What does marriage give who?

Like most things, I don't know much about marriage (what I do know I learned from The Princess Bride: kill your wife to start a war/land grab. That was the movie's message, right?). Marriage, like many ubiquitous social customs, if you stare at it long enough it takes on a bizarre shape. This morning, when I started thinking "why marriage," here's all I had: competition for mates can — under certain circumstances — get quite fierce, perhaps chaotic. Chaos is bad for the business of organized civilization, so we'll get a system in place to keep mating regulated and respectable. That is, more or less, my thoughts on why marriage came about — what am I missing?

So, the Prop 8 was overturned. Rejoice? Sure, why not? The law was a textbook example of the savagery majorities — a whopping 52% — are capable of, and it's a pleasure to watch our democracy reject that type of discrimination. So why is this such an issue? In trying to make some headway, let's examine what marriage can mean (just a few examples, not meant to be exhaustive):

1. Kids, kids, kids and God the Father. You want some kids? You're going to need a wife or husband. Not sperm or an egg, mind you, a wife or husband. I checked in with the Christian Family Research Council to read their arguments against gay marriage. They have, rather conveniently, "ten arguments from social science against gay marriage." Seven of the ten are about why man/woman is the only suitable parenting operation. The other three arguments focus on: explaining why gay marriages would "undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage"; why marriages "thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles"; and "how women and marriage domesticate men".

So, seven arguments saying gay couples aren't as good at parenting (clearly a dubious claim, I'd imagine you read at least a little something about the recent beating this line of thinking took — peer-reviewed and everything!), and then three arguments essentially saying that gays are (A) more likely to understand the need for and give approval towards extramarital action, (B) Gays won't be as happily married (which is an interesting argument: you can't perform typical gender roles, you won't be as happy, don't even try), and (C) marrying a woman makes men into hard working, god-loving, drink-avoiding, one vagina only citizens, and their testosterone drops — essentially, the argument is (as we'll revisit in a moment) that married men are stripped of their feral nature and don't run around abusing women.

This group focuses on the kids and what they see as necessary gender roles. Marriage, their logic goes, is about creating and raising little kids. Fair enough.

Interestingly, the early Christian church sages: not big marriage fans. Saint Jerome thought celibacy was where it's at. Always practical Augustine thought that "go forth and multiply", Genesis' great call to, uh, action, was no longer necessary. There are plenty of us (maybe about 1/30th of today's numbers), Augustine contended, it's time to get celibate and get ready for the end times. My point, many of the most influential early Christians leaders were sexual ascetics who thought marriage was the best option for those who couldn't keep it in their pants, or tunics, or whatever they wore. Since some Christians embrace an "older is better" guide to dogma, I find this to be rather amusing. But, again, I'm going off on a tangent.

2. Romantic Love: we all have a right to love and its expressions. When you're in love, you marry as consenting adults, acting as equals forming a bond. Sure, you might have some kiddies, but it's about loving someone. This is where Judge Vaughn Walker's view seems to reside. His ruling recites the changes the institution of marriage has gone through: no more anti-miscegenation laws, no more coverture/wife as property of husband — "shit be a' changin' wit da times", he seems to say. He also notes that civil unions vs. marriage is little more than a new take on separate but (almost) equal, and — as we learned in school — separate is inherently unequal. His ruling concludes by pointing to the 14th's Equal Protection Clause, suggesting there is no rational basis for treating gays differently in regards to marriage. Fair enough.

3. Marriage is about protecting female sexuality. This shares some similarities with our first example: we'll look for differences. A guy like Sam Schulman argues that gay marriage advocates are only looking to join in on the this type of marriage — romantic marriage. From his perspective, that isn't what marriage is about. Marriage is about what he calls a kinship system: A means to, most importantly, protect female sexuality from rape and incest — it's all about who has access to a woman's reproduction organs and when. As a result, certain types of sex become okay, other types not okay. He uses "legitimate" and "illegitmate" children as an example. Ultimately, by Schulman's estimation, marriage allows a woman to use her body as leverage against the men who would like to get after it.

Gays, he claims, don't have these issues. He sums up his argument:

Since gay relationships exist perfectly well outside the kinship system, to assume the burdens of marriage--the legal formalities, the duty of fidelity (which is no easier for gays than it is for straights), the slavishly imitative wedding ritual--will come to seem a nuisance.

 Our species needs marriage to protect our women, gays don't need it at all, and it'll end up being a chore for them. Ah-ah-ah, Wait. Just. One. Minute. Why do gays want marriage rights? (I'm not quite there yet, let's think about it).

Now, if you recall my opening remarks, Schulman and I have very similar ideas about the initial utility of marriage: a means to organize sexual relationships. And he acknowledges that our new concept of marriage has drifted away from that and now focues on love and romance. But, again, he's worried:

Marriage is not about couples or lovers – it’s about the physical and moral integrity of women. When a woman’s sexuality is involved, human communities must deal with a malign force that an individual woman and her family cannot control or protect.

Modern marriage is only the least worst version of marriage that has emerged from all this – but it is still necessary for women. What protects women, ultimately, is that marriage laws and customs confer upon her independence something extra – dignity, protection, sacredness – that others must respect. And if this quality can be bestowed upon anyone, even those not in intersexual relationships – it reduces, even dissolves its force.

I get that couples and lovers don't need marriage to do their thing, but what a strange false dichotomy he has constructed — I struggle to understand how people construct their ideas of security. Marriage keeps women safe(r) and allowing gays to marry will make them less protected. Confer upon her independence something extra? Dignity? Sacredness? "Marriage protects women" follows the same logic of "guns protect people". Tie a woman's value to her womb and that's where she'll stay. Don't respect her because she's a human, respect her beacuse her uterus and ovaries are sacred and dignified? We are not required to think in these terms. It is possible to simply reject violence entirely. It is possible to loosen the chains of "that's the way it is". I don't disagree that at some point in history Schulman's argument may have carried some weight... but today? I can't see it.


Maybe Sam is correct about us (a broken clock is still right twice a day), maybe we're all just a half step away from being the Mayor of Sodom, but he seems to be missing the boat on what gays want from marriage:

Authentic legitimacy within the social body. "Stop treating me like a pariah, like an unperson" — that's the rally cry I hear. Unfortunatley, gays can't make a reasoned argument that will convince every bigoted asshole to smash their "Kill a Queer for Christ" mentality. What they can do is kick down doors. Stonewall is not so different from Selma. Nobody wants to compromise themselves because they make foolish, morally self-certain neanderthals uncomfortable.

If you want to talk about gay marriage (or women in society) start at the bottom. Why marry? What is marriage for? What can it do for women? For men? If gays are a threat, how? etc. Don't let presuppositions slide away unheard and unseen. Have long conversations that build on mutual understanding. Let's start figuring some shit out and stop pretending like we know where everyone's arguments are coming from.