CNN, Blogs & Gay Matrimony: Part I.

My parents watch CNN religiously... the same way that I watch ESPN. I usually leave the room when CNN is on in the living room because politics bore me but on occasion I'll sit and listen. Issues on CNN are very important and one issue I hear from time to time is that of gay marriage. Now I'm a leisure reader so if I'm on the internet and not soaking my brain with trivial nonsense, porn, or some social network... I'm reading.

I say that to get to my next point. I read that the D.C. mayor just finalized a law that would allow same-sex marriage... and I live in Houston and recently we elected a gay woman as mayor so it wouldn't be surprising if we followed suit... which could make us the San Fransisco of the South.

One of the fundamental questions underlying the debate over gay marriage is, quite simply, what the point is for gays to marry. Aside from certain property and legal issues which could, in theory, be solved by other laws, what point are gays trying to make in attempting to get married? Why is it so important to be able to hold up a marriage certificate and say “we’re married” instead of simply saying “we’re a couple” without a certificate?

I was reading a post by a blogger named Chris Burgwald. He asked on his blog:

Gay marriage advocates argue that this is an equal rights issue. But what is it that a married hetero couple can “do” that an unmarried gay couple cannot “do”? Under current law, gays can commit themselves to one another... they can live together... what can’t they do that married people can do? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

So why is it so important for these gay (and lesbian) couples flocking to San Francisco to be able to hold up an “official” marriage certificate after their one-minute wedding? I surmise that it’s about validation: gay and lesbian marriage is about their relationship being recognized precisely as a marriage.

But my question is this: why am I being forced to acknowledge gay relationship as marriage? That is, after all, what marriage is: a political (i.e. public, on behalf of the people) stamp of recognition. Hence, my conclusion: in many ways (albeit not for all those involved), gay marriage is about forcing the body-politic to recognize homosexual unions as legitimate.

Burgwald is right — and he is wrong, and all on the very same point. He is right that being married is about achieving a sort of validation for gay couple; he is wrong that there is nothing that a married heterosexual couple can “do” that an unmarried gay couple cannot do — and it is precisely this point of asserting social validation for their relationship. Finally, he is further wrong that he is being forced to acknowledge a gay relationship on a personal level.

It is worth noting that there is nothing in these questions about gay marriage which could not be asked about marriage generally. What is it that a married heterosexual couple can do that any couple living together can’t do — especially if we imagine changing a few contract laws to allow for things like property sharing? What is so important about a marriage certificate that any couple, gay or straight, would want to hold it up? What do they hope to gain by having society acknowledge their relationship as a marriage?

Taking Chris’ first two points together, we can address them by taking a look at just what marriage is in the first place. Setting aside all of the loaded arguments about raising children and heterosexual relationships, the most fundamental characteristic of civil marriage which differentiates it from other contractual relationships is the fact that it establishes, legally, socially, and morally, a new kinship — and by extension, a new family.

A group of people can sign a contract for the purpose of setting up a new business, but they don’t thereby become kin or family. Two people can sign a contract assigning one the legal authority to make medical decisions for the other, but they don’t thereby become kin or family. Two people can sign a contract to jointly share property, but they don’t thereby become kin or a family.

When two people marry, however, they do become kin — they are now related to each other. Furthermore, they also establish kinship ties with one another’s families — and in some cultures, establishing kinship ties between the two families has been regarded as the purpose of marriage, not establishing kinship ties between the two people actually getting married.

All of this is makes marriage fairly unique among all other sorts of contracts that can exist in society — only adoption is at all similar. In fact, this is the one characteristic of marriage which seems to be common to all forms of marriage in all cultures and societies through time. The only natural kinship ties are biological, and the only obvious biological kinship which exists is that between a mother and her children. All other kinship ties are established through culture — even fatherhood, which is often as much a matter of social convention as it is assumed biological paternity.

Kinship and familial relationships create the smallest social units of any society. The importance of kinship as a means for structuring relationships and behavior is evinced in the way societies have had so many systems (formal and informal) for establishing pseudo-kinship between people who have no biological relationship and for whom there are no means for creating traditional kinship ties. Common examples of this are the informal ways people refer to one another as “uncle” or “son” regardless of actual familial ties, the prevalence of “blood brotherhood” ceremonies in various groups, and ritual kinship bonds created by different social groups.

Kinship is an important thread in the social fabric. It isn’t an “institution” like marriage because there are generally no specific legal, religious, or social rules regulating it. Kinship is, instead, an amorphous creation of many other institutions which help people structure their relationships with one another.

If you know that someone is your kin, you know that you have different legal, social, and moral obligations to them than you do to total strangers. If you know that two people are kin, you know that they not only have different obligations to each other than they do to you, but also that you have different obligations to them as a group then you would to them as individuals if they weren’t kin.

Marriage establishes a relationship which does not and cannot exist for people who are simply living together. However much a cohabiting couple may love each other and however long they may have been together, their relationship is not such that it can be described as “kin” and, as a consequence, they cannot make any legal, social, or moral claims on others to treat them individually and jointly as if they were kin.