The SCOTUS Decision Was A Win For Marriage, Not A Win For Love

#Lovewins.

From marriage advocates to the President of the United States, that was the message from the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) decision on same-sex marriage on Friday. In fact, the message came straight from the horse’s mouth:  the Court itself. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the court’s decision, wrote what some described as “a love letter to marriage — and gay marriage”. Kennedy’s final passage was shared widely throughout social media, reading:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people becomesomething greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

A Brief History Of Love And Marriage

For many, Kennedy’s ruling was a beautiful passage that highlighted everything good about marriage. But for me, it highlighted every reason we need to radically overhaul this archaic institution.

It’s worth, for a minute, thinking about the history of love and marriage.

Up until about the 19th Century, love had nothing to do with marriage. Marriage was entirely an economic institution, designed to further the economic interests of families and the state. It was a contract, one in which women traded their fidelity for economic security. Men could guarantee their inheritance would be passed on to their children instead of another man’s (a system that was essential in the new world of private property), while women were given the means to survive. This is the oppressive history of the nuclear family — a system constructed to benefit men and, more broadly, the ruling classes.

Yet in the 19th and 20th Century, things began to change. As people moved into the cities and started working in factories, they became more economically independent. They could throw away the old bonds of marriage and start entering the institution for love instead. This was true for both men and women.

But it created a problem. Monogamous marriage was still needed for our economic system to work, in order to both continue the passage of inheritance (which was essential to continue the passage of wealth between generations), and to ensure people continued breeding to provide workers for growing industry. Many in the ruling classes saw love as a threat; it was far too volatile for an institution as important as marriage.

In doing so a new norm of love was created, one based on fidelity and sacrifice. To love, women in particular were told to devote themselves entirely to their “other half”. This charge was lead by Queen Victoria, who in 1840 famously set the trend for the white wedding, and for female puritanism. The Queen pushed a norm of fidelity, framed largely around the desexualisation of women, that ensured the continuation of the nuclear family (and the economic necessities behind it).

Marriage — Abolish It

And herein lies the problem.

Marriage is without doubt an expression of love for many of us. But that is not what it was designed for. When it comes to the law, love actually has nothing to do with it — hence why people can get married in Las Vegas to a person they’ve never met, and enjoy the legal benefits. Marriage is a contract, simple as that.

And as a legal institution, marriage is broken. It has been designed around particular economic needs — needs that can oppress women, and leave many others out in the cold. While gays and lesbians are able to access the benefits of marriage in Australia through de facto relationships, there is an increasing array of people in different relationships who are missing out. This includes people in polyamorous unions (like mine), open marriages, friends living communally and sharing finances, couples and their sperm donors raising children together, and single people living happily alone. This system, along with continuing the oppressive nature of the past, does not meet the realities of relationships as they exist today.

So I think we should abolish marriage. But what does that actually mean?

I’m not suggesting we abolish the ideas of monogamy and force everyone into a world of polyamory (although I  do think that more free love would be great for our society). But the state should not be backing up this one form of love as the epitome of relationships.

Marriage, as a social and religious institution, needs to be disconnected from our law. You could still have your white wedding in your church if you wanted, but this would not come with a legal backing. It would be a social and/or religious institution, as it should be.

How would the state be involved? Rights and responsibilities around relationships need to be treated as exactly what they are: a contract. As with other contracts, we should — as consenting adults — be able to enter into them with whoever we want, and with as many people as we want.

At the same time, a lot of the benefits provided by marriage should be decoupled from relationships. One of the big issues spoken about in the same-sex marriage campaign, for instance, has been around hospital visitation rights. We’ve heard awful stories from people who have not been able to sit by the bed of their dying partner because their relationship is not legally recognised. But why should this right be limited to family and partners in the first place? As an adult why should I not be able to decide who does and doesn’t get to visit me in hospital, whether they are a loving partner, a family member, or simply a good friend?

Another good example is immigration. Many of our immigration benefits are connected directly to relationships; it’s far easier to immigrate to most countries if you are married to a citizen of that country. I’m not saying we should deny these people the right to immigrate, but we should question why these rights are only open to those who are monogamous? The case for open immigration is extremely clear: immigration provides significant economic and social benefits to a society and, despite the scare tactics of groups like UKIP in the UK, open immigration does not lead to economic ruin. So why not decouple these rights from relationships, and make them available to everyone?

These examples highlight the significant problems with marriage as we know it today. As Hugh Ryan argues in The Guardian, marriage allows the state — i.e. our society — to stop caring for people, and places that responsibility in the hands of a partner. I would much rather a system that provides care for everyone, whether coupled or otherwise.

This is not just about law, either. We also need to break down the norm of monogamous relationships as being the epitome of relationship structures. This not only leaves people in alternate relationships open to discrimination, but also places huge pressure on those who do try and fit. The global rates of infidelity remain quite high, suggesting the norm of monogamy just doesn’t work for everyone. Wouldn’t we be better questioning that norm, rather than pushing people into something many don’t want to do and facilitating pain in the process?

A Win For Marriage And Equality, But Not A Win For Love

I don’t think love won last week. In fact, I think it lost. The SCOTUS decision defined love even more narrowly than before, and brought more people into the fold of a limiting and outdated norm.

If we really wanted love to win, we’d decouple it from our legal system. That would make it fairer for all of us.

–

Junkee Take On: Marriage — For Better Or Worse? 

Featuring CLEMENTINE FORD, TOM TILLEY, SENTHURAN RAJ and CARA SUTTNER, in conversation with LEX HIRST

Tuesday June 30, from 7pm at Sydney’s Giant Dwarf Theatre

Head to the Facebook event page here; or book $15 tickets here.

Got a question for our panellists? Send it to [email protected].

–

Simon Copland is a freelance writer and climate campaigner. He writes on issues covering politics, the environment and sex, gender and sexuality. He blogs here and tweets at @SimonCopland.

Feature image by MLaden Antonov for Getty Images.