Many readers are familiar with my arguments against same-sex marriage and, for those who aren’t, this piece explains my concerns with the ways in marriage is a majoritarian institution—so much so that, in numerous (thought not all) contexts, gays and lesbians cannot exercise much democratic agency vis-à-vis its meanings and implications. Put another way, I believe that marriage usually poses a nice-sounding but dangerous (if democratic) entrapment of gay and lesbian lives, and that there have been—and remain—separate and better relationship-recognition alternatives. Along these lines, then, this recent piece out of the Washington Post confirms some of my worst fears about where majoritarian politics will take marriage (and post-marriage/divorce) in our reactionary age.
If you scroll to the end of the article, the author of this Washington Post piece has summarized a number of recent legislative developments around the United States vis-à-vis the restriction of divorce. One thing that jumped out to me was the wide variety of states contemplating making divorce more difficult to obtain; states as diverse as Washington, New Hampshire, Kansas, and Utah have all debated this issue recently. In other words, you can’t blame this all on The South.
Another thing that I noticed was that, in these divorce debates, a recurring concern seemed to be the welfare of children. Thus, some states have specifically contemplated making it more difficult to dissolve marriages where there are minors involved. In some ways then, perhaps my concern about the entrapment of gays and lesbians into marriages which terms of exit are controlled by majoritarian priorities is not exactly relevant to this wave of divorce reform: certainly there are gay and lesbian parents, but parenting amongst gay and lesbian couplings is still less common than in heterosexual couplings. In other words, one might view (some of) these divorce reforms as only really impacting heterosexual marriages.
Fair enough, for now at least. But where is this all going? And why is it OK to have different divorce laws (effectively) for different-sex marriages than same-sex marriages? Shouldn’t equality mean the same thing for every marriage—including the rules governing its dissolution? Or, as I suspect, is there a problem with that notion of equality, and the marriage it is increasingly bequeathing us all—like it or not?
NB: Anonymous comments are welcome. However, comments that respond to the substance of this particular post, as well as comments that demonstrate the ability to put spaces between paragraphs, will receive priority posting-wise. Others will probably be deleted.
"NB: Anonymous comments are welcome. However, comments that respond to the substance of this particular post, as well as comments that demonstrate the ability to put spaces between paragraphs, will receive priority posting-wise. Others will probably be deleted."
Jeff - on the above, given the time lapse, it seems similar to the "what if you throw a party and no one shows up" type of admonition.
Delete and/or fail to pass through at your option! Meanwhile, I'm catching up on your thoughts as expressed in "Dignity, Legal Pluralism, and Same-Sex Marriage" and may (hopefully!) actually have something substantive to say once I've gotten more background.
Posted by: Concerned_Citizen | May 01, 2014 at 09:39 PM
CC: I think we have very different notions of what makes for a good party!!! But let's just leave it at that. :-) Happy reading!
Posted by: Jeff Redding | May 02, 2014 at 03:36 AM
If you are interested in fairness, you have to consider killing off all the preferences given to married folks, whether gay or straight. As it is now, married gays will be feeding at the gummint marriage trough to the increased detriment of singes.
Posted by: Jimbino | May 02, 2014 at 03:36 PM
Jimbino - Marriage receives all kinds of social benefits because it is primarily a social institution intended to create stable environments for the rearing of the next generation. Of course, if you think of marriage as primarily intended to secure the happiness of the individuals involved, then, yes, it is quite difficult to justify those benefits.
Posted by: Douglas Levene | May 02, 2014 at 06:46 PM
Gays have children, either natural or adopted, and that the same rules should apply to married couples, gay or not gay is a no brainer. Whether divorce should be more difficult for such couples is a whole other ball of spousal abuse
Posted by: Eli Rabett | May 06, 2014 at 09:11 AM