Marriage "in Crisis"

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, there has been a lively debate going on over the entries of a new guest-blogger, Maggie Gallagher, a major opponent of same sex marriage.

Without going into her arguments too much, I'd just like to make a point about the idea of "preserving" marriage, and of marriage being "in crisis." Basically, my point is, if we wanted to "preserve" marriage, we'd actually be preserving a constant state of "crisis." Marriage has always been in crisis, insofar as it has never been completely nailed down in all of its particulars--its purpose, its use, its nature, its reality--much like another major part of life--government, or governance.

Marriage has always been adapting and evolving. Current issues like same-sex marriage, new reproductive technologies, and new lifestyles may put a certain (orthodox Christian) concept of marriage more in crisis than it's been in for some time, but marriage has never been static, just as governance has never been static. "Preserving marriage" as a general and unspecific notion is as ludicrous as "preserving government"--which government do you want to preserve? One that has a long history of oppression, inequality, and injustice? Ok, let's talk...(just kidding--I'll save that conversation for later)

The comparison between marriage and governance has been made repeatedly--John Milton specialized in it, the epistles of Paul and Peter use the metaphor pointedly, it features in novels like Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Lolita, Madame Bovary, and The Scarlet Letter (and in a qualified way, The Quiet American), it becomes rather obvious in many of Shakespeare's plays (Macbeth, Richard III, and especially Taming of the Shrew), it's a subtext in many movies (High Noon, Shane, Giant, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Straw Dogs, and The American President come to mind), and it's probably the dominant metaphor in Greek tragedy and (obviously) Lysistrata. Christ's relationship to the church is even described as a marriage. (Leave a comment for any explanations)

And it's a good comparison--nearly every question you can put to the notion of governance applies equally well to marriage--contract vs. covenant? fairness vs. welfare? partnership or leader/led? based on negative or positive rights? how shall property be held? rights vs. obligations? when should it be dissolved? etc.

The point I want to make is simple. It is ludicrous to talk about governance as something with only one purpose and as something that has been perfected, even if only in writing. There has been no perfect image created of governance, and there never will be. Likewise, there has never been a single understanding of what government is for (in practice or in theory), and there never will be.

Marriage, like governance, accomplishes many tasks, and it works best when it is not constrained by fulfilling any one task. It works best when the relationship between the governors and the governed is not static and unidirectional. And it works best the fewer restraints are placed on who can take part in the union.

And like marriage, governance is constantly "in crisis"--and it should be. Marriage, like governance, is a craft, not a science. It is not based on a recipe; it is based on experience and logic. The experience of humanity does not point to a single purpose for marriage, and logic should carry us to a conclusion that we should not give it an imaginary one.

Crisis--yes, please!

[note: I crossposted this at Vox in Sox with another bit that tackles her concluding arguments. Read it here.]

Also, if you haven't read it yet (unlikely as that may be), the Leon Kass/Crooked Timber exchange is amazing. Leon Kass here, Crooked Timber here.
And I'm not sure if this is completely fair to Maggie, but it does make a solid point--the opposition to same-sex marriage is self-interested in the same narrow, non-societal sense that they believe defenses of it to be.