Musings on the Future of Marriage

[morgan_dhu]

So, as just about everyone must know by now, a bill redefining marriage as a union between two people to the exclusion of all others passed in the Canadian House of Commons last night, and barring some totally unforeseen circumstance, will be signed into law within the next week or so. So, we've won the right for everyone to marry who they want to, and that's the end of it... or is it?

As I said in a previous rant, the general belief of many opponents of this legislation is that "marriage is so special, you know, and if queers get their deviant and debauched claws of doom on it, all marriage between heterosexuals will immediately collapse into the same primordial slime the rest of us are condemned to live our lives in."

Throughout this long fight for the recognition of relationships between two men or two women, most people have been doing their best to assure straight, non-secular folks that nothing's really going to change. And in one very real sense, it won't. No matter what kind of relationship *I* have, there's no reason why it should affect *your* relationship. My being queer isn't going to make someone else queer if they aren't already - whether they've become aware of it or not. Having a queer married couple living next door is not going to send anyone else to the divorce court, unless that relationship was already doomed.

To quote myself again, I said "I still have not been able to find one opponent of same-sex marriage who can make an effective argument, without resorting to religion, about how the marriage of two men or two women is going to irretrievably damage existing marriages between a man and a woman, or the concept of marriage, or society, or the fate of the universe." And I do believe that's true - same-sex marriage isn't going to damage marriage, or society, and it certainly has nothing to do with the fate of the universe.

But I do think it is part of a long slow change in the idea of what family is, and how families function in society. And that what has happened is a big step forward in that process of change. And that where we are headed is going to upset some people deeply.

What is happening, and what this legislation is part of, is the secularisation of liminal events in human life and the personalisation of ritual. We are moving away from a kind of social structure that has existed for most of the history of our kind, a social structure in which a common religion marked all the important changes in a person's social status - birth, coming of age, marriage, becoming a parent, death. What that religion was, and what events were seen as liminal, depended on what the particular culture was, but until very recently in terms of human history, that's just how it was. And the political organisation of that culture - be it clan, tribe, state, whatever - reflected the dictates of religion with respect to the definitions of all of these statuses.

But all that is breaking down - has been, very slowly, for three or four hundred years, actually - and at an increasing pace. We are moving toward a social structure where the state records and acknowledges personal, not religious, definitions of these liminal events, and where religious recognition becomes an individual and optional element in these events - often a very important element, but not the sufficient and necessary element.

With the passage of the Civil Marriages Act, we now have in Canada a situation where religious marriage and civil marriage have distinctly different definitions. It's been that way for a while, actually - the Catholic Church does not recognise civil marriages where one person has been previously married but whose marriage has not been properly dissolved under canon law. But it's now clear to everyone - civil marriage is defined in secular terms, and religious marriage is defined according to religious beliefs.

If the definition of civil marriage is whatever the state agrees to record and acknowledge, without consideration of religious beliefs, then that definition can change again as ideas of what forms a family can take change and evolve. The concept of marriage, at its heart, is about commitment and caring - which may extend to making commitments to and caring for children within that marriage. We've already decided that the race, ethnicity, religion or gender of the adults in a marriage is irrelevant to its legitimacy. The next change to the secular definition, I think, will be the number of adults in a marriage.

And it's still not going to affect anybody else's marriage if I get myself hitched to a dozen people of all genders and colours and cultures. Nor is it going to change the essence of marriage, or bring about the collapse of society or the end of the world. And not all of the ranting of narrow-minded people who can't understand that nurturing love in all its forms can only add to the peace, justice and joy in the world can make it otherwise.

Comments

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

I still have not been able to find one opponent of same-sex marriage who can make an effective argument, without resorting to religion, about how the marriage of two men or two women is going to irretrievably damage existing marriages between a man and a woman, or the concept of marriage...

This remains true... but only because you do not define yourself as an opponent of same-sex marriage. Otherwise, you've done a pretty good job of it.

I completely agree with your analysis. This is part of a secularisation process that has been going on for centuries now.

However, I think you miss a key point. The state has always done more than merely "record and acknowledge" relationships. It has actively promoted marriage in a number of ways, through taxation, immigration, social security and other powers of the state. So this is adding to is the list of acceptable relationships. More could be added still, by removing the restrictions on numbers, permissible relationships between them, and ages.

But I cannot accept your contention that "peace, justice and joy" are best served by the deliberate division of society into haves and have-nots.

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

You're certainly right about the promotion of marriage - though in some ways I think that government does it - or at least started to do it - because of the push from religion, especially in Europe under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, to privilege their particular definition of marriage.

I don't understand how widening of the definition of marriage, to include same-sex couples, or polygamous relationships between consenting adults, or even between adult couples that would currently be considered consanguineous, represents a division into haves and have-nots. (Other than the fact that some people do not ever seem to find mutually committed partners, and that is something that neither religion nor the state can do something about without violating human rights.)

I *think* you may be referring to the fact that people who do not have partners (I'm using this phrasing because in Canada common-law partners are entitled to most of the same state-administered benefits as married partners), are often disadvantaged by the way the governments have promoted and privileged the married state - and if I'm right in my interpretation, you're assuming that I agree that only people with partners should have some of the rights and privileges that, as you pointed out, I chose not to talk about in this particular set of musings.

I do think that when several people form an economic unit in which income and property are shared, and one or more dependent persons are supported by others, then some recognition of this should be made in taxation, social support programs, and other financial matters administered by the state. However, I don't think that only people with partners should be permitted, for example, to register joint households and have the kind of taxation benefits that result from that status.

I haven't got a list of every special right or privilege that married or common-law partners have, but for most of the ones I can think of, I see no reason why persons who don't have partners should not have some equivalent benefit where such a benefit can be identified as being, in fact, equivalent. The major distinction would be that if you are married, you have de facto indicated who you are choosing to be the co-recipient(s) or beneficiary(ies) of those rights and privileges, and for an unpartnered person, there has to be some other mechanism for saying "I want to share my pension credits with my best buddy from high school," or "I'm putting my niece through college, give me a tax break," or whatever.

If you are thinking about something else, please clarify, because if I've overlooked something that would in fact create a material have/have-not situation, then I do need to re-examine my thinking.

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

Consanguineous. There's a word I've been looking for. (I thought it was at my sister's place.)

If you are married, you have not chosen your de facto co-recipient - you have chosen your de jure one, surely.

You were correct in inferring that I was referring to the fact that people who do not have partners are often disadvantaged.

In this country it is also true that common-law partners may receive many of the benefits of married ones - eventually. The waiting times are usually longer. It's also true that they must share some of the drawbacks - usually sooner. The law defines a de facto relationship as "a relationship between two adult persons who live together as a couple and who are not married to one another or related by family". (For this reason I know people who make their girlfriends pay rent.)

You may recall that a few years back I supported a lawsuit to overturn legislation restricting fertility treatment to women in infertile relationships. (Ironically, the first baby to result was born to a married couple - the husband was HIV positive but not infertile.)

I do like your ideas though. I don't suppose there's any chance of getting you elected?

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

De facto, de jure... I blame the confusion on the fact that my brain was still trying to recover from a week of killing temperatures and continuous smog alerts. (Right now, I'd almost rather be in Australia [or anywhere where it's not summer] - though not in the middle of any floods.)

Restrictions on fertility treatments such as the one you mention are completely ridiculous - I'm glad the law was changed.

In Canada, we have our own ridiculous situation at the moment. While single people can receive fertility treatments - though I must admit, I don't know how long that's been true - it is illegal to buy or sell human reproductive cells. That means that there's a real shortage of anonymous donors for both sperm and ova, because who wants to go through the hassle (sperm dononrs have to be tested for all sorts of communicable diseases, and then get tested again after six months before their donation can be used, and of course, what ova donors go through is incredibly invasive and painful) unless you're doing it do a specific person you care about. The answer is, not many people.