Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

My Wish List

Visit this Wish List at Amazon.com
Blog powered by Typepad
Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Lewis v. Harris: Appellate Division | Main | Conjugal Marriage »

June 17, 2005

Models of Marriage

At MarriageDebate.com, Maggie Gallagher notes a significant development from the Lewis decision, especially from Judge Parrillo's concurrence.  The opinion cites work of Dan Cere to the effect that there are competing models of marriage out there.  The Massachusetts court in Goodridge espoused the "close personal relationship" model of marriage which the New Jersey court rejected in favor of what I guess is the "procreative" model of marriage.  I'm trying to figure out what model of marriage I would espouse.  My views on marriage are pretty well summed up by Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite when they wrote in The Case for Marriage:

Despite changing attitudes toward sex and gender roles, the substance of the marriage vow as Americans understand it has changed surprising little.  Marriage is, above all, seen as a permanent union ("until death do us part"), which includes the promise of sexual union ("forsaking all others"), of financial union ("with all my worldly goods I do thee endow"), and of mutual support ("to love, honor, and cherish").
Each part of this public vow is part of the punch marriage packs, the secret to its power to change lives.  But if one part of this package is more important than the others, it is probably the promise of permanence.

The promise of permanence is key to marriage's transformative power. People who expect to be part of a couple for their entire lives--unless something awful happens--organize their lives differently from people who are less certain their relationship will last.  The marriage contract, because it is long-term, encourages husbands and wives to make decisions jointly and to function as part of a team.  Each spouse expects to be able to count on the other to be there and to fulfill his or her responsibilities.  This expectation of  a long-term working relationship between husband and wife leads to substantial changes in their behavior, of which the most important is, perhaps, what economists call specialization.

I believe that model of marriage, the "promise of permanence" model can and should be applied homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples.  I don't believe that marriage is essentially a procreative union, although of course many married couples will procreate and marriage is the optimal setting for procreation because of how it transforms the relationship.

03:31 AM in Massachusetts: Goodridge, New Jersey: Lewis, What Is Marriage? |

Comments

Mr. John Howard

Um, not all marriages are permanent, and not all even desire to be permanent. Do you want us to wait until one spouse dies before pronouncing them married?

Posted by: Mr. John Howard | June 17, 2005 at 04:46 PM

Mr. John Howard

PS. I agree that marriage ought to be seen as permanent, but clearly, with "starter marriages" and prenuptual agreements, the promise of permenance is not a requirement.
And, I have to acknowledge that Maggie Gallagher was wrong here, too. But I think she's coming around to see her mistake.
The fact that Margeret Marshall doesn't seem to know what "sine qua non" means is alone grounds for her removal. Obviously lots of marriages are not exclusive, but being "without" exclusivity does not automatically make them "not marriages". Being without a right to procreate, however, does indeed make them not marriages.

Posted by: Mr. John Howard | June 17, 2005 at 05:03 PM

Fitz

Galios
Once again, what disturbs me about your approach is the lack of intellectual integrity and moral obtuseness.

You write…
“”””I'm trying to figure out what model of marriage I would espouse. My views on marriage are pretty well summed up by Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite when they wrote in The Case for Marriage:”””

And the proceed to selectively cherrypick the selections from that work that uphold the "close personal relationship" model that you obviously espouse.
The procreative model incorporates elements of the “close personal relationship” model.
Conversely, in order to impose SSM the close personal relationship model must reject (legally) those elements of the “procreative model” (as irrational animus’s – as it is).


The following are selected excerpts from "The Future of Family Law." That explains clearly the pitfalls of the different approaches.
This can be found at The Future of Family Law: Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America http://www.marriagedebate.com/
(I urge everyone to read it- it makes the various models quite explicit)


"""Redefining Marriage as a Couple-Centered Bond
In order to accommodate same-sex couples, this approach redefines marriage
as a gender-neutral union of two persons. By doing so it neutralizes the law’s
ability to say that children need their mothers and fathers and reifies a new
conception of marriage that is centered on the couple rather than children."""


What you tend to do (ad-naseum) on your blog is conflate this view with the procreative view
And claim that nothing is being lost in the translation.
Its intentionally deceptive and confusing.
I suggest you read the ALI (American Law Institute) Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution,
report as well as The Future of Family Law: Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America .
By adopting some of the nomenclature, you could help clarify, define terms in this debate and more clearly delineate the obvious distinctions between were family law is and were you hope to drive it.


Remember what's at stake….

“””””Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the
family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in
a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried
mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks
of poor outcomes.... There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable
marriages between biological parents.16””””

16. Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek, and Carol Emig, Marriage from a Child’s
Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?
Child Trends Research Brief (Washington, DC: Child Trends, June, 2002), 1. Also available
at http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf. For more evidence of the importance
of intact families for children see Sandra L. Hoffreth and Kermyt G. Anderson, “Are all dads
equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for paternal investment,” Journal of Marriage and
Family 65, no. 1, (2003): 213-32; and Wendy D. Manning and Kathleen A. Lamb,
“Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families,” Journal of
Marriage and Family 65, no. 4, (2003): 876-93.

Posted by: Fitz | June 18, 2005 at 01:10 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.