During the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage, it’s common to hear conservatives speak of the “definition of marriage,” but what exactly do we mean by the “definition” of marriage. Are we talking about the purpose of marriage, its form, or both? Most Americans (including conservatives) seem to be referring to marriage’s form: one man and one woman (for life). I submit to you that this is the wrong place to begin the debate. If we allow the discussion to center on marriage’s form, we are sure to lose.
I am persuaded that one of the main reasons we are facing the social and moral predicament we are is because we have reduced the “definition of marriage” to its form, losing sight of its purpose. Without understanding the particular purpose of civil marriage in society, its traditional form is not necessary. When we understand the purpose of civil marriage, however, the traditional form logically follows.
What is the purpose of marriage? In his dissenting comments to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s majority ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003), Justice Cordy made some valuable remarks in this regard:
Paramount among its many important functions, the institution of marriage has systematically provided for the regulation of heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized. … The institution of marriage provides the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other. The partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations, with children the probable result and paternity presumed. … The marital family is also the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children. Children learn about the world and their place in it primarily from those who raise them, and those children eventually grow up to exert some influence, great or small, positive or negative, on society. The institution of marriage encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow, thereby encouraging a stable venue for the education and socialization of children.
…
Civil marriage is the product of society’s critical need to manage procreation as the inevitable consequence of intercourse between members of the opposite sex. Procreation has always been at the root of marriage and the reasons for its existence as a social institution. Its structure, one man and one woman committed for life, reflects society’s judgment as how optimally to manage procreation and the resultant child rearing. … Attempting to divorce procreation from marriage, transforms the form of the structure into its purpose. In doing so, … history [is turned ]on its head.[1]
Why should the State get involved in people’s private relationships? There is only one reason, and Justice Cordy made it clear: they have a vested interest in the creation and nurturing of the next generation. Apart from their concern to perpetuate society (procreation) there is no reason for the government to sanction and regulate any private relationship. As valuable as other non-marital relationships may be (e.g. friendships), the State does not offer them the same social and financial support because they do not function in the same way. All of this is beginning to change, however. Now the State wants to offer homosexual relationships the same support they have traditionally offered heterosexual relationships.
The push to redefine the form of marriage is due to a shift in our culture’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. Over the last 40 years, marriage has progressively come to be viewed as the public commitment of two individuals in love, rather than about children (while love and commitment may be a valid motivating factor for marriage, it is not the purpose of marriage). Once children are no longer the central purpose of marriage, on what basis could we exclude same-sex partners from participating in it? After all, they love each other too!
As we have seen in Scandinavia, and are beginning to see in Europe at large, the social/legal recognition of same-sex partnerships occurs only in societies in which marriage has undergone a cultural redefinition to divorce it from parenthood (recognized by the decline of marriage and the rise of cohabiters, producing high rates of children born out-of-wedlock). Once marriage and parenthood are no longer tied at the hip, there is no logical reason to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into the institution of marriage. If marriage is about love and commitment rather than children, then same-sex couples qualify. If marriage is about parenthood, however, they need not apply. As Stanley Kurtz observed in his monumental article “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia:”
If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn’t same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.
If we hope to save the traditional form of marriage, we must do so by bringing cultural awareness back to the purpose of marriage. Our argument for traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage must begin with marriage’s purpose, not its participants. Once we re-establish its purpose, its participants will be clearly evident. If we fail to do so, I am persuaded that the legalization of same-sex marriage will be inevitable throughout this country.
[1]Available from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf.
Thinking to Believe 
September 4, 2009 at 8:18 am
good article Jason! Makes me think of this big propoganda (lie) that they try to shove down our throats about “Population control”. And allowing same-sex marriages would be a good way to control the growing population. From what i understand, I haven’t seen anything where the world has ever been “over populated” at any point in the world’s history. However, they want to play God and use this as an excuse to smooth over thier agenda.
However the point about the purpose of marriage was very good. But one must consider if you don’t know the purpose of your existance, then you won’t know the purpose of marriage. Many of these people claim to not believe in a creator, so anything of moral value is trivial at best. This is the only they can justify thier actions and feel that they are not held accountable to a power greater than they….
LikeLike
September 4, 2009 at 11:40 am
That population control argument for same-sex marriage is one of the lamest I have ever heard. Gay people don’t need to get married to not have children! Let me say that again: Gay people don’t need to get married to not have children!
As for the claim itself, every generation needs a doomsday scare. Today it is global warming. Back in the 70s and 80s it was overpopulation. While population is a concern in some parts of the world, in the Western world the problem we are facing is underpopulation!
Yes, if there is no transcendent reality, then there can be no objective purpose. And if there is no objective purpose, ultimately it doesn’t matter what we do or who/what we marry. It’s all good, because nothing is truly good or bad.
Jason
LikeLike
September 7, 2009 at 10:08 am
Jason,
Historically, wouldn’t two people living together as a family be a “marriage”? With gays living in such arrangements, shouldn’t they be viewed as “married”?
Gay couples are living together as couples (sometimes adopting children), buying things jointly. When a partner gets sick, they want their partner to be able to visit them in the hospital. When they die, they want their possessions to go first to their surviving partner. When they break up, they need to separate the things purchased jointly.
In short, gay couples living in presumptively lifelong unions are living in relationships that look like heterosexual marriages, and needs the same legal and societal treatment as marriage. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
Yes, Cordy says that marriage exists as a social institution because of procreation. But the Bible says that marriage was created because a man shouldn’t be alone and should have a partner. (Gen 2:18)
Arthur
LikeLike
September 8, 2009 at 5:37 am
Arthur, the bible CLEARLY defines marriage as being between One man and One woman. In that the man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE. God gave Adam a help meet who was a woman, not a man. If God found it fit to create a man for Adam, He would have done so. But He did not. Therefore, anything that contradicts the biblical definition of marriage is absolutely wrong. And lets forget about the State recognizing it, God certainly does not recognize a “union” between the same sex.
LikeLike
September 8, 2009 at 11:17 am
Arthur,
Where do you get the idea that marriage is fundamentally about living together? Why think living together constitutes a marriage? I live with my children, but I am not married to them. And could there not be married couples who do not live together (or don’t live together for long periods of time, such as John and Abigail Adams), and yet are married?
Marriage is a social institution. As such, marriage is not something two people can just decide for themselves. They can live together and play house if they want, but to be married is to have society legally recognize and approve of your relationship.
Roommates often look like heterosexual relationships too. My roommates and I were good friends. We did everything together, we went grocery shopping together, and we shared expenses. Does that mean we were married? You might say, “But your relationship was not sexual.” To which I would respond, “What does that have to do with anything?” There are some people who get married who can’t have sex, and others who are married who (for whatever reason) don’t have sex. Does that mean they aren’t married? My point is that marriage is about a lot more than living together.
There is a natural purpose to marriage that all societies have recognized, and same-sex partners do not fulfill that purpose.
Jason
LikeLike
September 8, 2009 at 7:49 pm
truthofgod,
I agree that gay marriage isn’t found in the Bible. But the OP is about the purpose of marriage rather than its form. I’m pointing out that, Biblically speaking, the purpose of marriage is companionship and help. This is clearly stated by God Himself in Genesis 2:18, when God stated his purpose in creating Eve for Adam. Yes, Adam and Eve could procreate, which they were encouraged to do. But the purpose of the union was not procreation.
Arthur
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 6:26 pm
If the purpose of the government being involved in marriage issues only because of procreation/future generations then why is the state providing rights to heterosexual married couples who are childless? If the issue is only about the kids, then there should be no difference between a childless married couple and two single people sharing a home. But that is not the way it works, so then homosexual couples should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples.
LikeLike
February 25, 2010 at 1:00 pm
ponderingwanderer,
The claim is not that the government only sanctions relationships that will result in children (which would be impossible for them to determine at the licensing stage). The claim is that the only reason governments involve themselves in regulating personal relationships at all is because they have a vested interest in those relationships: children. Opposite sex couples—as a group—create the next generation of society, and are responsible for rearing children to prepare them to be responsible citizens who can advance the civilization. If it was not for the fact that opposite sex couples have the capability of delivering on this governments interest, governments would not involve themselves in regulating those relationships (just like they don’t bother regulating roommate relationships and friendships). Because opposite sex couples, and opposite sex couples alone have the biological possibility of delivering on the government’s interest, however, the government regulates the relationships of those in that group.
Contrast this to same-sex relationships. What vested interest does the government have in same-sex relationships as a group? How do those relationships, as relationships, benefit the government/society? Same-sex couples—as a group—cannot produce children. If children are the only reason governments have involved themselves in regulating marriage, and opposite-sex couples do not produce children, why should the government involve itself in regulating those relationships? How do they differ from friends and roommates? Yes, they are having sex, but what concern is that of the government’s, that they need to intrude into those relationships to regulate them?
Two people can share a home if they want to, gay or straight. The government, however, doesn’t need to involve itself and authorize anyone’s living arrangements. The government stands to gain no benefit from doing so. Regulating same-sex relationships is not for the public good like regulating opposite-sex relationships is.
Let me finish by answering your challenge even more directly. I addressed this in the objections section of an article I wrote here:
“Just because some people cannot, or choose not to use the marriage relationship for the purpose that culture privileged it does not mean that heterosexual couples should not be privileged. This is the exception, but society is protecting the relationship that brings about the rule. …
“The fact that a couple cannot have children does not change the fact that they have the biological equipment to do so. ‘The natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule; they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.’
“Moreover, any biological incapability of a couple is typically not discovered until after the marriage. The government would be unaware of it as well, then, when issuing the marriage license. What the government does know is that heterosexual couples have the potential to create the next generation of society, and thus bless their union together for that end.”
Jason
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 12:08 pm
[…] The definition of the definition of marriage […]
LikeLike