It wasn’t long after President Obama’s statement earlier this month in support of same-sex marriage that the familiar debates on the issue began to flare again. And as usual, each side’s argument reflects a fundamentally different conception of marriage.
When proponents of same-sex marriage offer theoretical arguments in favor of their position, they often rely on a legalistic view: they frame marriage as fundamentally a package of legal rights, benefits and obligations — which include hospital visitation rights and immigration rights for the foreign spouses of citizens, among others. This position insists on a basic condition of justice — legal parity and equality for men and women who choose a long-term partner of the same sex.
Many opponents of same-sex marriage counter by arguing that this legalistic view omits the most important element of marriage — the social. In their view, marriage is fundamentally a traditional way of life that possesses a certain social meaning. This social meaning consists of the web of shared understandings and expectations that have built up over centuries. Of course, the law is needed to reinforce and support this social meaning; and more crucial to supporters of traditional marriage, certain changes to the law could undermine or even destroy it.
While the argument in favor of same-sex marriage is compelling, its opponents have a point: while the legalistic view captures certain aspects of marriage, it is also limited. It is the second view, the one that encompasses both legal and social dimensions, that is the more plausible, and most accurately reflects our common reality. Marriage is indeed fundamentally a traditional way of life imbued with social meaning, held in place by law.
Ironically, however, this view does not support the ban on same-sex marriage. On the contrary, it supports the liberal conclusion that it is seriously unjust to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The “social meaning” of marriage — as I use the term here — consists of the understandings and expectations regarding marriage that almost all members of society share. Marriage is above all a familiar institution: almost all members of society — even young children — have heard of it and have some notion of what it involves.
So what exactly is this meaning? Since it consists of generally shared understandings and expectations, it can not include any controversial doctrines. It must consist in more mundane and less controversial assumptions about what married life is normally like. These assumptions seem to include the following: normally, marriage involves sexual intimacy; it involves the couple’s cooperation in dealing with the domestic and economic necessities of life; and it is entered into with a mutual long-term commitment to sustaining the relationship.
Which elements of this social meaning are most important? To answer this question, we need to see what benefits are created by institutions that possess a social meaning of this kind. I propose that the crucial benefit is roughly this: by marrying, a couple can give a signal to their community that they wish their relationship to be viewed in the light of these generally shared assumptions about what married life is like. The rest of the community is not obligated to interpret the couple’s relationship in the light of these assumptions; but because marriage is such a familiar and generally understood institution, virtually the whole community will be able to understand the signal that the couple is sending.
In this way, marriage’s social meaning makes it possible for couples to communicate information about their relationships in a particularly effective way. This is important because people do not only care about tangible benefits (such as money or health care or the like); they care about intangible benefits as well. In particular, people care deeply about how they are regarded by others — which inevitably depends on the information about them that is shared in their community.
Thus, the most important elements of marriage’s social meaning are the assumptions that married life normally involves sexual intimacy, domestic and economic cooperation, and a mutual commitment to sustaining the relationship.
It seems clear that, while the theoretical arguments for same-sex marriage often focus on legal claims, the actual conception of many same-sex couples is broader and includes this social meaning. This broader conception lies behind the emotional appeals that same-sex marriage proponents have so often made, but there is also a more theoretical case to be made as well. Many same-sex couples have the very same interest in having access to an institution that has this social meaning as opposite-sex couples have, affording them the intangible benefit of being able to signal to their community that they wish their relationship to be interpreted in the light of these generally shared assumptions.
Admittedly, allowing same-sex couples to marry will change the social meaning of marriage; and for marriage to bring these intangible benefits, it needs to have a relatively stable and well-understood social meaning.
Marriage used to be generally understood as an unequal partnership, with the wife being subordinated to her husband, whereas now — at least in law and in most of mainstream culture — marriage is viewed as a partnership of equals. In general, the social meaning of marriage must change whenever such changes are necessary to avoid injustice; so this social meaning must now be changed so that it no longer excludes the participation of same-sex couples.