What’s Love Got to Do With It?

by on

Okay-so I promise that this is my last column for a while on the definition of marriage. Four out of five in a row is enough.

But I've learned a lot from writing these, especially because of comments from various marriage-equality opponents. Three points stick out.

First, the definitional argument is deeply important to them. Perhaps this shouldn't surprise anyone. But it does surprise me that even those who explicitly acknowledge that marriage is an evolving institution place great weight on what marriage has been, as if that would settle the question once and for all of what marriage can or should be. It doesn't.

Second, marriage does not lend itself to a pithy definition. Whatever marriage is, its definition won't be like, "A triangle is a three-sided plane figure."

That's because marriage is both evolving and multifaceted. Marriage is, among other things, a social institution, a personal commitment, a religious sacrament, and a legal status. It looks different from the spouses' perspective than it does from the outside; it looks different respectively to anthropologists, philosophers, theologians, lawyers, and so on.

Each of these perspectives can tell us something about what marriage is; none of them is complete or final. Any definition they provide, however useful, will be partial.

Third, those who emphasize the definitional argument, when they're not simply begging the question against marriage-equality advocates, often invoke a false dichotomy: Either marriage is a social institution for binding parents (and especially fathers) to their biological offspring, or else it is an adult expression of love-an expression that these opponents variously dismiss as selfish, empty, or "fluttery".

Contrast this with the actual view of most marriage-equality advocates, which is that marriage is both of these things, and then some.

Yes, marriage is the cross-cultural institution that has provided for the needs of children. But how? What makes marriage so suited to this purpose?

I'll hazard a guess: it does so because it is also an abiding commitment between the spouses. It binds them together "for keeps," thus creating a stable environment for any children who arrive.

So the view that marriage consists in abiding love between adults is not merely COMPATIBLE with the view that marriage serves children's welfare; the former actually helps explain the latter.

There's nothing "fluttery" about this. The abiding love of marriage is not just a vague feeling or promise-it's an ongoing activity. I'm reminded of the words of St. Augustine, "Dilige, et quod vis fac": "Love, and do what you want." Augustine knew that true love is challenging; it takes work.

After one of my recent columns, a prominent same-sex marriage opponent wrote:

"I invite you to look back at the entire world history of anthropological thought on the topic of what is marriage, and point out to me even ONE example of ONE scholar who has, based on ethnographic data, said, actually or in effect, since recorded history began, that marriage in human groups is properly defined as the promise of abiding love. If you can identify even one reputable scholar in the history of the world who has made such a statement or implied such a thing, I will grovel before you in abject intellectual humility and gladly buy you the lunch of your choice…"

Well, I couldn't find an anthropologist who said that. Actually, I didn't bother looking. Anthropologists define marriage by its cultural function, and "abiding love" isn't really their angle. But I did find this:

"The inner and essential raison d'etre of marriage is not simply eventual transformation into a family but above all the creation of a lasting personal union between a man and a woman based on love."

What radical, "fluttery" activist wrote these words?

Actually, it was Pope John Paul II.

Of course the late pope defines marriage as "between a man and a woman." No shock there. But the interesting thing is that he writes that marriage is "above all…a lasting personal union…based on love."

Perhaps he was distracted when he wrote this. Perhaps the Radical Gay Agenda had begun to infiltrate the Vatican.

Or perhaps the pope realized what most people know. Marriage is fundamentally a lasting personal union based on love-which is not to say that it is ONLY that.

As I said above-and it bears repeating-any neat definition of marriage will be partial and imperfect. There are counterexamples to this characterization, ways in which it is both too broad and too narrow.

But "marriage" is not definable in the way "triangle" or "bachelor" is.

And when marriage-equality opponents feel compelled to repudiate characterizations of marriage that The Gay Moralist, the previous pope, and most married couples all find obvious, you know they're in trouble.

7 Comments for “What’s Love Got to Do With It?”

  1. posted by Regan DuCasse on

    For all that human history, IDENTITY and how to organize it is what’s defined marriage from the outset.

    Being able to identify one’s family, clan, tribe, culture and children, are paramount to one’s place, and sense of belonging and expectations for one’s future and connection to one’s past.

    Marriage has been a practical way for a man to KNOW who his child is. Otherwise, only the woman would know it was HERS.

    But one’s village, social network needs to know who you are too.

    And their recognition of your family and your inclusion are powerful inducements for marriage. It gives you the status of a matured, trustworthy and responsible adult.

    In so many ways, unmarried status for gay people is as effective a way of marking a person AS gay, for discrimination, as color or gender has been.

    We all know that those people who were lifelong singletons, with no visible enduring relationship immediately invite speculation of being gay.

    At the same time, that’s why shunning is such a powerful against individuals who aren’t adhering to social customs as expected. One can lose a great deal of identity with such actions, and it’s no wonder the incentive to marry outside of one’s orientation is also been so powerful, however ill advised.

    Marriage, for all intents and purposes, wasn’t necessarily about love. But a set of arrangements to optimize connection and entitlement and ultimately, knowing who you were…or were supposed to be.

  2. posted by tavdy79 on

    “Yes, marriage is the cross-cultural institution that has provided for the needs of children. But how? What makes marriage so suited to this purpose?

    I’ll hazard a guess: it does so because it is also an abiding commitment between the spouses. It binds them together “for keeps,” thus creating a stable environment for any children who arrive.”

    All that is right there in the traditional Christian marriage vows – they don’t mention children at all. It seems clear that procreation is just a minor part of what marriage is about, as otherwise it would at least be mentioned. The commitment is between the couple, not them and any children they might someday (or in many cases already) have. The procreation bit is incidental.

  3. posted by Eric on

    It’s interesting how many times same-sex marriage opponents seem to default to mere utilitarian conceptions of marriage that they would undoubtedly find repellant in any other context. Still, I’m not sure Dr. Corvino’s attempted reply really does satisfy. What I believe marriage opponents are attempting to do in their invocation of the “definition” of marriage is to link the arrangement to objective standards and its objective function in society. For them, love is the necessary fuel that allows the marriage to realize its objective function. Same-sex marriage may contain love, but absent an objective function, it is impotent; a wasted effort.

    Even the quote that Corvino found from Pope John Paul II doesn’t help much once knows how the former pope conceived of “love.” Indeed, for the pope, genuine love was dependant upon the proper understanding of objective reality, especially the reality represented by an individual’s gender.

    While Corvino is correct to say that the “true” definition of marriage covers many concepts, each is essential to a holistic understanding of the institution. To try and ignore one of these non-constituent parts would, in the end, do damage to marriage and the way it is practiced. It seems to me that same-sex marriage would therefore need a compatible objective end; a function that it performed for the betterment of society as a whole, rather than just the parties involved in the marriage.

  4. posted by Amicus on

    “Yes, marriage is the cross-cultural institution that has provided for the needs of children.”

    ====

    This will come as a surprise to children throughout history. In other words, in a more radical “reading of history”, one doesn’t have to concede the point. If one focuses on adultery or other matters, rather than children, you can make the case that marriage is a ‘social institution’ by adults for adults.

    I think there are opponents who do not even understand their own “definitions” in spirit and have, therefore, are blinded, repeating doctrine as an expression of their own bigotry.

    We can jump over the vexing sophistry of the ‘argument against, from definition’ by simply suggesting that opponents see the definition of ‘gay marriage’ as a threat to their ‘value system’.

    I would contend that it is not, but they are blinded, so they do not see it.

    All the ‘elements’, cultural and ‘ethnographically’, are present and can be present for a ‘proper’ gay marriage, save one, they don’t reproduce. The “sterility” of these unions, however, is not a choice, it is part of God’s design, it is natural, not unnatural, at least if you are gay or lesbian and intend to live your life as such, coupled or no.

    The Christian ‘value system’ is that sexual union is not an end in itself. There is not much role for hedonism, is one way to phrase it. Where definitions collide, they believe that there is a competing value – they cannot permit ‘free love’ or ‘sexual choice’ or ‘unconstrained passions’. It’s more than just aspects of the sex act. Their ‘value system’ suggests that, but one _must_ not organize society around ‘lust’ or ‘individual love (gone wild)’, even though one _can_ so organize.

    In their blindness, therefore, they believe that “surrendering” the definition of marriage means surrendering their value system, opening the door to “sexual anarchy”.

    But that is wrong, as explained above.

    As I’ve argued, the enemy of their value system is, roughly put, quid pro quo sexuality; a corrosive, socially accepted “promiscuity”; and, to some degree, a complex cultural-social irresponsibility w/r/t child-rearing. Those things are neither straight or gay!

    Therefore, in their blindness, they are fighting the wrong battle.

    Why?

    Well, I lean to the explanation that their doctrines have been historically shaped by the encounters with competing value systems. In order to separate the nascent Christian cult from competing value systems, “they” came up with ‘theoretical’ ideas for sexual ethics, based loosely on scripture, which, face it, isn’t a tremendous guide, without careful interpretation. Gay love and relationships, truly felt, got swept up wrongly in the process, in the process of forbidding certain types of sexual relations. Unable either to codify OR to propagate a distinguishing, nuanced, set of precepts, they chose bright lines, easy counterfactuals (most inflected by male power structures). (Bright lines can also be seen as a means to hold onto the authority of the Church; and, although a separate issue, it’s nontrivial when one thinks about the purchase of fundamentalism worldwide today or the historical role of such things in much bloodshed in Europe.)

    Later, the Catholic Church, at least, actually elevated some ideas to the level of doctrine, and many have been trapped in that ever since – others don’t have any doctrine to wrestle with, just a poor exegetical tradition or method. One might say that they are trapped by their own daemons, because one really does get the impression that the origins and purposes of these teachings on sexual ethics have been lost to a wandering bigotry, inchoate malice, political-economic games, and willful disregard for gay expression in God’s creation. Other groups, with stronger interpretive traditions, Torah or otherwise, willing to take up burdens of discernment, have been able to change.

    The truth is that gay marriage should be blessed. It’s perfectly consonant with their value system. It’s certainly not an obvious endorsement of a society centered on willful hedonism, rather than “core” responsibility, or sexual relations gone “wild”, including Paul’s worry about men in general leaving their wives and children to frolic in gay sex.

    The idea that nongays would ‘get the wrong message’ about what is being ‘endorsed’ by blessing gay unions is a practical issue, at best, not a ‘value in conflict’, per se. Put another way, one can be sure that there are _some_ marriages which the Christian value system would reject, not just because the couples might be nonbelievers, but also because their conception of marriage is not particularly consonant with what would be blessed. But, that’s probably true of some of BOTH gay and nongay marriages, right?

    In summary, if the psychic energy that charges the emotions about ‘redefining marriage’ really inheres in a perceived fight-or-flight about Christian values, properly understood, then drawing a circle around gays for exclusion doesn’t make sense, because gay marriage is not, by definition, opposed to the purposes and functions of a Christian concept of marriage or society, but consonant with it. Indeed, the true fight lies in other terms, and continuing to fight the wrong fight only damages the overall effort, arguably.

  5. posted by Amicus on

    er…

    “Their ‘value system’ suggests that, but one _must_”

    s/b

    “Their ‘value system’ suggests that one _must_”

    sorry…

  6. posted by Debrah on

    “While Corvino is correct to say that the ‘true’ definition of marriage covers many concepts, each is essential to a holistic understanding of the institution.”

    “………same-sex marriage would therefore need a compatible objective end; a function that it performed for the betterment of society as a whole, rather than just the parties involved in the marriage.”

    ************************************************

    Excellent point.

    Great title, by the way.

    What’s Love Got To Do With It?

  7. posted by Amicus on

    a compatible objective end

Comments are closed.