« Hereville Page 3 is Up

Home
GMail � Updated Once, so far »

The Dream of Marriage

Posted by bean | May 20th, 2004

Recently, Jennifer Morse wrote an interesting article discussing the central purpose of marriage. I agree with her premise about the purpose of marriage; I believe this purpose guides us to legalize same sex marriage.

First, what are marriage, sex and love? According to Ms. Morse, marriage is a lifelong mutual gift of self. Spouses entrust their bodies completely to each other during the sexual act. Love is a selfless decision to benefit the other spouse, and children in the family. Motivated by love, parents are willing to give up some of their personal needs for their children. Finally, this gift of self requires a life long commitment which cannot be set aside because one has fallen in love with another.

Ms. Morse notes that most heterosexual couples do not share this view. Or if they share it, they act as though they do not share it. That may be true. Whether heterosexuals share this view, or take another, we permit them to marry.

Ms. Morse assumes most gay activists, like most heterosexual couples, do not share this view of marriage. Because they do not, we should not permit same sex marriage.

I support legalized gay marriage. Like many supporters of same sex marriage, I agree with Ms. Morse view of lifelong commitment to marriage. I read of many gays who dream of making just this type of the lifelong loving commitment, wishing to love and support their partner and children completely. Such partnerships are legally banned.

I think we should permit all who dream of a life long commitment to marriage, whether gay or straight, the chance to fulfill their dreams.

| This entry was posted by bean and is filed under Same-Sex Marriage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

4 Responses to “The Dream of Marriage”

  1. Gabriel Rosenberg Writes:
    May 20th, 2004 at 7:21 pm

    Exactly. I wonder what her basis is for her claim, “Most gay activists do not share this view of marriage. This is not what they are arguing for, nor what they seem to want.” Gays can already make a contract with each other. They don’t have the support the rest of us receive to make certain sacrifices to care for our families. That they do it anyway should be an ispiration to others.

    Likewise gays can and already love each other and they don’t need the government to help with that. Although they can and already do make lifetime commitments to each other, here the government could and should help. Gays must make their commitments without legal force and without the support of law and much of society.

    In short they are asking for marriage exactly as Ms. Morse defines it and she says society can’t allow that because it would institutionalize some alternate view of marriage that she says heterosexual couples hold.

    This comment was written by Gabriel Rosenberg.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  2. lucia Writes:
    May 21st, 2004 at 5:44 am

    She doesn’t provide any basis for her claim. Moreove, it is clear that she knows most heterosexuals appear to not take her point of view, and there is really nothing to suggest that gays can’t or don’t share her view.

    I know some reasons why she may get the impression some gays don’t share her view. These include:
    1) Many blogs or articles are written as counter arguments. For example, earlier, I blogged on “Is Marriage About Procreation” and you blogged similarly. Why did we blog about this? Because Kmiec, Gallagher and numerous have blogged about how gays can’t get married because they can’t have kids and the potential for future procreation is what “marriage is fundamentally about”. We sinply responded. (Intersting tangents: Morse seems to agree with us, marriage isn’t fundamentallyabout procreation. )

    2) If you read Morse, it’s clear she recognizes that heterosexual marriage is often viewed as contractual or available for it’s financial benefits. Naturally, it is recognized this way in many courts. So, court cases do focus on the contractual aspects of marriage. This does not mean the only reason people like Goodrich want to marry is for the financial or contractual aspects. They want to marry for the same reasons that Morse wanted to marry her husband. But, their lawyer judged (apparently correctly) that the financial/contractual aspects– particularly those vis-a-vis caring for their children, would work in court.

    I have to say, all in all, I liked Morse’s article. I just don’t see the “magic leap” from what marriage is about to concluding that we can’t let gays get married. She provides absolutely no argument for that leap. She just bases her injunction SMM on the unexplained metaphor ” it’s the icing on the cake” of seeing marriage as a contract instead of a life long commitment. Why is it the icing on that cake? Why isn’t gays dream of lifelong commitment the icing on the cake of the real dream of marraige: that everyone should be able to find the lifeling partner and share the lifelong commitment?

    This comment was written by lucia.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  3. Gabriel Rosenberg Writes:
    May 21st, 2004 at 6:52 am

    I think Morse mischaracterizes the arguments made in Goodridge. Not once did GLAD assert (.pdf file) that marriage was merely a private contract. On the contrary. On explaining some of the reasons why the Goodridges wanted to marry:

    They seek to secure legally the obligations they have assumed morally, and to situate their family within the social recognition and legal rights that only marriage affords.

    They referred to Rob Compton helping to care for David’s Wilson ailing parents. That was not an act of “What’s in it for me?”, but rather one of “How can I help?” which Morse says is the sign of a good marriage. In fact GLAD referred repeatedly to marriage’s role within the greater community. It was being shut out of that community that was the biggest harm their clients faced from being excluded from marriage.

    Likewise the Court in Goodridge explictly rejected the view that Morse claims is required to allow same-sex marriage. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Court:

    In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. See DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 31 (2002) (”Marriage is not a mere contract between two parties but a legal status from which certain rights and obligations arise”); Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 409 (1898) (on marriage, the parties “assume[] new relations to each other and to the State”). See also French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544, 546 (1935). While only the parties can mutually assent to marriage, the terms of the marriage — who may marry and what obligations, benefits, and liabilities attach to civil marriage — are set by the Commonwealth. Conversely, while only the parties can agree to end the marriage (absent the death of one of them or a marriage void ab initio), the Commonwealth defines the exit terms. See G. L. c. 208.

    So I have no idea how Morse derives her ideas.

    This comment was written by Gabriel Rosenberg.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  4. lucia Writes:
    May 22nd, 2004 at 7:41 am

    You know what! I was reading Gooridge. Morse may be hearing the description of marriage she dislikes– and attributing it to the wrong group! In that court case, the State, who opposed SSM advanced the argument that marriage was not “about” the life long commitment of two partners forming a bond.

    So, strangely enough, in court, and possibly in real life, SSM advocates better agree with Morse reasons for marriage than do opponents. After all, if lifelong commitment and complete sharing on oneself is what marriage is about then, people do need to be permitted to choose a partner the can commit to, and share themselves with fully.

    This comment was written by lucia.
    Report this comment to the moderators

Leave a Reply

If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.

(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)

If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!