Too Many Eggs in the Wrong Basket: A Queer Critique of the Same-Sex Marriage Movement

Abstract

The fight for legally recognized same-sex marriage dominates the contemporary gay rights movement and has ignited national debate. However, missing from the current discourse is a critical view of the privileges of marriage. Arguments for legal, same-sex marriage center on the many rights and benefits married heterosexual couples enjoy but from which same-sex couples are excluded. However, lesbian and gay activists and social workers are notably silent on whether it is fair that marriage bestows such privileges. Following is a critique of the privilege of marriage from a queer theory perspective and its implications for social action and future directions of the lesbian and gay rights movement. MARRIAGE PRIVILEGES In U.S. culture, marriage is indeed privileged. Among the many benefits available to married people are coverage under a spouse's insurance and the ability to inherit his or her Social Security benefits, pension, and personal assets without excessive taxation (Chauncey, 2004). Married people are virtually always able to visit spouses in the hospital and can make health care decisions when their spouses are rendered incapable. Husbands and wives cannot be forced to testify against each other in court and may pursue litigation in their wrongful deaths. In addition, there are many social benefits attached to marriage. Being married is seen by society as healthy and normal, and the mental health and maturity of those who remain single is considered suspect (Warner, 1999). As the fight to legalize same-sex marriage proceeds, it is important to question why such privileges are bestowed on marriage and why social work, with its commitment to social justice, has not challenged this privileging. WHY PRIVILEGE MARRIAGE? Since the 1960s, the proportion of people in the United States who marry each year has decreased by 50 percent, and the proportion of marriages ending in divorce has increased to 50 percent (Whitehead & Popenoe, 2004).The decline of marriage is a likely result of the growing financial independence of women, the increased effectiveness and acceptability of contraception, and the historical transformation of Western culture, which up to 150 years ago emphasized obedience to authority and now prizes personal freedom, pleasure, and individual choice (Graff, 2004). Conservatives concerned about this trend believe marriage must be privileged to stem its waning importance (Haskins, McLanahan, & Donahue, 2005).They argue that heterosexual marriage is healthy for men and women, provides the optimum environment for children, and is therefore worthy of advantages and status (Santorum, 2003; Spalding, 2004). To bolster their arguments, conservatives selectively cite findings to declare that compared with singles, married people are better off physically and psychologically and that children living with married rather than single or divorced parents fare better physically and emotionally. These conclusions, however, do not stand up to more comprehensive, critical reviews of the available research (Manning & Lichter, 1996; McClanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Waldron, Hughes, & Brooks, 1996). For example, it is unclear whether marriage actually makes people better off, or that wealthier, healthier people are more likely to marry. Furthermore, for children in single and divorced families, it is difficult to untangle the effects of parental status from the higher rates of poverty, parental stress, and discord these families also experience (Graff; Lamb, 1997). Conservatives also argue that marriage tames sexuality, and this taming is necessary to ensure the survival of civilization. To make the limiting of one's sexuality to marriage more palatable, society must provide rewards and reinforcements as well as punishments for noncompliance (Warner, 1999). Conservative Christianity in tandem with the U.S. government has historically attempted to limit nonprocreative sexuality not only outside but also within marriage (Graft, 2004). …