|
|
Friday, June 17, 2005
MODELS OF MARRIAGE: Gabriel Rosenberg
[In re "what I guess is the 'procreative' model of marriage": In the "Future of Family Law" report here (PDF), you can see what Dan Cere calls the alternative model of marriage--the "conjugal" model--and how he describes it. --Eve] At MarriageDebate.com, Maggie Gallagher notes a significant development from the Lewis decision, especially from Judge Parrillo's concurrence. The opinion cites work of Dan Cere to the effect that there are competing models of marriage out there. The Massachusetts court in Goodridge espoused the "close personal relationship" model of marriage which the New Jersey court rejected in favor of what I guess is the "procreative" model of marriage. I'm trying to figure out what model of marriage I would espouse. My views on marriage are pretty well summed up by Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite when they wrote in The Case for Marriage: Despite changing attitudes toward sex and gender roles, the substance of the marriage vow as Americans understand it has changed surprising little. Marriage is, above all, seen as a permanent union ("until death do us part"), which includes the promise of sexual union ("forsaking all others"), of financial union ("with all my worldly goods I do thee endow"), and of mutual support ("to love, honor, and cherish"). I believe that model of marriage, the "promise of permanence" model can and should be applied homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples. I don't believe that marriage is essentially a procreative union, although of course many married couples will procreate and marriage is the optimal setting for procreation because of how it transforms the relationship. link |
|||||||||
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
Post a Comment
<< Home