Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Platonic Marriage

by Sherry F. Colb

In my column for this week on Verdict, I take up a question that Justice Alito posed during oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which he asked whether it would be possible, if the Court recognized same-sex-marriage (SSM) as constitutionally protected, to still refuse to recognize the right of strongly-bonded and committed but not romantically-involved couples to marry.  I propose in my column that one could potentially answer the question "yes, one could distinguish the two" but that in truth, it is not clear why we would want to deny the status of marriage to committed couples who are not sexually affiliated.

In this post, I want to do things: 1) briefly discuss the stereotype about marriage (and certainly about having children) that the status of married couple and of parent tends to turn sexually-affiliated couples into Platonic couples, even though they were not that before, and then 2) raise a possible account of why people would pose the question that Justice Alito posed regarding the extension of marriage to Platonic couples.

Stereotype of Married People

The stereotype about marriage ending couples' sex lives is, of course, just that, a stereotype, but it is likely true that at least some number of married couples lose interest in having sex with each other after they marry and that other couples go through "dry spells," either because of illness, exhaustion, or stress.  Yet few people would suggest that marriages in which the couples are either less interested in sex than they were before or no longer interested in sex at all have become "invalid" marriages that ought to void.  Indeed, comedians have a field day with precisely this phenomenon, however limited or widespread, that people associate specifically with the status of being married.

So Why Deny Marriage to the Non-Sexually Involved

This reality, that some number of married couples have lost interest in having sex with each other, and the fact that the stereotype is even far more widespread than the phenomenon itself, adds one more reason to question Justice Alito's easy assumption that of course, we should deny non-romantically-involved committed couples access to marriage and that the alleged slippery slope involved in opening the door" to such marriages by recognizing SSMs might represent a reason to refuse same-sex couples the right the marry.  To paraphrase what a (perhaps-not-especially-funny) comedian might say, "I thought sexless apathy in a couple was a revered tradition in marriage, so how can it be disqualifying?"

Implicit in Justice Alito's question, though, seems to be a view of marriage as valuable in part because it is "exclusive."  Part of what makes it desirable for couples to marry, on this view, is the fact that there might be other couples who would like to marry (such as Platonic couples) but cannot, because the law limits the status to people like the first couple (whether the limit is based on sexual orientation or a sexual affiliation).  Interestingly, this view resonates strongly with an argument against SSM that used to be more popular than it is now, the argument that if we want men and women to get married, we need to "defend" the institution of marriage for them against same-sex couples.  It is a kind of segregation argument that says that if heterosexual couples are to move into the "marriage" neighborhood, then we need to keep out the "riff raff" (the non-traditional couples) or else the ones we really want will be turned off by their neighbors.

I am glad that people do not feel free to make this "defense of marriage" argument anymore, one that holds that the institution of marriage must be "defended" against being adulterated by undesirables.  People rightly understand that such arguments trade in the imposition of stigma and discrimination, and making the arguments ratifies such behavior in the process.

But perhaps some of the hypothetical cases that the Justices presented to the litigants, including the one about Platonic couples, is simply another, more subtle, way of making the same point about adulterating a heretofore exclusive status by allowing "just anyone" to have access to it.  If so, that is unfortunate.  Unlike money, fancy cars, and memberships in prestigious clubs, one would hope that what motivates a couple to join together in matrimony is about love and commitment and perhaps a desire to raise children together, not the acquisition of a status that others will be denied.  If marriage feels less valuable to a couple because "they" get to enter into it too, then perhaps that couple should reconsider the decision to marry.


Greg said...

Wait, platonic couples AREN'T allowed to get married?

I don't remember anything in my marriage licence that specifically stated that I either had to be romantically or sexually involved with my spouse. Looking back, I'm not even sure that my marriage vows that stated this explicitly, except perhaps for a vow of fidelity, which even that doesn't technically constitute a requirement that the couple be sexually involved with each other.

Even though they very much love each other, I have family members who don't particularly believe in the institution of marriage and only got married for platonic reasons.

How would a state even enforce a rule against platonic marriage? How would that be defined in a way that is neither under- nor over-inclusive?

Shag from Brookline said...

Greg asks:

"How would a state even enforce a rule against platonic marriage? How would that be defined in a way that is neither under- nor over-inclusive?"

Answer: By a ruling of the Court that the 4th A is not violated by government monitoring of bedroom activities of suspected Platonicks to retroactively void such a marriage.

Joe said...

Sotomayor was correct -- individuals choose the meaning of "marriage" while the state provides minimum limits based on consent and such. Like race, sex (or sexual orientation) is not a proper classification given current knowledge and practice.

The attempt of opponents to make marriage small depresses me as much as anything else. Some on the other side sneer that people just want it to be about "love." But as suggested by Greg, obviously that isn't required to get a license.

Nor is sex. A particular form of "union" might be for some religions (e.g., if you are physically unable to do that -- wink wink -- a certain religion doesn't allow you to marry). But, not state marriage.

Michael C. Dorf said...

In answer to Greg's question, there are indeed contexts in which the govt effectively requires romance in marriage--as when it looks for it to sort "real" from "sham" marriages for immigration purposes.

Joe said...

Romance might be looked for more in the immigration context, but it can't be a irrebutable thing. If, e.g., an arranged marriage w/o romance is involved that by other factors is clearly not a sham, romance alone shouldn't be required.

I think selective "requirements" probably arises in various contexts. For instance, normally, there are limited requirements to retain custody. But, suddenly when the courts get involve, such as in divorce custody disputes, various at times arbitrary criteria is examined.

Greg said...

The immigration context is interesting. In immigration cases, is the marriage actually dissolved, is or it simply ignored for immigration purposes? This has interesting federalism impacts if the marriage is actually dissolved.

Also, the immigration thing struck me more like employment policies in at-will employment states. In this case, you can get married for any reason you like, EXCEPT for the purpose of immigration. That's a far cry from a blanket prohibition on platonic marriages.

Shag from Brookline said...

Perhaps there should be a look back at void and voidable marriages in considering the issues raised by this post.

Shijun Lin said...

shijun 5.20
kids lebron james shoes
jordan shoes
abercrombie fitch
jordan retro 5
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
ray ban wayfarer
replica watches
michael kors
cheap lebron james shoes
pandora rings
tory burch outlet online
timberland outlet
ralph lauren outlet
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
chaenl bags
coach outlet online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
ray ban aviators
michael kors
soccer jerseys
coach outlet
michael kors uk
coach outlet store online
michael kors outlet
lebron 12
oakley store
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
kate spade
concord 11s
tods sale

Mark Godswin said...

my name is Mark Godswin am here to share testimony of how i got back my relationship that was scattered for months. we got married for more than 7 years and have gotten three kids. things were going well with us and we are always happy. until one day my wife started behaving in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way she treat me and the kids. for months she did not come home again and she called me for a divorce, i asked her what have i done wrong to deserve this from her, all she was saying is that she want a divorce that she hate me and do not want to see me again in her life, i was mad and also frustrated and do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 3 weeks because of her intention towards me. i love my wife so much and can do anything for her. i told my brother and he told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted DR Alexzander through his website, for the return of my wife to me, he told me that my wife have been taken by another man, that he cast a spell on her that was why she hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on her that will make her return to me and the kids, Dr alexzander cast the spell and after 1 week my wife called me and she told me that i should forgive her, she apologizes on phone and said that she did not know what happened to her. it was the spell that DR Alexzander cast on her that made her return back to me today,me and my family are now happy again. thank you Dr Alexzander for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for HIS great spell. i want all my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact {alexzanderhightemple@gmail.com or through his website alexzanderhightemple-com.webs.com} if you need a supernatural great wizard to cast a spell for you. email Dr alexzander and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay.These are the few things he also do for people. *do you need rapid and undeserved promotions in your offices or work? Dr alexzander can bring back lost lovers on 96hrs and can cast all kind of spell. Dr alexzander is a healer that is here on earth to solve your problems just as he did to mine.this is your chance to be helped quickly by Dr alexzander.his an expert in distance healing, court cases even if one is convicted. he can do all manner of spell that you may need in life.he can also make you conceive a child and win money through gambling and other things you may desire to have in life. contact him and be the next to share his good work to the world. alexzanderhightemple@gmail.com or alexzanderhightemple-com.webs.com) God bless!!!

chenlina said...

michael kors handbags
knockoff watches
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
retro 11
toms wedges
fake watches
hollister jeans
mulberry uk
true religion outlet
ray bans
air jordan retro
nike air max
jordan concord 11s
michael kors outlet
ray ban sunglass
lebron 11
polo outlet
coach factory outlet
true religion sale
oakley sunglasses wholesale
burberry sale
christian louboutin sale
new jordans
louis vuitton handbags
celine bags
ray ban wayfarer
louis vuitton
kevin durant basketball shoes
adidas wings
oakley eyeglasses
oakley sunglasses wholesale
concords 11
jordan 11 columbia
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
abercrombie store
oakley sunglasses cheap