WHAT'S FIDELITY GOT TO DO WITH IT? Dale A. Carpenter

Here's a thought on the fidelity-within-marriage issue: Baby-making is not the only, and maybe not even the most important, reason why physical fidelity remains the normative expectation of marriage. Witness the many non-procreative marriages (non-procreative by choice or by necessity) that nonetheless embrace the ideal of sexual monogamy. Why would they do this? Two answers immediately come to mind: (1) those around them expect that they will be faithful sexually, regardless of whether they can make babies as a couple, and they would be shamed if they weren't monogamous (the social expectations imperative), and (2) people make an important investment in their marriage partners emotionally, financially, and physically that would be threatened by even the occasional intrusion of outsiders whom the other partner might grow to love (the investment imperative). The second feeds on the first. People feel safer maker the initial investment when they marry because they know their partner will be shamed if he/she is discovered violating social expectations. The relationship is more durable and stable as a result.

Now consider what happens when a group of people is denied access to marriage. First, the social expectations imperative is erased, or at least diluted. There is no template of sexual monogamy to follow and no corresponding powerful social expectation pressuring the partners to remain sexually faithful. The culture forgives or is more forgiving of "infidelity" outside the marriage context because everyone understands the relationship is less serious to begin with. The social cost of straying is lower and so we should expect a higher incidence of straying. Second, because the social expectations are lower, the initial investment and subsequent investment in the relationship are lower because the investment is less secure. For that reason, less is expected of the partner.

What gay marriage could do is force the social expectations imperative onto gay couples, giving them a template to which they've not had access and buying them into the cultural meaning of marriage, with all its attendant pressures. That might, in turn, increase their own investment in their relationship, knowing that the investment will be more secure and more fully supported.

I would expect, as I believe Maggie has acknowledged, that the most tradition-minded gay couples will be most likely to marry anyway, and that marriage itself will bring them further along. The availability of this important institution to a class of persons previously denied it might also affect gay culture generally, which has been less supportive of monogamy than it otherwise could be. This is precisely what many queer leftists fear about the effects of gay marriage on gays. But it is a development conservatives ought to regard as salutary.

By the way, given the importance of sexual fidelity within marriage, why aren't lesbian couples the most suitable candidates for marriage, better even than straight couples?


posted by maggie at 7:04 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home