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:
Nov '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Herbert Woodbery:
And those children who are in families that don't produce children? · 1 hour ago
Marriage intends to encourage behavior which creates children to happen in a committed, stable, and lasting relationship to be sure the children that are likely to result from heterosexual behavior are cared for properly. Children who are adopted are already protected by adoption laws and regulations. Theoretically adoption laws, not marriage laws, will require proof of the commitment and stability marriage is supposed to foster before allowing an adoption and will also legally establish parenthood and bind the adoptive parents to proper care of the child.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 6:56amRe: So, What Is Marriage?
Do we really need government for this? Won't people procreate naturally without government encouragement? Won't the people who don't care for the children fail to do so despite government encouragement?
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
A question for Ryan Anderson (I did answer yours):
So, What is Divorce?
Nov '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Tommy De Seno
Won't people procreate naturally without government
Of course they will, the assumption that people will procreate is precisely what drives a society to have the institution of marriage. Marriage doesn't want to encourage procreation, it wants to encourage procreation inside a certain type of environment, an environment generally speaking that is most beneficial for children.
Tommy De Seno
Won't the people who don't care for the children fail to do so despite government encouragement?
Not necessarily. What's more, even if that were so, it would still be true that making it easier and providing benefits for those who will care for their children is still a good thing.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 2:04amOct '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Ryan
Loren Marks:
Fantastic argument, Ryan. Much better than all the subjective gut-feeling or semantic arguments on this thread.
I've read through the link, and I have a couple of thoughts:
1) In general, because same-sex couples' relationships aren't treated equally in society (culturally and legally), it's likely that their kids are affected by the disadvantages thereof, and any studies regarding their level of successful upbringing are likely to under-represent that extra hardship. True apples-to-apples comparisons wont be possible without equality of marriage.
2) Small sample sizes aren't necessarily something to be afraid of, as long as the comparisons are again, apples-to-apples on key factors like socioeconomic status—which many of the studies were.
3) Sample sizes are obviously going to be smaller because the number of same-sex households that are 1) committedly coupled, and 2) coupled with kids, is not only smaller in absolute numbers than opposite-sex households, but disproportionately smaller as well.
Aug '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
[What setsmarriageapart from other interpersonal relations?]
Marriage is an intimate partnership.
[Given your answer above, why ought marriage be a monogamous relationship?]
Depends on the people involved. If they agree that it should be so, then it should be monogamous. Otherwise – well it isn’t, is it? There are polygamous marriages around.
[Given your answer above, why ought marriage be a sexual]
Sex is part of intimacy, but there are marriages that do not involve sex. Wrt exclusivity – again – depends on what people want and agree to.
[why ought marriage involve a commitment to permanence?]
People need stability in their lives.
[ how do the above answers explain why marriage is, beyond all this, something the state should regulate at all?]
The State should regulate the business side of marriage – common assets, common commitments – just like it regulates other business contracts.
The State cannot regulate the heart, and it shouldn’t pretend that it can.
Note: different religious traditions define marriage differently – what I’ve talked about is what I think the minimum secular viewof marriage should be. If anybody wants a religious extra to this, that is their right, but the State should stay out of that stuff.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 12:00pmRe: So, What Is Marriage?
here's Dinesh D'Souza on what marriage is :
http://youtu.be/aJ_GUJLtzCE?t=1h22m20s
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 2:15pmFeb '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Zafar: [What setsmarriageapart from other interpersonal relations?]
Marriage is an intimate partnership.
I think you need to define "intimate". I would say I have an intimate relationship with my best friend. This person is a man as well as I am. I've hugged him--even kissed him--and share my thoughts and feelings with him. And he does with me. I love him. He's like a brother to me. I'm invested in the well-being and health of his marriage and children so much so that he's permitted me and I've accepted the responsibility of caring for his children if he and his wife were to pass away.
That's intimate, but my relationship is platonic.
If, by intimate, you mean the romantic, and therefore sexual, relationship then I might tell you about a wonderful woman who I met. She's beautiful, endearing, smart, strong, and whom I have great sexual chemistry. I might be describing my wife or my (hypothetical) mistress.
That's intimate, but requires I violate sexual fidelity with both women, which, by definition, breaks my commitment.
I'm not saying your definition of marriage is wrong, but incomplete or ill-defined.
Nov '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Unfortunately if seems that this thread has ground to a halt. I'll just throw my final 2 cents in. I find it almost unbelievable that several people here seem to believe that if we suddenly removed almost all the traditional ideas about the purpose of marriage and the requirements for what form it must take, that there will be no negative impact on society.
It seems that opponents of state marriage believe that "marriage" should be whatever commitment or lack of commitment sexual partners want to make with each other with the only restrictions coming against certain forms of incest (if even that). Sure traditional marriage should be allowed inside churches, but there is no need for society in general to believe in it.
I haven't seen any of these proponents explain why giving traditional marriage some official and preferred status is somehow harmful to society. Indeed, most of these opponents of state marriage practice traditional marriage, presumably because they think its a good idea. Yet they assert that traditional marriage is somehow unfair or problematic.
(1/2)
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 5:24pmNov '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
(2/2)
As I've pointed out, the libertarian objections strike me as bizarre, seeing as how traditional state marriage is not an obligation to those who don't believe in it. And it is entirely possible for people who prefer some other committed arrangement with their sexual partner(s) to set them up, just as they see fit. No, these alternative arrangements won't get the same state benefits, but seeing as how these people believe the state shouldn't be giving benefits to anyone, it seems a hollow complaint to cry about the denial of benefits to the novel sexually based commitments they believe to be perfectly acceptable.
And lastly, these people who would essentially turn marriage into a free-for-all don't expend the least amount of consideration or speculation as to what might happen, especially negatively, if everyone just makes up their own type of marriage and essentially renders the traditional model of marriage no longer ideal or necessary. Could it be that radically departing from marriage as it has been practiced for centuries will have no affect on the well-being of society and its children at all?
Surely this notion is foolishness.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 5:15pmJun '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Thom Williams: No, these alternative arrangements won't get the same state benefits, but seeing as how these people believe the state shouldn't be giving benefits to anyone, it seems a hollow complaint to cry about the denial of benefits to the novel sexually based commitments they believe to be perfectly acceptable. · 3 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Nail. Head.
They want the benefits that they think government shouldn't be providing in the first place.
I'm sure the justification will go something like, "as long as they're giving stuff out, why shouldn't [X arrangement] get their share?"
A lot like the Obamaphone people, in fact.
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
I hope not. The author came back yesterday to ask folks to please answer his questions, and several of us have.
I'm betting he's busy as we all are and when he gets a chance he will jump back in.
Aug '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Tommy asks, "It's your assertion. Tell me what natural law says of marriage, and I want citations to sources."
See Catechism of Catholic Church, paragraph 1601 and following: "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."
Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility page 66: "Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence, secondly conjugal life for man and woman, and thirdly a legitimate orientation of desire."
You can also read Thomas in the Summa answering the question "Whether Matrimony is of the Natural Law": http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5041.htm
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Cattle King: Tommy asks, "It's your assertion. Tell me what natural law says of marriage, and I want citations to sources."
See Catechism of Catholic Church, paragraph 1601 and following: "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."
So only those who accept the Sacrament should be married in America?
Nov '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
The arguments from natural law that underlie the Catholic sacramental form of marriage also underlie a rightly understood secular form of marriage. The theological portions of the arguments for Catholic sacramental marriage need not be a part of a secular form of marriage that draws its purpose and form from natural law.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 7:18pmFeb '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Tommy De Seno
So only those who accept the Sacrament should be married in America? · 21 minutes ago
I'm not Catholic, but this question's premise seems confused. I doesn't follow that if, say, I lack a proper view of oxygen that I shouldn't benefit from breathing. So, for arguments sake, let's say that marriage is a Sacrament as Cattle King outlined. If I don't believe it's a Sacrament, but yet I'm married, wouldn't that mean I reap this good regardless? Truly, this would mean that those married would accept the Sacrament of marriage by the act of marriage?
Now, the better question seems to me: Is marriage a sacrament? Followed by, is a sacrament good? Or, is marriage good?
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Mantis9
Tommy De Seno
So only those who accept the Sacrament should be married in America? · 21 minutes ago
I'm not Catholic, but this question's premise seems confused.
It's not my premise.
Cattle accused folks of violating natural law.
When I asked for a description of natural law, he gave me the Catholic Doctine on marriage.
Ergo, I asked if only Catholics should be married, because it would seem the rest of America is violating natural law as well.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 9:24pmFeb '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Tommy De Seno
Mantis9
Tommy De Seno
So only those who accept the Sacrament should be married in America? · 21 minutes ago
I'm not Catholic, but this question's premise seems confused.
It's not my premise.
Cattle accused folks of violating natural law.
When I asked for a description of natural law, he gave me the Catholic Doctine on marriage.
Ergo, I asked if only Catholics should be married, because it would seem the rest of America is violating natural law a well. · 1 hour ago
My point is if Catholic Doctrine reflects accurately natural law, then unbeknownst to us non-Catholics, we are not violating natural law by marrying, but confirming it despite our ignorance.
That's why I believe the premise of you question was confused. It doesn't seem to following that the Catholic view of marriage bars non-Catholics from the benefits of the Sacrament. Is that the case? And is Catholic doctrine and natural law in this respect synonymous?
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
Mantis9
Tommy De Seno
Mantis9
Tommy De Seno
So only those who accept the Sacrament should be married in America? · 21 minutes ago
I'm not Catholic, but this question's premise seems confused.
It's not my premise.
Cattle accused folks of violating natural law.
When I asked for a description of natural law, he gave me the Catholic Doctine on marriage.
Ergo, I asked if only Catholics should be married, because it would seem the rest of America is violating natural law a well. · 1 hour ago
My point is if Catholic Doctrine reflects accurately natural law, then unbeknownst to us non-Catholics, we are not violating natural law by marrying, but confirming it despite our ignorance.
That's why I believe the premise of you question was confused. It doesn't seem to following that the Catholic view of marriage bars non-Catholics from the benefits of the Sacrament. Is that the case? And is Catholic doctrine and natural law in this respect synonymous? · 12 minutes ago
You didn't accept and bestow the Catholic sacrament at your wedding, did you?
That's why the premise is not confused (again, the premise being Cattle's).
Nov '12
Re: So, What Is Marriage?
But you're still avoiding Cattle's point, namely that the arguments from natural law that the Catholic church uses to explain its sacrament can and should (if you believe in natural law) also be applied to a secular form of state licensed marriage.