Note: this is a modified version of my initial reflection concerning Professor Stephen J Heaney's article fro the Public Discourse. The original piece may be found--in an unedited form--on my blog Equus Nom Veritas. Professor Stephen J Heaney has
written an article for the Public Discourse in which he he outlines the characteristics of marriage, which I wish to discuss briefly. He states that
|
Quote:
Marriage is often characterized today as follows: 1) two people 2) who love each other 3) want to perform sexual acts together, so 4) they consent to combine their lives sexually, materially, economically 5) with the endorsement of the community. Since same-sex couples can meet the first four criteria, how can society refuse the fifth?
|
He then goes on to argue that gay marriage may meet the first four criteria, but that society has a vested interest in its not meeting the 5th. The problem I see with this summary is that these characteristics don't give a complete explanation of what a marriage is, even in a strictly non-religious sense. He argues that marriage was not invented by religions, only blessed by it--which is true enough--and that it has existed since the beginning of human history, always with the caveat that a marriage involved one man an one woman (note that a polygamous marriage may be more correctly thought of as being several marriages involving the same man).
The community has always had a vested interest in such relationships, he argues. Fair enough, but this interest is largely because marriage is procreative. This, I think, is what is missing from his initial analysis (although it is the focus of the remaining article). From a purely secular standpoint--and only from such a standpoint--his five characteristics are valid, but only when that sixth characteristic is included. A seventh characteristic ought to be included as well, which is commitment between the spouses.
Here is an example. A couple who are "in love" may decide to cohabitate, fornicate, start a business together in which they invest all of their funds, and to do all of this with some approval from the community (e.g. recognition of mutual ownership of the business, joint signatures on the lease, a combined bank account). They have, therefore, met all of the conditions laid out by Heaney for a marriage. However, this arrangement is not a marriage merely by having met these conditions. For one thing, there is no commitment of the two people to each other, at least not beyond the expiration of their lease agreement or of the collapse of their business. There is, moreover, no intention to procreate--indeed, the couple is very likely going to be trying not to procreate--so the community's interest in their sexual activity is only tangential (e.g. Will either of these people become a vector for an STI spreading in the community? Will they commit an abortion to prevent procreation? Will a child result, which may later be of interest to the community?)*.
That there are some marriages which lack either commitment (see the high divorce rate) and that some couples who do marry decide not to procreate show that the institution is already wounded. This is, however, not a reason to euthanize the institution (that is, to redefine it until it becomes meaningless) so much as to attempt to heal it, as Professor Heaney and others have noted. The need for the community's blessing in a marriage only arises because of these two elements which are inherent to it: commitment and procreation. The blessing for the community is needed for the former, because the community's support is integral to the success of the marriage. The couple will inevitably run into times when they need to draw on the strength of others to help them through some crisis, or even simply to lend support (emotional, financial, or even a "helping hand") in a time of need. In blessing the couple, the community accepts a responsibility to do what it can to aide their marriage.
Similarly, the community blesses the couple because any children born of this couple will one day also become members of that community: hence, the community has a vested interest in acts which are procreative. It should be noted here that a large part of why a marriage must involve a lifelong commitment (especially from a purely secular stance) is because such a commitment is necessary to best raise the children and in turn lend them aid when they raise their own children, a point which I will argue no further here. In any case, because new members are added to the community, the community has an interest in relationships which may be procreative.
For a couple which is homosexual, procreative acts are not possible, hence the community has no vested interest in the relationship between the couple. Since procreation is impossible, there is also little need for commitment, at least not in a secular sense. In the case of a heterosexual couple, however, there is an inherent possibility of procreation: which lends itself to a need for commitment, on the one hand, but to a need for the community's blessing and support, on the other.
_____
*Recall that I am stating this from a secular standpoint. The community may also take interest in the relationship--especially if public--if it has some effect on public morality. However, since Professor Heaney focuses his article on procreation and not morality, I will mostly do the same.
Tags: Marriage Morality
