So, What Is Marriage?
Yesterday, I placed the debate about same-sex marriage within a larger historical context focusing on concern for marriage. Today, I want to home in on the question of what marriage is. This is the question that most proponents of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships keenly want to avoid, to shuffle offstage as soon as it’s brought up.
Those who would redefine marriage employ two evasion techniques. First, they might appeal to historical inevitability as a reason not to have to answer the question of what marriage is—as if it were a moot question, already decided. My Heritage Foundation colleague Andrew T. Walker and I respond to some of those claims at National Review this morning.
The second evasion technique is to appeal simply to equality—“marriage equality,” after all, has been good sloganeering. But it’s sloppy reasoning.
Why? Well, every law makes distinctions. Equality before the law protects citizens from arbitrary distinctions, from laws that treat them differently for no good reason. But in order to know if a law makes the right distinctions—if the lines it draws are justified—you have to know the public purpose of the law, and the nature of the good being advanced or protected.
Just ask yourself: If the law recognized same-sex couples as spouses, would it still fail to respect the equality of citizens in multiple-partner relationships? Are those inclined to such relationships being treated unjustly when their consensual romantic bonds go unrecognized, their children thereby “stigmatized,” their tax filings unprivileged?
This isn’t scaremongering. In 2009, Newsweek reported that there were over 500,000 polyamorous households in America. And prominent scholars and LGBT activists have called for “marriage equality” for multipartner relationships since at least 2006.
And in any case, the question is more fundamental: Once one jettisons sexual complementarity—the bodies of men and women go together—what principle can one offer to limit civil marriage to monogamous couples? For that is the only way to answer the charge that withholding a “fundamental right” from even just one multiple-partner household isn’t a grave injustice.
Again, to know when the lines drawn by a marriage law are arbitrary—when they violate equality—we have to know what marriage is and why the state promotes it. Tomorrow’s post will examine that latter question; today we focus on what marriage is.
Consider a favorite analogy of supporters of redefinition: Laws defining marriage as a union of a man and woman are unjust—fail to treat people equally—exactly like laws that prevented interracial marriage.
Such appeals simply beg the question of what is essential to marriage. They just assume exactly what’s in dispute here: that gender is just as irrelevant as race. It is true, of course, that the color of two people’s skin has nothing to do with what kind of bond they have. But the sexual difference between a man and a woman is central to what marriage is. Men and women—regardless of their race—can unite in marriage; and children need moms and dads—regardless of their race. You can’t know either fact, though, without at least a rough idea of what, essentially, makes a marriage.
My co-authors and I present arguments for marriage as the union of husband and wife—and against objections to that view—in our new book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. As we argue there, marriage is a uniquely comprehensive union. It involves a union of hearts and minds; but also—and distinctively—a bodily union made possible by sexual complementarity. As the act by which spouses make marital love also makes new life, so marriage itself is inherently extended and enriched by family life and calls for similarly all-encompassing commitment: permanent and exclusive. In short, marriage unites a man and woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.
This understanding—and only this one—explains the key features of marriage. If marriage isn’t founded on a comprehensive union made possible by the sexual complementarity of a man and a woman, then why can’t it occur among more than two people? If marital union isn’t founded on such sexual acts, then why ought it be sexually exclusive? If marriage isn’t a comprehensive union and has no intrinsic connection to children, then why ought it be permanent?
So to those who take the opposing viewpoint, the challenge is to find a coherent set of answers to these questions:
- If equality and justice require recognizing all marriages, where do you draw the lines? What sets marriage apart from other interpersonal relations?
- Given your answer above, why ought marriage be a monogamous relationship?
- Given your answer above, why ought marriage be a sexual—and sexually exclusive—relationship?
- Given your answer above, why ought marriage involve a commitment to permanence?
- Putting it all together, how do the above answers explain why marriage is, beyond all this, something the state should regulate at all? (More on this question tomorrow.)
- Comment (91)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (21)
Comments:
Aug '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
BTW, to those who say the research is in and we KNOW!! that same-sex couples are as good at child raising as two biological parents, I ask you to consult pg. 158 of Charles Murray's Coming Apart for a list of all the pathologies that are significantly more likely to occur in children raised outside of the traditional confines of marriage. While he is focusing more on single-parenthood, it is not hard to believe (and there is some social science and social biological research to suggest) that parents who are not biological parents are a poor substitute for a biological parent.
Sep '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Jul '11
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Governments do not take "nature" away. So long as they stay clear of it, there is no restrictions on people to pursue "nature" or "God" as mush as they want / like.
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
I'd still like to hear from people who favor redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships: What is marriage?
Edited on December 11, 2012 at 10:15pmJan '11
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Ryan,
I gave my answers to the first three of your questions in #26 and #32; I haven't had time to get to the remaining ones, but you should have something to work with there.
Edited on December 11, 2012 at 10:27pmAug '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Ryan: Unfortunately I feel the whole issue is an attempt to put the majority who feel traditional marriage is the proper way to a civil society on the defense. While I think it should be left up to individual states for several reasons, the case for traditional marriage is more numerous in society than those opposed. I feel the burden of proof of the benefit to society is not on those supporting traditional marriage. In the end it is about legislating acceptance of a lifestyle choice, Government money, and destruction of the civil society. All the reasons given don't seem to coherently address your rational.
Feb '11
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Barkha Herman
Ed G.
Government doesn't "pay single girls to have babies out of wedlock".
Link. · 1 hour ago
Ok, I followed the link. Where does it say that government pays people to have children out of wedlock? I'm not disputing the existence of welfare or benefits for unwed mothers or even that an effect of these programs is more out-of-wedlock childbirths; I'm denying your claim that the intent of these programs is to pay people for out-of-wedlock childbirths.
Jan '11
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
To modify my comment in #26 -- with some borrowed language from Merriam Webster's -- into a definition of marriage, I'd say:
I'd say that #3 is arguably the important function of marriage, though that doesn't mean it's required. By way of an odd analogy, the most important function of a bicycle is providing economical transportation, though that doesn't mean using one recreation and exercise diminishes the usefulness of other bikes.
* I'm curious whether marriage traditionalists would find anything wrong with that definition if I replaced "two unrelated adults" with "an unrelated man and woman."
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Government doesn’t draw the lines. People do. Free people in pursuit of happiness do.
2. Given your answer above, why ought marriage be a monogamous relationship?
Ought? Prefer what you like. But consenting adults ought decide the terms of their relationships.
3. Given your answer above, why ought marriage be a sexual—and sexually exclusive—relationship?
The terms of the agreement are up to the consenting adults. If the government wants a standard "government supplied set of agreements" (as we have now in all marriages) in the absence of agreement by the participants, then consenting adults beware.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 12:07amRe: So, What Is Marriage?
4. Given your answer above, why ought marriage involve a commitment to permanence?
Ought? Involve? What vague words. Commitment and permanence have never been compelled, only aspired to. Leave it to the parties.
5. Putting it all together, how do the above answers explain why marriage is, beyond all this, something the state should regulate at all?
Unlike America’s marriage modernists usually located in the SoCon wing of the Republican Party, I have respect for the constitutional sanctity of contract, which predates even the Bill of Rights. Let the government decide issues of enforcement, and involve itself in creation of contracts only on the issue of consent.
Aug '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Tommy De Seno
Government doesn’t draw the lines. People do. Free people in pursuit of happiness do.
My case and point. The modernist thinks it is people, through an act of will that set the parameters of their lives, not nature or God. That is a fundamental commitment the modernists and progressives make. Tommy thinks that marriage is whatever people say it is and, I suspect, his and others commitments to philosophical individualism will not broker any disagreement with this.
Feb '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
This is clearly false. Marriage still protects women as well as children. Economically speaking, women and children are wealthier and afforded more opportunity. Jody Foster and Madonna aside, the very poor are single mothers, factoring for government aid programs that incentivize single woman to have more babies.
Marriage is a natural union not beholden to government sovereignty. But, government should invest and endorse marriage because it is the first, most ideal union for creating and raising citizens.
Aug '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Another example of philosophical modernism. The scare quotes around "nature" and "God." I am reading the new translation of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. The translators' introduction rightly notes that for modern students Aristotle presents an odd challenge in that Aristotle thinks there is such thing as happiness and its characteristics and how to secure such a thing are open to rational inquiry. Aquinas thought the same. That's why Aristotle didn't have to put nature in scare quotes and Aquinas didn't have to do the same with God. If there is a natural teleology to man than he will be unhappy if he ignores or denies it. Barkha just dismisses such a notion as being worthy of mere scare quotes. Other questions Ryan might ask are whether there are natural differences between men and women. Are those differences socially relevant? Do they influence child rearing? Can society, speaking through its laws, be oblivious to this. I point you to Measure for Measure.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 12:21amRe: So, What Is Marriage?
Cattle King
Tommy De Seno
Government doesn’t draw the lines. People do. Free people in pursuit of happiness do.
My case and point. The modernist thinks it is people, through an act of will that set the parameters of their lives, not nature or God. That is a fundamental commitment the modernists and progressives make. Tommy thinks that marriage is whatever people say it is and, I suspect, his and others commitments to philosophical individualism will not broker any disagreement with this. · 4 minutes ago
The greatest gift Jesus gave me was free will.
What did He give you?
Aug '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Tommy De Seno
Cattle King
Tommy De Seno
Government doesn’t draw the lines. People do. Free people in pursuit of happiness do.
My case and point. The modernist thinks it is people, through an act of will that set the parameters of their lives, not nature or God. That is a fundamental commitment the modernists and progressives make. Tommy thinks that marriage is whatever people say it is and, I suspect, his and others commitments to philosophical individualism will not broker any disagreement with this. · 4 minutes ago
The greatest gift Jesus gave me was free will.
What did He give you? · in 0 minutes
He gave me natural law. Bone up on your Aquinas. Or JPII will do. Your will must conform to the natural law or your will is deformed. Now, let us argue about how the natural law might inform us about the nature of marriage.
BTW, the GREATEST gift Jesus gave me was his life, but that is for another thread.
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Cattle King
Tommy De Seno
Cattle King
Tommy De Seno
Government doesn’t draw the lines. People do. Free people in pursuit of happiness do.
My case and point. The modernist thinks it is people, through an act of will that set the parameters of their lives, not nature or God. That is a fundamental commitment the modernists and progressives make. Tommy thinks that marriage is whatever people say it is and, I suspect, his and others commitments to philosophical individualism will not broker any disagreement with this. · 4 minutes ago
The greatest gift Jesus gave me was free will.
What did He give you? · in 0 minutes
He gave me natural law. Bone up on your Aquinas. Or JPII will do. Your will must conform to the natural law or your will is deformed. Now, let us argue about how the natural law might inform us about the nature of marriage.
BTW, the GREATEST gift Jesus gave me was his life, but that is for another thread. · 1 minute ago
It's your assertion. Tell me what natural law says of marriage, and I want citations to sources.
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Cattle King
Cattle King
Tommy De Seno
Government doesn’t draw the lines. People do. Free people in pursuit of happiness do.
BTW, the GREATEST gift Jesus gave me was his life, but that is for another thread. · 2 minutes ago
I didn't need Jesus' life. I needed mine as a free man. If all you needed was the death of Jesus and that's all you got, you got shorted.
Apr '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
State marriage doesn't exist to sanction a relationship, at least is shouldn't. It exists because there are benefits the state can provide to facilitate and promote the care of children in the types of relationships that produce children.And those children who are in families that don't produce children?
Aug '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Tommy De Seno
Cattle King
Cattle King
Tommy De Seno
Government doesn’t draw the lines. People do. Free people in pursuit of happiness do.
BTW, the GREATEST gift Jesus gave me was his life, but that is for another thread. · 2 minutes ago
I didn't need Jesus' life. I needed mine as a free man. If all you needed was the death of Jesus and that's all you got, you got shorted. · 32 minutes ago
Hmm, me thinks you ought to revisit a little thing called "The Nicene Creed." Not seeing much free will talk, but something about death and sins and such.
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Cattle King
Tommy De Seno
Cattle King
Cattle King
Tommy De Seno
Government doesn’t draw the lines. People do. Free people in pursuit of happiness do.
BTW, the GREATEST gift Jesus gave me was his life, but that is for another thread. · 2 minutes ago
I didn't need Jesus' life. I needed mine as a free man. If all you needed was the death of Jesus and that's all you got, you got shorted. · 32 minutes ago
Hmm, me thinks you ought to revisit a little thing called "The Nicene Creed." Not seeing much free will talk, but something about death and sins and such. · 1 minute ago
If you think the death of Jesus was the goal and not a means to a bigger end, then you may as well yell, "Give us Barrabas!" because you got the same as those folks - the death of Jesus.
Are we really discussing this? I think you're just picking a fight.