The Six Dimensions of Marriage

SSM activists are constantly on the prowl for a marriage definition that will allow them to remove or deprecate its anthropological ties to procreation. Here on Opine we've called this anthropological tie marriage has to procreation The 800lb Gorilla in the room that so many people wish to ignore.

In an essay by Marriage Movement we read how marriage takes on at least six dimensions. One would naturally nod their head at all six dimensions, but perchance the multiplicity is leading to confusion. We witness how some would rather simplify that to a self-serving subset of dimensions. As with all the other attempts, instead of escaping the gorilla, this one runs smack into him.

Simply put, claiming there can be multiple aspects to marriage does not argue that any one of those many should be deleted. Saying marriage has multiple “dimensions” does not say that anything with a subset of those dimensions would be of the same value. Go ahead and as an exercise make a subset of these “dimensions” and see just exactly what kind of relationships would qualify. You may find that the fewer dimensions you include in the subset, the more relationships that are obviously not a marriage would all of a sudden be called a marriage.

But even more salient to the discussion is that a brief look into the “dimensions” finds one purpose ties them all together.

Marriage is a legal contract.

First, let’s deal with the difference between a “dimension” and a “purpose.” Though this will apply equally to all points, it need only be delt with once.

Trying to use the dimension of marriage being a legal contract as a purpose will wind up with something like “Marriage exists to create legal contracts,” which is clearly absurd. Society has lots of legal contracts already with which to occupy itself, each with their own purposes. Simply promoting an institution so society has something to regulate is not of interest to anyone but government bureaucrats wishing for job security.

One will also note that using this dimension on its own would attempt to make any legal contract (landlord-tenant, business agreements, etc...) fodder for being called a marriage.

So what underlying purpose do we have here that makes a marriage a marriage, and not a landlord-tenant agreement a marriage? Why is marriage, a contract, recognized by the state? Contracts are everywhere. Some of them the state recognizes and regulates, like employment contracts. Few of them does the state recognize as marriage. Why? One who is desperate to justify establishing their agenda through the courts would like to say the marriage contract exists only as an expression of animus toward homosexuals or homosexuality, but that does not explain why employment contracts aren’t recognized as marriages since employment contracts aren’t defined in terms of homosexuality.

Marriage is a sacred promise.

Instead of asking why the state recognizes the marriage contract, this point simply points out that religions also recognize marriage. By recognizing the procreative nature of marriage, one can easily see why. Indeed we will find that any form of permanence that is established by marriage is a direct function of the responsibility required for a long-term relationship with the spouse to raise the children birthed in that relationship.

Marriage was created to control the procreative potential of the man-woman relationship and deal with the consequences. Because society has an interest in that as well, society, whether religious or secular, takes notice of marriage as an institution.

Marriage is a financial partnership.

[Forgive my dealing with this one out of order as the above two points are clearly related and together they aptly demonstrate the point, quoted above.]

There are lots of financial relationships out there, and the state gets involved in some and not others. Landlords and tenants have a financial relationship the state regulates. It does so without defining that relationship as a marriage, and again not because it sees landlords and tenants as homosexuals it wishes to discriminate against. What is the state’s purpose in getting involved in the financial arrangement of married couples? Again, one need look no further than the procreative nature of marriage. Again we see that the couple’s yet-unconceived children are third party beneficiaries of the contract and therefore all of the benefits of marriage and its permanence, directly or indirectly.

Marriage is a sexual union.

Again, one may wonder why is the state concerned with sexual unions? To promote “love”? One wonders why government should be meddling in personal feelings.

There are lots relationships out there the state ignores that even involve love and children. Godparents are utterly ignored by the state. They can’t make medical decisions for their godchildren. Friendships are ignored, they have no intestate standing, and employers don’t offer health care to “friends.” What difference then is sexual intercourse that the state should suddenly care about their relationship? I can explain this in terms of the state’s obligation to the natural result of heterosexual sex, but that again points to marriage as being fundamentally procreative.

Marriage is a personal bond.

This is just another attempt by the author to reintroduce “love” as a legitimate state interest, therefore the same argument applies as the previous.

Marriage is a family-making bond.

This clearly derives from marriage’s procreative potential. In fact, all family making derives from that potential. Making families, in fact, is important specifically because it addresses the state’s obligation to its new citizens.

But there are lots of family-like relationships out there, and only one is recognized as marriage. Why is that? Again, here you would like to say it is so marriages can be vessels of discrimination toward homosexuals, but that clearly is not the case. Most children that are being raised in families without marriage are not being raised by homosexuals. In Oregon, gay rights lobbyists themselves want these other arrangements specifically excluded from their definition of a “family making bond.” When they claim it is “demeaning” to be lumped with those other families is that only explainable as an expression of animus and bigotry toward those other families?

So why does the state acknowledge only one “family making relationship” as marriage? Again, it can be tied back to the purpose of marriage and its potential to procreate. Tying children to those who created them, whether you accept that as healthy for the child or not, at the very least it establishes a first line of defense in the state’s and society’s obligation to the new child.

In summary, there is no reason to try and complicate things by looking at each of these dimensions in isolation. Just like our understanding of the physical world is enhanced not by viewing all physical constants in isolation, but rather by searching out the underlying principals that derive them, so too, by looking for the underlying principal driving the “dimensions of marriage” can we better understand its purpose. And the one underlying principal that unifies all six of your dimensions of marriage, is its potential to procreate. No other has been proffered.