Religious conservatives insist that the nature of marriage is and has always been limited to a union of two people of different genders. This is false in two basic, essential ways: it's false that this has always been the nature of marriage and it's false that any one attribute or characteristic has always been the nature of marriage, whether it's gender or anything else.

This isn't the first time that religious conservatives in America have tried to make this argument.

In fact, the last time wasn't very long ago when many of the same people - not just the same institutions and organizations, but the same people - argued vociferously that people of different races shouldn't be allowed to marry. They didn't simply argue that interracial marriages were a bad idea or that they personally disliked interracial marriage; instead, they insisted that the biological difference of race created a barrier that was part of the essential nature of marriage.

Well, we all know how well that argument worked and what happened to it. Although there are a few religious and political conservatives who continue to oppose interracial marriage, most today manage to recognize that the position is little more than a rationalization of racial bigotry. Will that ever be the case with their arguments against gay marriage?

 

Marriage and Power

The idea that gender is part of the nature of marriage might work if the argument were actually that procreation were essential to marriage; after all, same-sex couples can't have children with each other.

They can't even do it "artificially," through procedures like in vitro fertilization or surrogate mothers. That at least is a fact of nature and the world rather than a personal opinion or prejudice.

The truth of the matter, though, is that procreation isn't rquired for marriage - it's not required to enter into marriage and isn't a basis for ending marriage (at least, not any more). Even those who do try to argue that gays can't marry because they can't procreate don't really think that procreation is part of the essential nature of marriage. We know this for a fact because none of them are trying to prevent heterosexual couples from marrying if they can't or won't have children.

Since the biological basis for the argument is so obviously a failure, that only leaves us with a cultural basis - and culturally, the most essential difference between genders is a difference in power. This leads us to the conclusion that religious conservatives see a difference in power as an essential element in marriage, something that is threatened if people of the same gender are allowed to marry.

Nan D. Hunter writes in the chapter "Marriage, Law and Gender" in the book Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture:

Marriage between men or between women would create for the first time the possibility of marriage as a relationship between members of the same social status categories. However valiantly individuals try to build marriages grounded on genuine equality, no person can erase his or her status in the world as male or female, or create a home life apart from culture.

Same-sex marriage could create the model in law for an egalitarian kind of interpersonal relation, outside the gendered terms of power, for many marriages. At the least, it would radically strengthen and dramatically illuminate the claim that marriage partners are presumptively equal.

There is a great deal more equality between the sexes, including in marriage, than there used to be but the reality continues to fall well short of the ideal. Even more important is probably the fact that so many religious conservatives openly advocate that the reality should be pulled back so that it falls even further short of the ideals of those who promote equality.

Those efforts would be seriously undermined by the legalization of same-sex marriage. In a marriage of two men or two women, one can't be disadvantaged against the other merely on the basis of gender when it comes to child custody, attitudes regarding child rearing, assumptions about household duties, etc. Whatever division of labor or responsibility the two arrive at, it won't be because of cultural assumptions about what qualifies as "women's work" and "men's work."

The more others see this in their own personal lives, in the media, and in entertainment, the more those cultural assumptions will be eroded. In the long run, this will benefit equality in mixed-gender marriages because people entering into those marriages won't be burdened as strongly by the traditional assumptions of gender roles. Granted, the existence of same-sex marriages may only end up playing a small role in this development, but every little bit helps.