What is marriage?

About a month and a half ago, President Obama announced that his position on gay marriage had "evolved" to the point that he now supports the right of same-sex couples to marry. Depending on the perspective of the commentator, this meant Obama was defying the will of God, had committed a serious political blunder, had made a wishy-washy statement that "sold out" gay rights, or had done something "historic and brave."

Despite the controversy over the president's statement, it seems that same-sex marriage is becoming more and more accepted. According to blogger Richard Kim of thenation.com, we have reached the point that "it is increasingly untenable for anyone bidding for mainstream credibility to remain opposed to same-sex marriage."

Kim said this in an essay about the changing position on same-sex marriage of one David Blankenhorn. I've never heard of David Blankenhorn before now. He seems to be the founder of something called The Institute for American Values. He appeared as an "expert witness" as part of the legal defense of California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. Recently, Blankenhorn very publicly recanted his opposition to same-sex marriage. Richard Kim used this occasion to share some thoughts on the issue of marriage that are much closer to my own than what I usually see in the gay or progressive press:

Back in 2005, in the wake of a rash of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, Lisa Duggan and I argued that the gay movement—and progressives at large—should focus on advocating for a range of household recognitions, for “decentering” marriage as an institution even while fighting for legal equality. Here’s what we wrote:

For gay activists, and indeed for all progressive activists, it would be far more productive to stress support for household diversity—both cultural and economic support, recognition and resources for a changing population as it actually lives—than to focus solely on gay marriage. By treating marriage as one form of household recognition among others, progressives can generate a broad vision of social justice that resonates on many fronts. If we connect this democratization of household recognition with advocacy of material support for caretaking, as well as for good jobs and adequate benefits (like universal healthcare), then what we all have in common will come into sharper relief.

Of course, Lisa and I lost that argument, at least when it comes to setting the strategies of gay and progressive organizations. The fight for same-sex marriage has scored some significant victories in the intervening years, including Obama’s recent “evolution,” but those wins have come within the framework of same-sex marriage as an isolated right granted to a minority group, the equality/dignity line that Blankenhorn acknowledges has become the dominant framing of the issue. In some cases, the passage of gay marriage has actually eliminated alternative forms of household recognition like domestic partnerships and reciprocal beneficiary statuses. And despite our perhaps outlandish wishes, no progressive movement has risen up to champion the proliferation of diverse forms of household recognition, despite the fact that Americans increasingly continue to live outside of marriage (see Eric Klinenberg’s excellent new book, Going Solo, for example, in which he documents the rise of living alone as the predominant residential pattern). Indeed, in the years since we wrote that article, I’ve often felt as if the debate over same-sex marriage has raged on the national stage while queer radicals like myself and marriage advocates like David Blankenhorn were off to the side, hosting our own tangential debate. We lost the war over issue framing—and in a way, so did Blankenhorn.

My opinions and feelings about marriage are not quite the same as Richard Kim's. For one thing, despite his unease with marriage as an institution, Kim says he's been a consistent supporter of the right of same-sex couples to marry. I have taken the stand that I don't need the right to participate in an oppressive institution. But as an old-school radical lesbian feminist, I can certainly identify with his feeling of simply being cut out of the entire national discussion.

I think the biggest question here is, what is marriage? Is it a commitment between two loving adults to engage in a lifelong relationship, and the commitment of the larger community to support them in this? Or is marriage an institution designed to enforce a set of social patterns and norms that society finds desirable? Richard Kim offers an excellent illustration:

The primary difference, of course, is that Blankenhorn and I fundamentally disagree about what marriage should mean—for gays and straights alike. As the founder of the Institute for American Values, Blakenhorn has attacked single mothers, championed federal marriage promotion as welfare policy, railed against cohabitation and no-fault divorce and opposed access to new reproductive technologies. One of his institute’s latest crusades has been against anonymous sperm donors because it leads to “fatherless” children, an abiding preoccupation of his. Suffice to say, I don’t agree with any of this. I think divorce can be a great thing—as anyone leaving an abusive marriage might confirm. And I think all the debates over which type of family produces the best outcomes for children ought to be meaningless as a matter of state policy. Gay or straight, single or married, let’s try to create the conditions in which all families can succeed. Blankenhorn sees an inner circle of honor and benefits that should be attached to marriage, and he’s now extended that circle to include gays and lesbians. I want to scramble that circle.

Richard Kim seems to believe that some version of "marriage" is possible without this kind of patriarchal baggage. I disagree. But I'm pleased to see that on the edges of the oversimplified national debate about same-sex marriage, there are thoughtful and complicated voices such as Richard Kim's.