We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage….
…as a comprehensive sharing of life””an emotional and biological union””marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages.
Only this understanding makes sense of all the norms””annulability for non-consummation, the pledge of permanence, monogamy, sexual exclusivity””that shape marriage as we know it and that our law reflects. And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as opposed to ordinary friendships) at all””to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life.
If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union””and thus to procreation””will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.
A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing””but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.
I cannot understand why the substance of this essay is not obvious, even to those who disagree. Loving vs. Virg, even if relevant once, is no longer so after Vermont redefined marriage as (a) civil unions) and (b) marriage [properly so called]. This distinction between the civil and the spiritual is really incontrovertible. If marriage psc is not a spiritual affair, then we have been deceiving ourselves all these centuries about love and it effects and aspirations. Clearly, the 1st Amendment forbids the state from regulating spiritual matters although it is clearly inside its jurisdiction regulating civil partnerships.
And this genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
I certainlyagree that marriage shouldbe strengthened, but the redefinition process has already taken place, creating two broadly recognized categories – only one of which is marriage. The phrase ‘civil marriage’ now is a contradiction in terms. Larry