The VC is showcasing guest bloggers talking on the pros and cons of same-sex marriage. This week's voice belongs to Maggie Gallagher, the author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier and Better-Off Financially. I thought from the title of the book that she would be a proponent of same-sex marriage (if marriage is so important, then it should be available for the most people), but Eugene Volokh introduces her as the "con" voice in the debate. Her latest post, here, frames the debate by first stating the governmental (not individual) purpose of marriage -- "to create sexual unions in which children are (practically) guaranteed the loveand care of their own mother and father." Although individuals may have other reasons for being married, the state is not interested in creating avenues for public recognition of intimacy or symbolizing commitment or whatever any more than the state cares about high school sweethearts breaking up before the senior prom.
That seemed rational to me, but here's another idea. Marriage laws outline obligations and rights as to children, but also to property. Marriage may also serve a state interest of formalizing the owning and distribution of property. When two persons join together for a business purpose with an intent to share profits, the state likes to step in and call that a partnership so as to delineate rights and obligations. Perhaps marriage is the not-for-profit partnership. I'm sure others have thought about this before, but I hope that Ms. Gallagher addresses it in her comments as well.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38673/3394194
Links to weblogs that reference What is the Purpose of Marriage?:
1. Posted by Joe Miller on October 17, 2005 @ 11:17 | Permalink
The virtue of Christine's alternative statement of the governmental purpose of marriage is that, in contrast to Maggie's, it does not build into the purpose statement the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage (a rather large flaw in Maggie's attempt, given that her goal is to defend the exclusion of same-sex couples from state-sanctioned marriage).
2. Posted by Kate Litvak on October 17, 2005 @ 12:07 | Permalink
Without knowing anything about the relevant literature, I wonder whether marriage makes people happier and more productive – or whether people who are happier and more productive in the first place are more likely to get married.
I, of course, secretly believe in innate superiority of married people – and especially the people currently married to my husband…
3. Posted by Tom Bozzo on October 17, 2005 @ 14:41 | Permalink
Joe makes an excellent point. In addition, Gallagher's stated purpose for marriage doesn't explain government sanction of non-procreative opposite-sex marriages. I think it could also be argued that marriage is at best middlingly successful at guaranteeing that children are raised by loving parents; it does better at establishing rights to marital property.
4. Posted by Christine on October 17, 2005 @ 18:20 | Permalink
I also think that the historical emphasis on marriage being essential for the legitimizing of children may have been for the primary purpose of knowing what land belonged to what human, not so that children grew up with a nuclear family. She has not mentioned property at all.
- fedgovernor on What Next Fo
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Jake on The Oil Mark
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- laborprof lpb on Bailout, Uni
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Brandon P. on BYU v. Utah
- David on What makes a
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- Vic on Fleischer 1,
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
