Why Marriage?

What is the purpose of marriage? Why do we have the institution? Now that the pressure to legalize gay marriages has reached the boiling point, what is so important about allowing homosexuals to partake in the same tradition as straights?

The sociologist Andrew Cherlin has argued that contemporary marriages are individualistic. People embark upon them because they want to be happy. Couples assume, correctly so in the case of good marriages, that tying the knot will lead to greater personal fulfillment.

From this perspective, if making a matrimonial commitment does not enhance one’s personal well being, a divorce is in order. More than this, if a person is uncomfortable with promising to be faithful forever, then engaging in cohabitation is a viable alternative.

Given this background, why are gays so insistent on participating in what many people have described as a dying convention?

I submit that it is because homosexuals also want to be happy. As human beings, they too seek love that they can depend upon. Since they too assume that marriage is a bond they can trust, they crave access to its benefits.

But is this what marriage is about? Why, since at least hunter-gatherer times, have all societies established some form of permanent heterosexual union? Why have they all insisted that couples pledge to remain together—no matter what?

The evidence is compelling. It is because marriage is not about personal happiness, but about providing security for the children a man and woman may produce. Were it just about obtaining a compliant sexual partner, shacking up would serve quite as well.

Way back when our ancestors roamed the countryside pursing game and picking berries, it was impossible for a mother to raise her offspring without assistance. She could scarcely have tracked prey animals with toddlers trailing close behind. No, she needed a husband to do the hunting and to bring home the fruits of his labors.

Times have obviously changed. For most people, meat is no longer obtained by stalking buffalo, but comes pre-packaged in the supermarket. There is no reason for a woman, or her children, to be protein deficient, that is, as long as she has money in her purse.

Moreover, now that most women are out in the marketplace earning their own dollars, they do not need a man to do this for them. Even if they are unemployed, they can rely on the government to provide a welfare check and food stamps.

So why the need for marriage? As it happens, the research shows that children do much better when raised by two parents. Unwed parents sometimes succeed, but the results are far from uniformly positive.

Alright then, so why not sponsor gay marriages on the grounds that they too are superior compared with single parenthood? The answer here is not clear. First of all, far fewer gay alliances produce children than do heterosexual ones. This is especially true with respect to gay men whose unions are notoriously insecure.

As to lesbian couples, these are rearing fewer offspring than media accounts might leave one to surmise. Nonetheless, if they do as good a job of parenting as do a traditional husband and wife, does this matter?

According to the studies that have been produced, being raised by a gay couple is no worse than being raised by a straight one. The trouble is that this research is largely anecdotal and, because it is recent, is not long-term.

The bottom line is that we do not know if homosexual marriages are as good at raising children as the conventional sort. They may be. But then again, perhaps they are not.

With all of the contemporary agitation in favor of gay marriage, we probably need more time to figure out what works before committing to an entirely new form of interpersonal commitment. While gays deserve as much happiness as straights, the real concern here is what happens to their children.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University