What is Marriage?

Barry Deutsch wrote a blogpost in response to an extensive article on marriage by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson.

George and co-authers: What Is Marriage? [Click through to one of the hosts that have free copies of the pdf document.]

Deutsch: What Is Bodily Union? (A response to What Is Marriage?)

Maggie Gallagher left the following comment under Deutsch's blogpost:

George’s strong account of “bodily union” is the most controversial part of his piece. Your response will be persuasive to many.

But I’m not sure you address in any clear way the core of his and Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson’s argument: that gay marriage advocates have no answer to the question “What is marriage?” that actually explains marriage’s core features:

Why a sexual union? Why can’t close relatives do it? and Why only two?

Your response does tend to affirm his argument that none of these things are “core” only “commonly preferred” parts of marriage.

Am I misreading you?

Deutsch replied that he is planning a series of blogposts to complete his intended response to George and co-authors.

He added:

But since you bring up “Why only two?,” I’ll point out that’s a bigger problem for George et al than for me. As “What Is Marriage” itself says, “Even in traditions that permit or have permitted polygamy, each marriage is between a man and a woman.” (Pg. 247). I don’t see any logical reason, according to the principles laid out in “What Is Marriage,” we shouldn’t permit bigamy.

Either you can believe that there’s One True Idea of marriage, which virtually all cultures across time (before the last couple of decades) have understood and followed; or you can believe that polygamy is not part of the true idea of marriage. But you can’t believe both at once and be logically consistent. George tries to have it both ways, but (at least in “What Is Marriage”) never resolves the contradiction.

* * *

In a monogamous marriage culture, bigamy and polygamy are related but different. The terms are commonly interchanged in the marriage debate, however, where permitted, polygamy is not definitively bigamy. In monogamous marriage culture, bigamy usually means that a putative wife or husband had been deceived. The injuring party, and not the injured party, is guilty of bigamy. But the lack of such deceit is decisive if the participants made an honest error -- perhaps the first spouse was thought, mistakenly, to have died or perhaps the first spouse had gone missing for several years. Even in polygamous marriage cultures such deceit might be outlawed. Polygamous marriage, in contrast, typically does not entail deceit of the second or subsequent spouses whose consent is necessary. In some polygamous cultures, having more than four wives would be outlawed like bigamy is in monogamous marriage cultures.

That said, the societal response to the core meaning of marriage has varied from society to society, across the anthropological and historical records. The variability in the way that governing authorities have drawn the line regarding polygamous marriage (a series of man-woman unions) is an example of that. That does not present an actual contradiction that needs to be resolved; and it does not contradict what George and co-authors said about the two-sexed basis of marriage; and it does not mean that they want it both ways, as Deustch asserted. But it is understandable that Deutsch, steeped in SSM argumentation, might percieve what is really only an apparent contradiction.

The comment section under Deustch's blogpost is now closed. So I intend to post a reply of my own here at Opine. Deustch got quite a bit wrong. Please stay tuned.