You Decide

… that many consider marriage to be the bedrock of our society and to allow gay marriage is to allow that bedrock to crumble?

Many opponents of gay marriage argue that whereas heterosexual marriage is a modern version of a primordial relationship, a marriage between members of the same sex is a wholly legalistic construction and has no social or biological necessity and that whereas children are the natural issue of a heterosexual marriage, same-sex couples seeking a child must either adopt or contract a third party for the necessary biological material. In either case, opponents argue, the state must transfer parental rights to one or both parents. That means that in the case of same-sex couples, the state isn’t just recognizing parenthood, it’s in effect manufacturing it.

“Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because the family is essential to society’s reproduction,” wrote David Orland in The Deceit of Gay Marriage. “[M]arried couples receive the benefits they do, not because the state is interested in promoting romantic love or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of special interest groups, but rather because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions.”

Opponents of gay marriage add that by refashioning marriage into a purely legal institution, gay marriage reduces marriage to a mere partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience. Worse, they argue, same-sex marriage will place the culture on a slippery slope of moral relativism: If men can marry other men just because they love one another, the argument goes, then what’s to stop three men from marrying?

Finally, many foes of same-sex marriage fear that if the state recognizes gay marriages, those unions will be thought of as socially and morally equal to traditional marriage. Schools would be forced to teach a curriculum that places same-sex marriages on equal footing with heterosexual marriages, which, they contend will lead to a generation of profound sexual confusion.

…that our notion of marriage has changed through the years, and many people think that gay marriage is simply its next evolution?

From dowries and the transferal of property rights, to romantic love and same-sex weddings, the nature of marriage has changed tremendously through the years.

As scholar Joseph Campbell has written, our modern notion of love has its roots in the 12th century. Prior to that, the primary aim of marriage had been to consolidate wealth and power among families or to extend a bloodline. But in the 12th century, troubadours began singing of Tristan and Isolde, and the notion of love, which eventually became a basis for marriage, came into being.

The transformation of marriage has been ongoing. For centuries women were often viewed as the inferior partner, and divorce, that specter hanging over modern marriage, was extremely rare until the 1970s. Compare that with today, when women often out-earn their spouses, and the country’s divorce rate hovers between 40 and 50 percent.

As some supporters of gay marriage contend, far from being a fixed and unchanging, marriage is a dynamic institution that should both serve and reflect contemporary society.

And although marriage may be a modern reflection of what some call a prepolitical relationship geared toward reproduction, the government has so incentivized child rearing at this point—via tax breaks and other forms of financial assistance—that marriage is no longer necessary to ensure procreation.

So if our society has changed to the point that child rearing is not inherently linked to marriage and gays are living in long-term romantic relationships, shouldn’t our conjugal laws reflect and cater to this current reality?