Last week I wrote about marriage-equality opponents' "Always and
Everywhere" argument-the claim that since marriage has "always"
been heterosexual, we ought not to tinker with it now.
In response, a prominent same-sex marriage opponent e-mailed me
to explain what was "logically and philosophically wrong" with my
critique. In particular, she argued that my claim that "each new
same-sex marriage is a living counterexample to it" fails, because
it misunderstands the rationale behind "always and everywhere."
According to this opponent, the "always and everywhere" argument is
not intended as a straightforward descriptive claim-in which case,
a single counterexample would indeed refute it-but rather as a tool
to uncover the REASON why society after society constructs marriage
heterosexually.
As she put it, "Why do they keep stumbling on this idea that
it's important to unite male and female in public sexual unions
that define the responsibilities of male and female parents to
their biological children? Is that reason still valid today?"
Interesting. Is this the right way to understand the "always and
everywhere" argument? And if so, does that affect my assessment? To
these questions, my answers are "Maybe" and "Absolutely not."
It's probably misleading to talk about THE right way to
understand the "always and everywhere" argument, unless one is
considering a specific instance of it by a particular
marriage-equality opponent. After all, the claim that marriage has
been heterosexual "always and everywhere" has been used by
different people at different times for different purposes.
But let's suppose one is using the claim to flush out why
marriage has been the way it is-that is, 'typically heterosexual
almost everywhere. Why, indeed, has marriage been this way?
One huge reason is the misunderstanding and oppression of gays
throughout the ages, or what we might call "heteronormativity." It
is therefore no surprise that as scientific and moral understanding
of homosexuality evolves, so does acceptance of same-sex
marriage.
What's more, it's not clear that the reasons for heterosexual
marriage would be in any way invalidated by acknowledging reasons
(perhaps similar, perhaps different) for homosexual marriage. This
is not a zero-sum game.
But what if there's a reason for making marriage EXCLUSIVELY
heterosexual-as most (but not all) societies do? According to
marriage-equality opponents, there is such a reason. It is to bind
parents, and especially fathers, to their biological children.
I have two responses. First, talking about THE reason for
marriage is even more misleading than talking about THE purpose of
the "always and everywhere" argument. While there may be an
embedded practical logic in social institutions, the underlying
justifications for them are nearly always complex. Marriage looks
the way it does today because of a varied and often messy
history.
Second, even granting that one important reason for marriage is
binding parents (especially fathers) to their biological children,
it is not clear why this reason requires marriage to be exclusively
heterosexual. I've said it before and I'll say it again: same-sex
marriage never takes children away from loving biological parents
who want them.
And here's where same-sex families provide a living
counterexample in the strongest sense. It's not just that they
falsify the claim that marriage is always and everywhere
heterosexual (by announcing, in effect, "Not anymore it isn't!").
It is that they falsify the patently absurd claim that binding
parents to their biological children is the sole justification for
marriage.
No one actually believes this claim, which is why it continues
to amaze me that marriage-equality opponents suggest it with a
straight face. Marriage surely binds children to parents, but it
also binds spouses to each other-for better or worse, richer or
poorer, in sickness and in health and so on. Generally, that's good
for the spouses and good for society-even where children are not
present.
Alternatively, opponents will make the more limited claim that
this particular purpose of marriage (binding parents to children)
trumps the others. But again, even if that were true, it's not
clear what follows. How would allowing gays to marry make straights
any less bound to their biological children?
Imagine the thought process: "Yikes, Adam and Steve are getting
married! Kids, I'm outta here."
In short, whether we take the simple reading of the "Always and
Everywhere" argument ("Never before, therefore not now") or this
supposedly new and improved one ("Almost never before; therefore,
there must be some good reason for 'not now'), the anti-equality
conclusion doesn't follow.