Is Same Sex Marriage A Threat To The Institution Of Marriage?

Photo by Michelle Nichols

The following was originally written on May 17, 2009:

In reaction to the struggle on the part of the gay community to legalize same sex marriage, many people have said that this would weaken or degrade the institution of marriage. For the longest time I have been unable to understand why so many people object to gay marriage, or same sex marriage as it is often called. I literally could not understand why anyone would be worried about what two consenting adults did with their lives or how they characterized their relationship. I did not understand the very emotional responses some people had to the homosexual community’s struggle to gain for themselves the legal and financial benefits for couples in committed relationships that have been so long enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Then I realized that these people who objected to same sex marriage weren’t actually worried that existing heterosexual marriages would be damaged by gay marriage. It wasn’t the actual marriages that were in danger. It was the definition of the purpose of marriage that they felt would be changed by the advent of same sex marriage. This shift in the general understanding of the very reason for marriage is what terrifies these people so much.

For most people in modern western society, like myself, the purpose of marriage is the fulfillment of romantic love. Many in today’s world have come to view the purpose of marriage as an opportunity for two people who love each other to establish a (hopefully) lifelong relationship that fulfills their emotional and sexual needs, helps to provide financial security, and establishes legal rights for either spouse in the event of the incapacitation or death of the other spouse. For many there is also the desire to have their union recognized by society at large. And, for those who choose to have and raise children, marriage also offers the opportunity to do so with the help of a committed partner. If one sees the purpose of marriage in this manner, same sex marriage does nothing to weaken the institution of marriage whatsoever. In fact, as many same sex couples who desire marriage do so for these very reasons, same sex marriage would serve to further validate this definition of the purpose of marriage.

However, this notion of marriage for the sake of romance has not always been the case and is not universally held even in the United States. There is another definition of the purpose of marriage that predates the romantic view by thousands of years. That being that the purpose of marriage is primarily to successfully procreate and to ensure that property inheritance is tightly controlled by blood. This is all too often tied in with religious views indicating that this is how God ordained the institution of marriage, and deviating from this definition is a sinful thing to do.

For those who believe that all of the benefits of marriage are designed to help bring children into the world, raise them to adulthood, and be able to ensure that a man’s property is inherited only by his children, same sex marriage is, at the very least, illogical. At the worst, it is considered an abomination that serves to diminish the legitimacy of the very reason for getting married. Pope John Paul II, when referring to same-sex marriage, is quoted as saying, "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man." For many with this point of view the question becomes, “Why bother getting married if it is not about babies and property?”

The idea that the purpose of marriage is the fulfillment of romantic love is a relatively new one. Many cite the troubadours of 12th century France with the invention of what was called Courtly Love. In this early form, romantic love was not sexual because it rarely occurred between people who were married to one another. Marriages were arranged by the families involved to promote alliances which gave monetary or political advantages to both sides. There was no notion that the couple needed to have any affection for each other prior to the wedding – or even after it. It was a business arrangement that had the added benefit of promoting procreation and the religious ideology of the time and place. Courtly love, on the other hand, was an attachment between a man and a woman which was formed for personal gratification alone, and not for reasons of property, politics, or procreation.

It wasn’t until the institution of marriage was no longer the exclusive purview of the church that the religious mandate for marriage began to fade in Western culture. Although the Roman Catholic Church fought hard against it, the advent of the Protestant Reformation hustled in an era when marriage started to become considered less of a sacrament and more a civil contract. The Council of Trent declared in 1545 that a marriage between Roman Catholic persons would only be legitimate if a priest officiated the wedding and there were at least two witnesses. However, at the same time in regions of Europe which were affected by the Protestant Reformation, marriage required only the mutual consent of each spouse to be legitimate.

In the 17th century Protestant European countries began to see a shift from church to the state as the authority over matrimony. John Calvin (i.e. Calvinism) and his colleagues enacted the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva. This ordinance required “The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage.” Later the Marriage Act of 1836 in England and Wales stated that civil marriages were to be recognized as a legal and binding without the involvement of the church. Civil marriages were recognized in Germany in 1875. Here the law stated that when both parties declare their will to marry in front of an official clerk of the civil administration, this constituted a legally recognized, valid, and effective marriage. By the 19th century, therefore, the religious aspect or character of marriage had begun to wane significantly.

Meanwhile the case for romantic love grew stronger. William M. Reddy, an instructor at Duke University, is quoted as saying, “During the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, it was thought that, when people were freed to pursue their desires without hindrance or moral condemnation, romantic love would fade out. The illusions and idealizations of love would no longer be needed to assuage feelings of guilt or selfishness. But the opposite occurred. Since the 1980s, romantic love has regained its old salience. It may be more important now than it ever was.”

Here in the 21st century, the desire for romantic love is front and center where most marriages are concerned. Modern western society has come to value a loving marriage so highly that a marriage contracted for any reason other than love seems, well, un-American. For most of those living in the United States, ending a loveless marriage is now seen as almost more noble and courageous than sticking it out. It is seen as wrong and unnatural to remain married to someone whom you no longer love. And so divorce rates have continued to climb over the last fifty to seventy-five years. People are now practicing so called serial monogamy by marrying and divorcing and then marrying again. This is all in the quest for everlasting romantic love.

It seems clear to me that the greatest threat to the institution of marriage in western society is not same sex marriage. It is, instead, our belief that we have the unalienable right to marry for love alone and to remain married only where there is still love. This is now more important than property inheritance, monetary wealth, or even raising children. For those who are anxious and worried that the institution of marriage is under threat, I say that you can stop worrying. The horse is already out of the barn. Heck, the barn is on fire and the earth has opened up and is proceeding to swallow it whole. But if you are looking for someone to blame for the demise of old fashioned marital values, you can forget about that old demon “same sex marriage.” It’s this world full of romantic fools who are guilty of the offense.

Works Cited

Reddy, William M. "The History of Romantic Love." Duke University. 2008. Duke University. 20 May 2009 http://www.duke.edu/~wmr/romantic%20love.htm.

"Marriage." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2009. Wikipedia. Web.15 May 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Definitions.

Witte, John Jr. From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1997. Print.

Pullella, Philip. "Gay marriage, abortion new forms of evil: Pope." The Toronto Star 23 Feb 2005: A14. Print.

Brownback, Senator Sam. "Defining Marriage Down." National Review Online 09 Jul 2004 Web.15 May 2009. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/brownback200407090921.asp.

Robinson, B. A. "SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNIONS Why do many gays and lesbians seek marriages and unions." ReligiousTolerance.Org. 05 Mar 2003. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 20 May 2009 http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marwhy.htm.

Simpson, David L. "Chivalry and Courtly Love." The School for New Learning, DePaul University. 1998. DePaul University. 15 May 2009 http://condor.depaul.edu/~dsimpson/tlove/courtlylove.html.

Schwartz, Dr. Debora B. "Backgrounds to Romance: "Courtly Love"." Medieval Literature. March 2001. California Polytechnic State University. 15 May 2009 http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513/courtly/courtly.htm.

Photo found at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AI43M20091119