I recently
overheard an interesting conversation in an office I was visiting. It was about marriage and it was
being held by some of our more conservative staff, which without saying, had a
bias homophobic inclination. The topic,
of course, was gay marriage. After what
seem to be hours of conversation where each person was trying to outdo the
others in their status of “machismo,” I decided to join in. I asked one of the people (I’ll call him Samuel
or Sam); “Hey Sam, suppose that I asked you to marry me.” Everybody went quiet for a while and then the
strong refusal and name calling toward me began by everybody at the same time. Things like:
“What are you some kind of closet fag?”
“What have you got the hot’s for him? Someone else asked. This went on for a few minutes, but I held my
hand in a stop position to be able to get a word in.
No, I said,
I don’t have a sexual attraction for him.
But let’s do a mind experiment.
Suppose that Sam was dying of, say cancer, and he did not have the
resources to pay for the cure, but I had insurance that covered all his medical
costs. And, suppose that he was going to
die in a few days unless he had treatment and with treatment he could expect to
live a long life? The benefit to me is
that I was getting frail and needed help to maintain my house and my
activities. If I could offer you the
opportunity for a healthy life in exchange for your help, would you marry me
then? Again in a very macho tone of
voice almost everyone said they much rather die than marry another man. “Well,” I said, “suppose there is no intimacy
involved. No touching no kissing, no sex
(of course) just a friend relationship where we shared benefits, chores,
responsibilities, etc.” “Well you can
have that without getting married,” Sam says.
“Yes you could,” I said, “but not the health insurance.” They all thought about it for a while and
finally one of the guys (not Sam) said, “Well, if it’s that type of deal, I
would take it, it’s either that or dying in a week.” There was a lot of pro and con discussion on
that option and finally Sam and everyone else saw the benefit of the marriage arrangement
- if it was defined in that manner.
So I turned
and asked Steve, “what if you were homeless and winter was coming and the only
way you could survive was to come and live in my home, but the law only allowed
you to live with me if you and I were married.”
Again, an explosion of macho positioning followed and again, after
indicating that no other option was available, we came to the conclusion that
if that was the only way, they would do it since it was either continue living
or dying in the winter.
“OK,” I
said, “suppose that I had the tools to manufacture something that would make a
lot of money, and you John, had all the raw materials. However, by law we could not share unless we
had a marriage arrangement.” You really
wanted to manufacture stuff and so did I.
“Would you enter into a marriage arrangement?” “Well,” they all responded in one way or
another, “if it had the same limits with no sex, or kissin, or huggin, and
stuff, yeah, I would do it” John replied,
“but only if I’m able to go out with women.”
“Why don’t
we consider,” I continued, “another hypothetical case” (as if nothing I had
said up until now was not hypothetical) “Let’s say that this person had a
psychological dependency on being close to another person of the same sex, not
necessarily close in the intimate way, but close proximity wise.” “There is nobody like that.” Sam stated.
“That’s not true,” Tom Said, “I had an aunt that had to have a person
near her otherwise she would go nuts.” “OK,”
I said, that person needed constant care, but the law prevented them
from living together unless they were married.”
“Are they both men?” Sam
asked. “It doesn’t matter,” I said, “they
could be either of the same sex or of opposite sexes.” “Well, if they were of opposite sexes, there
would be no problem,” Tom mentioned. “What
if they were both women?” I asked. In that case everybody agreed that that would
be OK. “But what if they were both men,”
I asked. “With the same condition for no
intimacy?” Steve asked. “Sure.”
I said. “Yeah, that would be OK,”
they all agreed.
“What if you
were single and were getting on in years and had done well for yourself, but
wanted to leave your stuff to an heir.
So you adopt a child. Isn’t that
like a marriage? You love and respect
the kid, you nurture him (or her) and it is your best interest for the kid to
grow and love and care for you as well as have your same values, after all you
will leave him your whole estate.” “But
that is different,” Sam said. “Why is
it? I asked. “You have an official certificate for a union
for life, there is love and caring, teaching and respect. Like the scenarios earlier, there is no intimate
contact, not in the sense of sex, but there is hugging and caring. In a way they are kind of the same, aren’t
they?
A long discussion
pursued but at the end they all agreed that it was kind-of the same in terms of
legal commitments and emotional commitments between the two, but until the
child was of age, the legal commitments was between the state (and the adoption
agency) and the person adopting.
“So in all
these cases,” I said, “marriage has been like a mutual commitment to do
something for each other. Someone needs something
that the other person can provide. Who
cares if they are of the same sex, if marriage is the only way to have that
arrangement, you are all telling me that you would all do it.” It’s almost like an economic arrangement where
tangible and non-tangible goods and services are bartered and exchanged.” They all agreed that it was more like an
economic arrangement. It was trading
health coverage or shelter and safety for companionship and assistance, collaboration
of compatible resources to meet a goal, or an investment in the future
through an offspring.
“So,” I
said, “what happens if the goods exchanged are more non-tangible to include, say, ‘love?’ What if someone, in order to live and
make them happy was willing to give love for something in exchange? I don’t mean love in the sense of sex, but
love in the sense of caring, companionship, everything we define as love.” I continued, “and to carry that case out a
little bit more, what if the other person was also willing to offer love as
part of the exchange of goods and services?”
“Well, that would be just like a normal marriage,” they all agreed. What if the two parties were both women and
or both men?” I said? “But that would be
different!” Sam jumped out and
said. “But that’s no different than the
other cases.” Tom and John jumped in
defending the issue.
I had a
meeting to go to and I left them discussing the issue. I don’t know if I changed any minds in that
discussion, but as I left down the hall I could still hear them discussing the pros and cons of same sex marriage.
As an afterthought, I think that what consenting adults do in private
should not enter the discussion of marriage.
For most of history mates were not chosen on something as fragile and
irrational as love and then focus all their sexual, intimate, and altruistic
desires on the resulting marriage. Most
marriages, before “love” became a factor, were pragmatic, involving
considerations of property and family alliance, love was something you found after, sometimes outside your marriage. Only rarely in history has love
been seen as the reason for getting married. Maybe Tina Turner had something in her song “Oh
what's love got to do, got to do with it.
What's love but a second hand emotion”
OK, maybe not second hand emotion, but definitely and economic non-tangible
good that is the basis for, and possibly bartered and traded in, a contract of marriage.
