As a supporter of gays' right to marry, I agree wholeheartedly with Trevor Gleason that getting the state out of the business of defining marriage would resolve one important ambiguity surrounding the church-state relationship in America. But as a recent conversation on this very topic revealed to me, the state is far more entangled in the question of marriage than many initially assume.
The fundamental function of marriage as a structure within which to raise children, secure partnership and solidify a sexual bond has remained unchanged throughout history, though marriage itself has taken many forms and served other functions. In light of the all-pervasiveness, utility and importance of marriage's function, the state, most people recognize, should standardize the rights and responsibilities that accompany it.
The overwhelming acceptance of this standardization is due, first of all, to the different social functions played by single and married people and the resulting differences in their respective relationships with the law. Second, a lack of state standardization may have worked fine thousands, or even hundreds, of years ago when marriage was a more clear-cut affair, divorce was rare and bureaucracy far less developed, but could you imagine a modern couple possibly anticipating in a personal contract all of the issues, specific to marriage, divorce and postmarital childrearing, upon which legal rulings might be made? Without state standardization, getting married would become a nightmare of prenups, postnups and everything in between.
That said, what Mr. Gleason called into question was the term the state employs in designating the legal relationship now referred to as marriage. I argue that the declining role of religion and family ties in most societies around the world has meant that people look increasingly to the state to define their marital relationships.
A formal definition (based on external criteria) of any social relationship implies that the relationship is not an entirely personal affair and that the relationship comes with certain rights and responsibilities that all other members of the society are expected to recognize. In the absence of another all-pervasive authority, such as a church, the enforcement of that recognition must come from the state. The definition of marriage has thus become inextricably linked not only with law, but with social perception as well.
This development carries a psychological impact. For instance, few people would be happy to say that they are married not by some universal standard of marriage but because "we call ourselves married." What does that even mean? In fact, getting the state out of the definition of marriage could very well destroy the institution of marriage by rendering it a meaningless term to be employed subjectively - something far more threatening to social conservatives than the inclusion of gays in the legal framework of marriage.
We should not let conservatives accuse gays of truly destroying the institution of marriage, nor should we fundamentally alter a system which ably articulates social rights and responsibilities. I propose that we keep the state involved in defining what marriage means, as imperfect as such a state of affairs may be.
Natalie Smolenski '07 is studying abroad in Cairo for the 2005-2006 academic year.
