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.