Marriage is sort of oppressive

Elizabeth Schmitz comments on the New Jersey civil unions law:

The New Jersey commission charged with investigating the civil unions in the state has found that the “civil union law has been a failure…It is not working as effectively as if the word ‘marriage’ were used.”

A classmate of mine made an interesting observation last week; he said something to the effect of, “The argument over ‘marriage equality’ is the wrong argument, we should be asking the LGBT community if they even want to be included in the “traditional” institution of marriage.” 

The oft-repeated claim, “marriage is between a man and a woman” (with the implicit adjunct “for the purposes of procreation”), is largely correct.  Regardless of which path you take, you’ll run into the simple fact that in the western world – for the past three or four hundred years – marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman.  More importantly, marriage is an inherently patriarchal institution, and in the past, was more akin to slavery.  Utilitarian wunderkind John Stuart Mill saw this very clearly (from On the Subjugation of Women):

After marriage, the man had anciently (but this was anterior to Christianity) the power of life and death over his wife. She could invoke no law against him; he was her sole tribunal and law.

………..

Meanwhile the wife is the actual bond servant of her husband: no less so, as far as legal obligation goes, than slaves commonly so called. She vows a livelong obedience to him at the altar, and is held to it all through her life by law. Casuists may say that the obligation of obedience stops short of participation in crime, but it certainly extends to everything else. She can do no act whatever but by his permission, at least tacit. She can acquire no property but for him; the instant it becomes hers, even if by inheritance, it becomes ipso facto his. In this respect the wife’s position under the common law of England is worse than that-of slaves in the laws of many countries…

Obviously marriage has become much more egalitarian in the last century.  But that doesn’t change the fact that the institution – and the hundreds of years of tradition that support it – are irrevocably patriarchal.  Granted, it’s possible to redefine marriage, but again, I don’t think it’s possible to wipe the stain of patriarchy from marriage.  It’s almost like the word “nigger.”  As well-meaning as a lot of “pro-reclaiming” black people are, I just don’t think it’s possible for that word to rescued from its origins in racism and oppression. 

Now though, there is a slow – but steady – recognition in our society that love and families take various shapes and forms, none of which is worse (or better) than the other.  It’s why a man and woman can be married, not have children, and still be seen as normal.  And it’s why a solid majority of Americans support civil unions for the LGBT community.  Gay marriage activists are advocating for an incorporation of this growing realization into the institution of marriage.  But I think that the institution of marriage – a patriarchal, religious institution – is beyond reinterpretation or reclamation.  Instead, we should use this “spirit of equality” – and the growing momentum behind it – to create a new institution of egalitarian partnership.  This institution would recognize the fact there is no meaningful difference between love of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Rather than justifying relationships of submission, these partnerships would affirm and support relationships grounded in equality.  

Practically, this would amount to civil unions for everyone, with marriage relegated to the private sphere; a religious ceremony neither supported or opposed by the government.

I’ll be honest, I doubt any national figure has “non-gender-specific gamete-producing organs” large enough to support the effective abolition of the state institution of marriage.  And it’s likely that a majority of Americans would vehemently oppose such a proposal  But at the very least, it’s an idea worth discussing amongst ourselves.  Besides, not too long ago, a large majority of Americans would have rejected the idea of a black or woman president outright, and now, the two most serious candidates are an African-American and a woman.

Change does happen.  We just have to push it forward.