It might be suggested that the state has other reasons to promote marriage rather than just that of helping children flourish and I was wrong to concentrate on this sole reason in previous postings when I argued against gay marriage. It might be further suggested what gay couples want equality with heterosexual couples. However equality must be justified equality, for instance children don’t have equality with adults when it comes to voting. Nonetheless it seems reasonable to suggest what gay couples want is equal access to the benefits of marriage.
What then are the benefits of marriage? Firstly married couples offer
each other mutual support. Secondly traditional marriage is meant to
guarantee sexual exclusiveness. This exclusiveness is often more of an
expectation than guarantee is practice. Thirdly marriage gives the partners in
the marriage certain property rights and guarantees these rights after the
death of one of the partners. Lastly a marriage helps in the rearing of
children. It would appear there are four main reasons why people marry. As I
have previously suggested only the last reason is a good reason why the state
should support traditional marriage, it might appear my objector is justified
in claiming my basis for the state supporting traditional marriage is at the
best highly selective and at the worst prejudiced towards gay couples.
At this point I must make clear my previous position. I argued the state
should recognise traditional marriage only because it helps children to
flourish. I did not argue the state should recognise traditional marriage
because of the additional benefits outlined above. Someone might raise two
objections to the above. Firstly she might suggest that state should recognise
traditional marriage because of these additional benefits. Secondly she might
point out even if the purpose of the state in recognising traditional marriage
is only to help children to flourish that a consequence of this recognition is
that these benefits become available to married couples. She might then proceed
to argue if the state prohibits gay couples from marrying these benefits are
made unavailable to gay couples and as a result is guilty of unfair
discrimination.
In response to my objector I would suggest the first two benefits of
marriage as outlined above are questionable. Firstly is the mutual support a
couple offers each other really enhanced because they are married? I would
argue the best form of mutual support depends on love. Not however some form of
sentimental love in which the lover’s interests continue to take precedence
over those of her beloved. Mutual support requires someone taking the interests
of her partner as her own. The form of love I’m concerned with as always in
this blog is ‘caring about’. Frankfurt defines this form of love as
follows,
“It is in the nature of a lover’s concern that he is invested in his
beloved. That is, he is benefited when his beloved flourishes; and he suffers
when it is harmed. Another way of putting it is that the lover identifies
himself with what he loves. This consists of accepting the interests of his
beloved as his own.” (1)
In addition I would agree with Frankfurt such love is not
something we choose (2). We cannot simply choose to love someone. It follows if
a couple simply choose to get married this does not automatically give them the
best form of mutual support. It may of course in time lead to such support. It
further follows if a couple choose to get married because they love each other
they do not obtain the benefits of the best form of mutual support because they
marry, they already possess this form. At this point my objector might point
out there are less than ideal forms of mutual support. Forms based on self-interest.
For instance in a traditional marriage a wife may support her husband in his
job because it is in her interests to do so, his job supports her also. And a
husband may support his wife’s staying at home looking after their children as
it’s in his interests, she’s supporting his children. In response I would point
out such mutual support depends on self-interest irrespective of whether the
couple are married or not. In the light of the above it would appear mutual support
depends on love or self-interest and that mutual support is not enhanced by
marriage. I am also doubtful as to whether sexual exclusivity is a benefit of
marriage. Perhaps marriage enhances sexual exclusivity but the divorce courts
show it certainly doesn’t guarantee it. I will not pursue this point further.
The third benefit marriage is supposed to give its partners are certain
property rights and guarantees of these rights after the death of one of the
partners. These are real benefits and if gay couples are denied these benefits
they are discriminated against. However in the UK and many other
countries all these rights are made available by civil partnerships because the
financial provisions in these mirror those in marriage. It follows the state if
it prohibits gay marriage it does not deny gay couples any property rights or
the guarantee of these rights after the death of one of the partners
I accept that married couples offer each other mutual support. But I
have argued this mutual support is due to love or self-interest. It is not due
to the fact they are married and as a result mutual support is not a benefit of
marriage. I am also highly doubtful as to whether sexual exclusivity is a
benefit of marriage. Marriage does give married couples some financial benefits
but these benefits are available to gay couples through civil unions in
countries in which these unions are available. It follows if the state
prohibits gay marriage then in countries which permit civil unions the state
does not deny gay couples equal access to the benefits of marriage by
this prohibition. In my previous posting I argued that provided gay marriage
does not harm children the state has no reason to prohibit gay marriage. In
this posting I have examined whether, based on the first three benefits of
marriage outlined above, the state has reasons to promote gay marriage. I have
questioned whether these benefits in fact exist. It follows the state has no
reasons to promote marriage based on the interests of married couples, gay or
heterosexual.
I have argued that the only reason the state has to support marriage is
the welfare of children. I have suggested that because the roles of husband and
wife are now interchangeable the state has no reason to prohibit gay marriage,
provided of course this does not harm children’s welfare. In some countries it
is now possible for gay couples to adopt children, see list. It is also possible for a gay couple
to have a child, by means of donor insemination or surrogacy involving IVF,
which is genetically related to one of the partners. It follows if
the state has reason to encourage traditional marriage because this helps
children flourish it also has reason to support gay marriage. This
reason can still be justified even if only a small number of gay couples wish
to have children. At this point my objector might point out even if the roles
of husband and wife are interchangeable the roles of mother and father are not,
see for instance Virginia Ironsides. She might then
suggest that because of this the children of gay couples do not flourish as
well as those of heterosexual couples and as a result the state should not
recognise gay marriage if this encourages gay couples to have children.
Basically my objector is arguing that because the children of gay
couples do not flourish as well as the children of heterosexual couples that
gay couples should not have children. She might suggest this is because gay
relationships are unnatural relationships not suited to the rearing of children
or the children of gay couples might be bullied at school. In response I would
point out there it appears there is no evidence that the children of gay
couples do not flourish as well as those of heterosexual couples. Indeed there
is some evidence that when they are young they flourish just as well as the
children of heterosexual couples and perhaps even better, see Goldberg and Smith. Moreover even if
the children of gay couples do not flourish as well as those of heterosexual
couples this does not imply gay couples should not have children. Children in
deprived areas may well not flourish as well children born into more affluent
areas but no one seriously suggests that people in deprived areas should not
have children. It seems inevitable to me that some gay couples will have
children. Let us assume that the children of both heterosexual and gay couples
who stay together flourish better than the children of couples who split up.
Let us also assume marriage helps couples who stay together. Lastly let us
assume the state has a duty to help children flourish. It follows from the
above the state should promote gay marriage even if the number of gay couples
with children is low. I accept the above conclusion and as a result have
changed my mind about the desirability of gay marriage.
- Harry Frankfurt, 2006,Taking
Ourselves Seriously, Stanford University Press, page 41.
- Frankfurt, 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love, Cambridge University Press. Page 135.
