Central 2000

At the Central Division 2000 meeting of the APA, the Society for Analytical Feminism held a session on "Marriage and Social Meaning." These are summaries of papers given at that meeting.

Gina Rose (University of Kansas) gave a talk called "Marriage and Social Meanings." She began by noting that marriage is a double-edged sword. It offers protections but creates vulnerabilities at the same time. She notes that a great deal of the discussion about same-sex marriage is a debate about whether its benefits outweigh the risks or vice versa. She engaged differences between Claudia Card and Ralph Wedgwood in this regard. She noted that Card believes that same-sex marriage would only mimic the worst aspects of heterosexual marriage, given its inescapably patriarchal character. She finds that Ralph Wedgwood is more sanguine about the value of same-sex marriage, primarily for the various protections it offers as a matter of law. That said, she does not find that Wedgwood’s assertion of the benefits of marriage by itself shows that its benefits outweigh its risks. In any case, she finds the whole attempt to measure the risks and benefits against one another ultimately futile. She believes that the most important measure of marriage is its social meaning. In fact, marriage amounts to an assertion of the value of a family unit; it is a statement of commitment. Moreover, it is especially valuable as an assertion of the value of same-sex couples. She therefore accepts same-sex marriage as a way of resisting heterosexism. She sees in same-sex marriage a fatal blow to compulsory heterosexuality. It is one way to ensure that the public at large treats same-sex unions in accord with the value they have. She also connected this analysis to a discussion involving Cheshire Calhoun’s views on the relationship between heterosexism and patriarchy.

By way of response, Claudia Card (University of Wisconsin at Madison) noted that the state once specifically marked the birth certificates of children born out of wedlock. She thinks the state should refrain from sanctioning marriages in much the same way it has forsworn the practice of marking some birth certificates "illegitimate." Card is not opposed to intimate unions, only to marriage both in its practical effects and in terms of the state’s arrogation of responsibility for distinguishing the comparative value of intimate unions. She finds that as marriage is currently practiced, the state has undue influence in accepting reasons for establishing marriage; for dissolving marriages; and in sorting out property, debts, and access to children. She does not believe that the sexism at work in marriage can be filtered out because, most importantly, marriage thwarts various important kinds of self-defense. She finds marriage too costly to accept for the victims it makes possible, no matter how many or how few victims there are. She says same-sex couples would do well to avoid marriage both for its practical effect and the state’s wrongful assumption of entitlement to pronounce on the legitimacy of intimate unions.

Eastern 2000