If the government defined marriage as between two consenting adults, without regarding their gender identity, then the state should continue issuing marriage licenses and supporting the civil institution.
What’s wrong with marriages?
The best solution for the United States is not to simply wipe away all marriages. Claudia Card says in “Against Marriage and Motherhood,” written in 1996, that a main problem of marriage is parenting. As a result, Card claims a community-based child care would solve the problem of only two people, in a nuclear (or husband and wife) marriage, having all responsibility at raising their children. However, her logic fails when she continues to say people should fight for abolishing marriage; the absence of marriage does not mean that there will be communities, and then community-based child care. The solution, of communities supporting members more, is not a bad idea, but it does not provide a good solution.
What’s acceptable in marriages?
In the same article, Card says she does not approve of marriage because it only allows monogamous relationships. “As long as marriage is monogamous in the sense of one spouse at a time, it interferes with one’s ability to obtain spousal benefits for anew lover” (Card 7). Although marriage does not allow for multiple partners who are also married, Card assumes that people would like to have many relationships, like a husband and a wife, at the same time. Think about it: If you had the option, and it was socially okay, would you have multiple sexual, sensual, mental, and emotional relationships? How many people desire to have committed relationships with multiple partners? How does this change the definition of committed?
Since the debate’s definition of marriage is not gendered, I would assume the debate’s definition would allow same-sex marriages. Also, all marriages would have equal rights as heterosexual, married couples today. I’m not saying we should tolerate the negative things that happen in marriages, like emotional and physical abuse. But completely getting rid of marriage won’t solve these abuse problems. Making people more accountable for their actions, both in marriage and in general, can help though.
Assumptions: What is love? What is marriage?
Some people who are against marriage, like Card, base many of their points on an assumption: marriage should equal love, so people should only stay in marriages if they love each other. In 1996, Card said many marriages become “loveless after the first few years but hopelessly bogged down with financial entanglements or children (adopted or products of turkey-baster insemination or previous marriages), making separation or divorce (at least in the near future) too difficult to contemplate, giving rise to new motives for mayhem and murder” (8). However, one must question the definition of marriage and love before analyzing the logic. How are we to define love and how much is necessary to decide if one should get a marriage license? Should couples married for decades, who claim they love each other but no longer engage in sexual intercourse, be called out as lying about their love and encouraged to divorce? How do we measure love? And should we even try to measure other couples’ love?
In “The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles,” the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education Institute for American Values describe their definition of marriage: “We come together to help more men and women achieve a caring, collaborative, and committed bond, rooted in equal regard between spouses” (4). I believe most people would agree that this description of marriage, if it includes non-gendered relationships, is reasonable and desirable, even though I don’t think all of the Coalition’s marriage principles are correct. For example, the Coalition assumes that all people want to marry and children should not be born out of wedlock (The Marriage Movement 7). Disregarding the Coalition’s assumptions on general morality, they do note that marriage is a social institution (The Marriage Movement 7). Thus, the marriage license and the available ceremony provide a way for couples to show their relationship to society. The legal aspect, of making couples be financial partners, makes them more connected and involved in each other’s lives. In the U.S. today, marriage couples can also choose to keep more distinct financial accounts.
What do we do now?
Marriage has a long history and many connotations. Also, marriage is tied with the concept of family. Although people have been forced into marriages while others denied the right of the government’s acknowledgment of non-heterosexual committed relationships, society’s understanding of marriage is fluid. It can change. We could try to make a completely new way of defining relationships and throw out the term “marriage,” or there’s the option of taking out the harmful aspects and making something new. It might take more effort to change what we mean by marriage and how society views married couples, but I believe society (people in general, but mostly referring to people in the United States) will be more willing to accept changes.
Tags: government regulation, marriage
A woman and a man meet, fall in love, resolve some sort of problem, and live happily ever after. Where have we heard this story? Oh that’s right! In practically every romantic comedy ever produced. I have nothing against these movies, but I do have a problem when we seem to equate the quandary of whether the institution of marriage should be sustained in the U.S. to the outcome of say How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.
I would really like to agree with the simple definition of marriage in “The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles.” It would be wonderful if marriage were simply “…a caring, collaborative, and committed bond, rooted in equal regard between spouses” (4). But it’s obviously not. In her article “Just Marriage,” Mary Lyndon Shanley points to the inequalities between men and women in marriage that have occurred for centuries. For example, in the 1700s, women and men became “one flesh” when they married. Consequently, the wife relinquished her independence to her husband. (Shanley, 2). If we want marriage to be equal between spouses, we can’t just write a new definition of marriage that includes language of equality; we have to work to expunge the traditions and laws that oppress women. An even bigger issue is the fact that when the state only recognizes heterosexual marriage, it oppresses people who have “non-traditional” relationships or families by providing them with fewer benefits, which are most notably financial. Just because of heterosexual marriage dominating our society, an innumerable amount of people face subjugation and fewer social benefits.
I don’t think Claudia Card’s arguments are so outlandish. She wants to abolish marriage in an attempt to make relationships simpler. I would argue that marriage is making relationships more complicated because they have to have a purpose, a label, legal recognition, etc., etc. I think Card is saying that if we eliminate marriage, relationships can be more organic. These relationships would most likely be more valuable than marriages because they would not become “…loveless after the first few years but hopelessly bogged down with financial entanglements…” (Card, 8).
When people think marriage promotes love and protects families, they just point out why we should get rid of it because marriage doesn’t do those things at all. It oppresses women and violates the rights of people who do not have heterosexual marriages. And I don’t think we should put this decision in the hands of society and its fluid understanding of marriage because who knows if it will flow to the definition that is just to all people. I would feel much more comfortable abolishing marriage and leaving the task of defining relationships in the hands of the people.
In “Against Marriage and Motherhood”, Claudia Card argues that “marriage [is] a relationship to which the State is an essential third party” (2). She goes on to give the historical background of marriages in the United States, making the point that the State’s original interest in marriage was that of melding together the lives of upper-middle class, property-owning whites. It is this type of marriage, acknowledged by the government, which Card disagrees with.
I would agree, and argue that society’s definition of marriage today has nothing to do with one’s childhood expectations of the “happily-ever-after” marriage. The phrase “the personal is political” comes to mind in relation to whether or not marriage as a whole should be abolished. I feel that in the world of today, one cannot have a “normal” long-term relationship with a member of the opposite sex without the inevitable question of marriage arising. As Card says, partners eventually become bogged down with “financial entanglements or children” (8), leading to the solution of getting married in the case of non-married couples, or separating, in the case of already-married individuals.
One solution to this problem is posited in Mary Lyndon Shanley’s “Just Marriage”. She proposes the replacement of traditional marriage with the concept of “contractualism”, a quid pro quid form of partnership that would uphold the “happily-ever-after” ideals of domestic lifestyles. It is Shanley’s definition of a partnership as happy, fulfilling, successful, and shared that I agree with; in addition to her emphasis on shared duties, Shanley makes clear that equality and individualism play an important role in contractualism (9).
The final point that I would like to make is the fact that by solely allowing traditional marriages to be legally recognized by the State, other forms of relationships such as domestic partnerships, senior citizens living together, single-parent households, and relatives raising a family member’s child are “less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy” (Beyond Same-Sex Marriage 2). Shanley’s proposed concept of a contractual system would be able to legally rectify this problem, while at the same time broadening personal liberties and individuals’ sense of equality.
Marriage has long been a topic of interest for me. As a little girl I grew up going to weddings with my father, a photographer, as his assistant. I would “floof” hair, place trains of dresses in the right place and make sure the flowers looked just right. I always felt like I was so lucky to see the blissful beginning of a marriage, but I never looked past the pretty dresses and romantic vows. What really is marriage? What defines it? What makes it so important to people that the idea of changing or getting rid of the government’s acknowledgment of marriage is so contested?
Personally I believe that marriage is a union between two people that love, care, and are committed to leading a life together full of many ups and downs. Not anywhere in my definition of marriage is a concern for the rights of each spouse, being able to make legal health decisions for one another or anything concerning a governmental or political action. Marlene brings up a good point that the marriage license and a ceremony provide a way for couples to show their commitment to society. But does that license and ceremony show society any lawful or political statements of the marriage. I think not. A marriage is symbolic – a piece of paper, a wedding filled with white dresses and pressed tuxes, and spoken commitments between two people. A civil union would break away any religious or non political ties to a merge of two people and give a way to provide legal benefits to those in a committed union. The label of a marriage could then be given if a couple so desired – from a religious or symbolic stand point. Although I do agree with Marlene when she says that it will take time for society (United States) to accept change but it can and will happen.
Pick out the crap. Great theory but I do not see an argument as to how to accomplish this. I think we all agree marriages would be better if there were no more physical or emotional abuse or if there were “ a caring, collaborative, and committed bond, rooted in equal regard between spouses” (The Marriage Movement, 4). But how do you propose (no pun intended) we get marriage to be that idyllic relationship as imagined in The Marriage Movement. Part of the contractual marriage theory presented by Mary Lyndon Shanley suggests that if couples and or participants in the contract had to literally write down and sign a document stating what they were agreeing to, participants would be happier knowing what their duties and what the duties of their co-signers were. They would know that they were agreeing to “caring, collaborative, and committed bond, rooted in equal regard between spouses” or even that the men in the contract were required to take out the garbage every week. The contractual method of unions between people is a much more active and intentional way to get married than the traditional “sign-here” document that a man and woman must sign to get legally married now. What if the government took a more active role in preserving marriages? If marriages are a foundation of our society, why is there not more being done to protect them?
I would propose state-sponsored marriage counseling. Marriages can become “hopelessly bogged down with financial entanglements or children” (Card, 8) not providing spouses to reflect upon their relationship and put the work into it that it deserves. One could even expand this to family counseling, which should appease the conservative side. Again, we place so much emphasis on the unit of the family, why do we not do more to support this institution. You can think of it as a “check-up” for our relationships.
You also mention that the Coalition for Marriage (etc. ) assumes everyone’s goal is to get married and that children should not be born out of wedlock (The Marriage Movement ,7) but you say that you do not believe that this “marriage principle [is] correct”. What is your counterargument for this claim? Without marriage, can there be a family? Do you feel like more acknowledgment needs to be given to some more “non-traditional” family structures?
The role of marriages and families are undeniably interconnected as both yourself and Card address. Abolishing marriage would certainly have an impact on the family and children. How do you feel the needs of children in the current nuclear-family model being met? How would the well-being of a family and the children suffer as the result of the abolition of marriage?
Pick out the crap. Great theory but I do not see an argument as to how to accomplish this. I think we all agree marriages would be better if there were no more physical or emotional abuse or if there were “ a caring, collaborative, and committed bond, rooted in equal regard between spouses” (The Marriage Movement, 4). But how do you propose (no pun intended) we get marriage to be that idyllic relationship as imagined in The Marriage Movement. Part of the contractual marriage theory presented by Mary Lyndon Shanley suggests that if couples and or participants in the contract had to literally write down and sign a document stating what they were agreeing to, participants would be happier knowing what their duties and what the duties of their co-signers were. They would know that they were agreeing to “caring, collaborative, and committed bond, rooted in equal regard between spouses” or even that the men in the contract were required to take out the garbage every week. The contractual method of unions between people is a much more active and intentional way to get married than the traditional “sign-here” document that a man and woman must sign to get legally married now. What if the government took a more active role in preserving marriages? If marriages are a foundation of our society, why is there not more being done to protect them?
I would propose state-sponsored marriage counseling. Marriages can become “hopelessly bogged down with financial entanglements or children” (Card, 8 ) not providing spouses to reflect upon their relationship and put the work into it that it deserves. One could even expand this to family counseling, which should appease the conservative side. Again, we place so much emphasis on the unit of the family, why do we not do more to support this institution. You can think of it as a “check-up” for our relationships.
You also mention that the Coalition for Marriage (etc. ) assumes everyone’s goal is to get married and that children should not be born out of wedlock (The Marriage Movement ,7) but you say that you do not believe that this “marriage principle [is] correct”. What is your counterargument for this claim? Without marriage, can there be a family? Do you feel like more acknowledgment needs to be given to some more “non-traditional” family structures?
The role of marriages and families are undeniably interconnected as both yourself and Card address. Abolishing marriage would certainly have an impact on the family and children. How do you feel the needs of children in the current nuclear-family model being met? How would the well-being of a family and the children suffer as the result of the abolition of marriage?
Every girl has dreamt of her happily ever after; and usually that dream includes prince charming and a white dress, and eventually children. But does happily ever after have to include the institution of marriage? I don’t really think so: life is hard and full of unhappy things, by having an institution of marriage things don’t automatically get better.
I would agree with Marlene’s point that there can be a lot of crap in marriage, and that often times all the bright smiles and home cooked dinners we envision in our dreams aren’t there … and instead there are dirty dishes, crying babies and mountains of bills. In some marriages the dirty dishes aren’t the end of the crap. Domestic abuse, as horrible as it is, does happen. This is a psychological problem, and we cannot simply make people more accountable for their actions to make it go away. We live in a violent world, and it occurs both inside and outside of marriage.
As we know, society today is not composed of exclusively nuclear families. Families include adopted children, no children, single parent families, extended family members, friends, homosexual relationships … the list goes on. Since we’ve agreed that there is crap in marriage as well as outside of marriage, why not get rid of the institution and honor the idea that a family is a family (whoever is involved) and provide the benefits and rights that married heterosexual couples enjoy today.
Here, the problem with parenting is addressed. Children are taken care of by those that love them, and the responsibilities are not exclusively those of mom and dad. Most people see having children out of wedlock as a problem, and therefore having children without the institution of marriage as a problem; this could be avoided. I think that people are smart enough to decide to have children together only when they are truly ready, and when accidents do happen they will act accordingly.
The institution of marriage is limiting – to heterosexual couples, to the benefits provided exclusively to them, etc. Instead of hoping that these issues will work themselves out and that society will eventually accept changes to the institution of marriage, as Marlene suggested, I think that we could abolish marriage. This will allow benefits to all, no set in stone definition of family, etc…
Personally, I believe that the ‘crap’ everyone is referring to stems from the traditions that have overwhelmingly become our perceptions of what marriage is and ‘should be’. When my mother asked me if I wanted to try on her wedding dress when I was thirteen, (and no, I did not quite fit into it) she was inadvertently impressing a part of the common tradition and overall concept of marriage upon my conscious; views that I am sure were impressed upon her by my grandma, which were impressed on my grandma by my great-grandma, etc. Thus my impression of a wedding demanding that perfect white lacy (and hopefully not as poofy as mom’s) dress has been with me as I have grown up.
The question is now, given all of these traditions and stereotypes we are spoon-fed, is it possible for marriage to be an inclusive, non-discriminatory practice? And if it is possible, should it be sanctioned by the state? I believe Mary Lyndon Shanley does an excellent job at identifying the many proposals (haha I’m recycling the pun) of what “strategies” are out there. And I also believe that the Beyond Marriage Organization’s mission statement encompasses what Shanley also highlights as (and what I think is) a more politically correct solution; which is “to shape alternative policy solutions and to inform organizing strategies around marriage politics to include the broadest definitions of relations and family.”(http://beyondmarriage.org/about.html) Because let’s face it. Relationships in general are unpredictable. Would getting rid of marriage change anything about that fact? I don’t think that getting rid of the commitment of marriage would make the future any more predictable, (if anything, I think a lack of private, lifelong bonds between individuals would make the world even more unpredictable and chock-full of fear and jealousy when it comes to relations between humans.) But something I do know for sure is that if states don’t abolish marriage, they must abolish the injustices and impediments (‘crap’) that currently exist along with the institution of marriage. For example, as Shanley mentions, to promote “a formidable agenda—[which would include] reforms of the workplace, of welfare, and of care giving.” And in doing so, encouraging the public domain to break some of the traditional “man= breadwinner,” or “woman=garter wearer” traditions that come along with present day views of marriage to prohibit gender-conformities and instead encourages the providing of equal opportunities for all citizens.
Marlene concludes her essay by saying that “We could try to make a completely new way of defining relationships and throw out the term “marriage,” or there’s the option of taking out the harmful aspects and making something new. It might take more effort to change what we mean by marriage and how society views married couples, but I believe society (people in general, but mostly referring to people in the United States) will be more willing to accept changes.” I find this a bit difficult to accept. Marriage has been defined almost universally throughout history as the religious and economic binding of heterosexual couples together. By simply throwing out the term “marriage,” or “redefining it,” you are not eliminating the institution or concepts, only the word. People will continue to view their unions the same way they always have. If you remove marriage as a legal institution entirely then the utter meaning of people’s unions will change.
Also, while the concept of love is vitally important to the institution of marriage and should be considered when discussing long term relationships, it is not really something which effects whether or not marriage and civil union should be legal. People could still be in very loving, committed relationships even if the state eliminated marriage as a legal matter. A civil union would give all couples the same rights as married couples today have, so there would be no loss or change in financial terms. As Marlene stated, marriage is a social institution, why not leave it to be something symbolic and cultural, rather than governmental?
Another argument in support of replacing marriage with civil unions is that the debate over gay marriage could be put to rest. Legally, gay and lesbian couples would have just as much right to engage in a legal union as any heterosexual couples. This would not require redefining marriage at all, and each religious group could continue to define it for themselves. While I realize that some people would still have issues with gays and lesbians in general, there really is nothing they could say to prove that the homosexuals had no right to a civil union in this scenario.
As most girls of my demographic, I have grown up dreaming about my wedding. I know what I want my dress to look like. I’ve tried to pick out songs to dance to with my new husband. I’ve mentally tasted possible wedding cakes. But most of all, I have spent countless hours picturing, describing, and obsessing over the Perfect Guy to stand next to me wearing a tuxedo. But is this realistic? Perhaps it is all of this pomp and circumstance surrounding marriage that has created so many problems. And being the product of a terrible marriage and then a divorce, I may be more jaded than the lucky half of the population not in that position. And when I fight with my boyfriend of only five months, it can seem pretty outlandish that I will find someone I will want to spend the REST OF MY LIFE with. I mean, that’s a long time. Mary Lynden Shanley cites others’ work to promote “contractualism,” which is “a regime of individual contract would allow spouses to decide for themselves how to arrange their lives, and it would enable people of the same sex, or more than two persons, to marry” (Shanley 1-2). This could, in effect, destroy the typical institution of marriage. But would that be so bad? I mean, think of the word I just used: institution. Doesn’t that make you think of mental institution; a place that you’re placed in, generally against your will, without being allowed to leave? The phrase “getting hitched” implies that you’re literally stuck to another person. People have bachelor/ette parties to celebrate their “last night of freedom” before a wedding. Do these sound like happy, positive terms? Doesn’t marriage seem like an antiquated ritual we’re beginning to outgrow?
The Institute for American Values gave a bunch of statistics about families; one of them being that 68% of African American births in 2002 were out of wedlock (page 1). And at first, I was horrified at that statistic. And then I stopped to wonder why. These weren’t all teen pregnancies. In fact, it didn’t even say that all of these ended up being single-parent homes. These could have just been people who decided life was taking them in a different direction.
As previously stated, I am a child of divorced parents. And I would like to think I’ve turned out all right. I can imagine that raising us was more difficult for my mother to do alone. But she succeeded. So who are we to tell her she ‘needs’ a husband? (Haha, so, none of you know my mother. But that would NOT be taken well). Perhaps life would be a little bit easier for people if we stopped trying to fit them into categories, like married or unmarried.
Marriage has been held as a sacred bond of love between man and woman for centuries. It is recognized by the Church and the State as a signal of love and eternal commitment. With this definition in mind, the United States would be better off eliminating the idea of marriage completely. Lets pick apart this description of marriage in order to view its underlying purpose. A sacred bond of love between a man and woman: there has been much controversy about this very idea of marriage. Nowadays, single sex couples are not uncommon. After centuries of struggle, sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination have been vigorously fought to eliminate in our society. Yet today, in 2009, we still claim that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and woman.
Love can be seen in couples regardless of sex; therefore shouldn’t we as a nation that looks down upon discrimination allow same sex marriage? As of now, there is such heated debate as to allowing for same sex marriages that it is unlikely that universal acceptance will occur. Moving on, it is recognized by the Church. Our country is established as a nation under God, yet we do our best to keep the Church out of political affairs. Also, in a nation with such diverse religious backgrounds, why does God have to play a part in marriage to begin with? People of all religious backgrounds get married, yet each hold different definitions. It continues to state that marriage is a signal of love and eternal commitment. If this is the case, why is the divorce rate so high? Once someone is married, it can not necessarily easily get reversed, but it happens every day.
Based on the basic definition of marriage, it is clear to see that modern alterations of marriage have changed the basic belief of what was once a more strict union. Financial partnership is one of the main characteristics of a marriage. In Card’s article, she discussed the financial benefit, yet also the loss of privacy and personal possession. Some claim that the benefits of marriage help a couple to become more stable. This may be so, but so could a civil union. Why does it have to necessarily be marriage? With these ideas in mind, it seems that a more logical outcome would be to eliminate marriage completely and allow partnerships through civil unions. While many of the benefits still exist, it can be open to all couples without fear of religious persecution.