where we have historically set the cut-off point, and highlights the
arbitrariness of our new cut-off point.
So I’ve used two apparently odious examples but I don’t
need them to make the same point about the boundaries of state regulatory
activity of which marriage laws is only a subset: the state should not have the
authority, ever, to sanction and elevate particular conceptions of the good
life over others. We already acknowledge this principle generally, outside of
the realm of intimate relations, in the principle of liberal neutrality. For
example, should I choose to spend the rest of my life watching endless reruns
of Family Guy trying to determine the proper pronunciation of “cool whip,” I
should be free to do so, without fear that the law will penalize me for what
would appear to be a waste of my time.
Even though my argument appears controversial, I
think most of you already implicitly agree with me. There are a whole host of
other equally important and gratifying relationships that marriage laws today
do not endorse. The sexual love between a man and a man, the platonic affection
between a man and a woman, the bond between a man and his dog, the friendship
between a girl and her grandmother. Don’t we all get a little miffed when our
best friend finds a new girlfriend and they fall off the face of the earth
(until they break up)? Who’s to say that these other types of relationships do not
deserve public sanction, or at least a title equal to the privileged status of
those who are traditionally married?
Indeed these relationships can also go under or beyond two persons.
Consider self-love, Narcissus’s love for himself. Who’s to say someone who
chooses to remain single has chosen a lesser path? Or, we can go up in numbers
for more complex kinds of relationships: kinships in extended families, membership
in fraternal organizations can be as rewarding as monogamous long-term
relationships between two people. All of these relationships produce human
flourishing. Yet I ask: why is it that we place the romantic, oftentimes sexual
relationship between two people (homosexual or heterosexual) on a pedestal
above all others? There has got to be a reason if we are to keep the
institution of marriage. The state should only act when there are plausible,
publicly defensible reasons. Institutions should exist only if the state can
articulate reasons for their existence. Tradition or the warm feeling of
romance isn’t enough, precisely because we have already chosen to unravel the
traditional meaning of marriage in our support for same-sex marriage. (And by
the way, Plato privileged platonic love over sexual love, so whatever I’m
saying isn’t really new.)
I am not seeking to invalidate the choices of
those who are already married. If you want to get into a long term monogamous
and romantic relationship, go for it. But do not assume that this relationship
is more deserving of state sanction than a host of other important intimate,
caregiving relationships. Don’t do it because you want a public badge of honor.
Do it in spite of the institution of marriage, not because of it. You will be perceived as weird, even Wesleyan weird, but you will be right.
Those who are trying to do the good work to modernize
marriage need to consider the other possibility of reform and challenge the
assumption that the institution itself is worth saving. By all means fight for
equality. But don’t just fight for gays and lesbians. Fight for everyone, fight
for anyone who wishes to live by an unconventional standard of love.
Let me conclude. If you think about it, marriage
appears to do the exact opposite of that which it has traditionally been
supposed to do. Marriage doesn’t encourage love; it restrains it. With the
infinite variety of human interactions, is there really a need for the state to
establish the gold standard of human relationships? (If liberty requires that
we should each be free to love as we please, equality demands that the state
remains neutral as to whom and how we love, or indeed, whether or not we love
at all.) Marriage purports to be an institution that celebrates love; yet history
shows us that marriage has served only to control and restrain the
possibilities of human love. Civil marriage, however defined, will always and
arbitrarily confer social meaning and hierarchies. Perhaps we should simply
abolish it.
1 comment:
I love your reasoned argument against the institution of marriage, but I wonder if the institution exists for reasons beyond love. I think of marriage as a state-sponsored institution in order to protect the rights of property to be retained by the family. This sort of protection doesn't mean that marriage shouldn't and couldn't be extended to other groups, but I wonder if perhaps it has merit simply beyond proscribing who should love whom.
Post a Comment