Choices and Marriage

I hear a lot in the same-sex marriage debate about how same-sex couples chose their "lifestyle" and thus must embrace the consequences of that decision with regards to marriage.  The argument seems to be that it is not the state that is denying them the benefit of marriage, but rather it is the decision of the individual to choose a same-sex partner.  Here are just a few examples where an argument like this has popped up.  At MarriageDebate.com David Barnes compares same-sex couples to cohabiting couples.  He writes that both a cohabiter and a homosexual have the formal freedom to marry, but "in both cases, a person would be forced to enter into a marriage that he'd rather not enter into only to get legal benefits he'd otherwise be denied if he were not married."  I have responded directly to Barne's argument at MarriageDebate, but in this post I want to focus on the idea that the homosexual made a choice to live life with a person of the same sex instead of marrying a person of the opposite sex.  At MarriageMovement.org Elizabeth Marquardt comments on my comparison of same-sex couples to couples who are not well-off.  [My comparison was not intended as a comment on the parenting skills of any couple or type of couple.  Rather it was to demonstrate that the state also makes no such statement by allowing a marriage to occur.]  She writes that my comparison "suggests that one sees children being raised by their own parents as a privilege largely out of adult control (in much the same way that we’d all like to be rich but most of us will never be), rather than as a birthright available to practically all children if only the adults did not choose otherwise." [emphasis added].  So again there is a notion that same-sex couples made a choice to have children and their family (children include) must deal with the consequence of that choice.  Marquardt also agrees with a reader who expresses sympathy for an opposite-sex infertile couple who finds themselves unable to bear children naturally.  It is unclear whether the reader has the same sympathy for same-sex couples, but I have seen others try to differentiate the two on this basis.  Infertile couples should be allowed to marry because they didn't choose to be infertile, whereas same-sex couples chose infertility by selecting a spouse of the same sex and thus can be denied marriage.  I would like to explore this idea of choice as the rationale for rejecting SSM. 

Let's start by looking at Barne's comparison of same-sex couples to cohabiters.  In the former the choice at issue was a person choosing a same-sex partner.  Once that choice was made, there is no choice as to whether to marry that person.  The cohabiter on the other hand is faced with exactly this choice.  A more interesting example is my comparison to a couple where neither partner is well-off.  Marquardt implies that the difference is the latter couple did not choose not to be well-off.  The same-sex couple, though, certainly did not choose their genders.  The choice came when the person chose his spouse.  Yet this same choice arises in the other couple as well.  A person chooses to marry someone who is not well-off.  In both cases a person makes a choice of spouse, and in both cases a person should be able to make that choice based on her own criteria.  It is very likely that a person who plans on having kids will choose a spouse that he thinks will be a good parent and will help to provide an optimal parenting situation.  That does not mean that we must forbid all but the theoretically best spouse, especially because what we may find to be theoretically best is not necessarily what actually is best for that individual.  In fact, we have a long tradition in this country of parents deciding what is the best way to raise their own children.  This is based in part on a parent's right to raise their children, and in part on an understanding that a parent is likely to know best what is right for their children.  Even if someone chooses to marry a person with whom he knows he will be unable to concieve, we recognize it is not for us to say he should not do so. 

I am not saying that the state is not involved in choices involving marriage and parenting.  I am saying that it is only with great justification, if at all, that we allow the state to remove the choice entirely.  We don't allow the state to force marriage, sterilization, or procreation.  We might restrict certain benefits to those couples who choose to marry, but I think we do so more in recognition of the additional responsibilities incurred by marriage, than as a reward per se for choosing marriage.  We recognize that marriage and parenting are difficult, and we do our best to make them easier.  Even if one did view marital benefits as a reward, where is the logic in denying them to same-sex couples.  Shouldn't they too be rewarded for making the responsible decision of marriage as opposed to cohabitation? 

Comments

[Lenka]

Thank you for another excellent analysis! Regarding the matter of infertile heterosexual couples' not choosing to be infertile (i.e. "Infertile couples should be allowed to marry because they didn't choose to be infertile, whereas same-sex couples chose infertility by selecting a spouse of the same sex and thus can be denied marriage."): it occurred to me that Marquardt [and those sharing that viewpoint, if I understand correctly] are not taking into account those heterosexual couples where one or both parties involved did choose to be infertile, by having chosen sterilization as a contraceptive measure, perhaps in a previous relationship.

I'm sure those who argue against SSM for the reason that the parties involved "chose their infertilty" - by choosing a same-sex partner - would still hesitate to use their own logic to deny marriage to a heterosexual couple where, for example, the husband-to-be had previously had a vasectomy and could no longer become a biological parent.

The above objection strikes me as nothing but hairsplitting on the part of SSM opponents.