What is Marriage?

Not long ago, an article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy sought to addreess that question.  The question is at the core of the same-sex marriage legislation and cases making their way to the US Supreme Court.

The authors, two PhD candidates and a Law Professor at Princeton University, raised some very interesting and compelling questions, not the least of which are the two basic attempts to answer the question:

Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and raising children together.  The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts--acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. .... This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.

The opposing definition, which the authors refer to as the Revisionist View, is:

Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life.  It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.

I think these definitions are both clear and, from the vantage point of their proponents, adequately state the opposing views of what marriage is - or should be.  Note also that the definitions are legal perspectives.  In the words of the authors: "...marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background."

Briefly stated (you can read the entire article at this link), the authors opine that while a legal union of same sex individuals may be permitted under law, legal marriage is (or should be) defined by the conjugal act which leads naturally to reproduction.  The difference in the definition ultimately rests on what may be done versus what can be done.  That is, the law may define marriage as the union of two individual of the same or opposite sexes.  But, the authors contend, there is a fundamental difference between may and can and though legal, marriage is uniquely about the can - the act of procreation.

I encourage you to review the article.  Though dense in places, it is an excellent exposition of both sides of the issue, free from religious or dogmatic jargon coming from either side.  It places in context the social and legal issues of same sex union (marriage or otherwise).