The Rigors of Boringly Bourgeois Marriage

Over the last decade or so, the gay rights movement made a politically canny adjustment: It began featuring lesbian and gay families who wanted to enter the American mainstream, and the outré postmodernists were less heard from. By outré postmodernists I mean those whose views were unlikely to play well in Peoria. For example:

We have for now lost the opportunity to explore the possibilities of a “lawless homosexuality” that is neither regulated by criminal sodomy laws nor licensed by civil marriage laws. What . . . might be the costs [of legal recognition of same-sex relationships]? . . . New kinds of fantasmatic curiosities might both be foreclosed or wither as our curiosity gets channeled or tamed in the direction of the familiar, the safe, and the respectable nuclear family.

Well, they’re back. The above is from Katherine Franke’s Wedlocked, a book about “the perils of marriage equality” or, in the words of its second subtitle, “how African Americans and gays mistakenly thought the right to marry would set them free.”

The Columbia University law professor and lesbian activist rains on the Obergefell parade. “Gaining marriage rights may threaten the gay community’s own history and values,” she says. Homosexuals should not have so eagerly strapped on the fetters of an institution made by and for white heterosexuals. She worries that it may not be a good deal for gays and lesbians since, according to her, it didn’t turn out to be a good deal for black folks after slavery was abolished in the United States.

That this linkage has problems the author well knows. She swears she does not mean to equate the treatment of African Americans by the white majority in the 19th century with the treatment of gays by the straight majority today but is merely juxtaposing them. However, there is a constant showing of similarities, hearing of “echoes,” and extraction of “lessons” gays are advised to take from studying the earlier struggle. The cumulative effect is that the two are being equated.

It is certainly not wrong to speak of the resilience of black families down the generations. Franke goes on, however, to idealize “ ‘Living apart together’ or LAP relationships” and to make instability out to be a virtue, meanwhile leaving entirely out of the picture drugs and their ill effects on communities, families, and individuals. Diverse family forms among gays and lesbians also get a feisty defense, in nearly the same breath. She even delves into the (to her) infamous Moynihan Report of 1964 to set the table for deploring what she calls “a gay Moynihan moment”—when a collection of straight liberals (the American Psychological Association) did their patronizing best to help gay families by imposing on them the standard of the straight nuclear family.

The postmodern theorizing sprinkled in among the research findings is irritating, all the more so since Franke gleaned interesting information by combing through archives from the Civil War and Reconstruction. Her research led her to the legal tangles in which African Americans were caught after being granted legal recognition of their marriages at the end of the war.

When the states rejoining the Union passed laws regularizing the relationships of formerly enslaved men and women, many were not aware of their official married status because they were illiterate. Getting automatically swept into the institution of marriage led, in several cases Franke describes, to their being hauled in by the authorities for bigamy or adultery if they took up with other partners. And prison led to labor in a chain gang, a return to a kind of slavery. The widows of ex-slaves who died fighting for the Union faced procedural obstacles to collecting the government pensions they were owed. Husbands and wives in Mississippi complained to Freedmen’s Bureau agents that the state was taking their children away from them on trumped up charges of being too poor to support them.

What Franke is driving at with these accounts, which in and of themselves are well worth reading, is that admitting gays into the institution of marriage leaves gays, too, vulnerable to being tripped up:

Same-sex couples would be well counseled to prepare for the ways in which a marriage license inaugurates new forms of state discipline and regulation that can be easily deployed in the service of a durable and crushing homophobic itinerary.

Wedlocked delves into slavery, marriage, family law, race-related and homosexuality-related Supreme Court cases, all the while not saying—until an oblique reference midway through and a direct statement toward the end—that the main defense, today, of traditional marriage is that marriage’s purpose is to tie together gamete-contributors so they will take care of the children they produce. Avoiding acknowledgment of this argument (one that I have made) blurs the contours of the debate. The basic reproductive difference between the racial minority Franke writes about and the sexual minority she writes about is in this way obscured.

She’s quite clear on people who disagree with her—defamatory, even. Prominent opponents of same-sex marriage are likened to Klansmen and the late extremist Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church on no evidence. At other times, her tendentiousness can be funny. Of the two Anthonys, Kennedy and Weiner, who make their appearance in Wedlocked, which would you suppose the good Anthony and which the lame-o one? Guess again. The ex-congressman (D-N.Y.) “may be more of an ally in the cause to defend sexual liberty than are marriage equality advocates” because his digital sharing of certain images reaffirmed public “erotic inclinations” precisely at a time when “homosexuals were busy domesticating their sexuality in the private domain of the family.” (Full disclosure of the dissociative sort: liberty-defender no relation to this reviewer.)

As for Justice Kennedy, he is dissed as one of those liberals who thinks he’s being helpful but is really being overbearing. “The narrative Justice Kennedy began telling about us in Lawrence”—meaning Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision overturning sodomy laws—was that “the Constitution stands to protect us so long as we can plausibly discipline our desires into the form of kinship. Sex for its own sake remains without constitutional protection.”

In this farrago of a book containing everything from the sublime to the ridiculous, the author sometimes hits the nail on the head. Justice Kennedy actually is a liberal who thinks he’s being helpful but is really overbearing. Obergefell shows that. It has a flimsy constitutional warrant. She wouldn’t say that, to be sure. She’s a Living Constitution person all the way; still her analysis of legal and political developments is trenchant in more than a few places. Some of her criticisms of the drive for same-sex marriage—and of some gays and lesbians who have leapt into marriage—are valid as well.

For example, advocates insisted they were pushing only for the choice to marry, and gave assurances that no one was being dragooned into making this choice. (See Jonathan Rauch in this 2013 panel discussion at 22:50, 23:08, and 1:06:10.) Franke points out instances where employers cancelled benefits for same-sex couples in domestic partnerships or civil unions when gay marriage came to their states, preferring to extend the benefits only to those gay employees who married. Some people were indeed being corralled into marriage. In the future, some may be left out in the cold regarding parental rights or other matters, she plausibly suggests, if they hold themselves aloof from marriage.

Unusual prenuptial agreements entered into by same-sex couples are described in the book, such as one man’s stipulation that a $100,000 fine be levied on his soon-to-be spouse in the event that the latter committed adultery, and another prenuptial agreement under which neither spouse was required to be monogamous. Franke asks whether these couples ought not bethink themselves and possibly forgo marriage, if they would redefine its expectations and duties so drastically. It’s a good question. It makes her sound (if only for a moment) like the public policy writer Jonathan Rauch, who has been fighting for gay marriage since 1995. Rauch, too, stresses that a marriage is not a casual thing to embark on.

Interestingly, Franke seems to crowd Rauch from the right in certain passages of the book: witness her lament that movement strategists did not stop to consider whether, having overcome the criminalization of homosexuality, it might be wise to pause and appreciate having achieved a “middle ground between criminalization and assimilation.”

Rauch offers some background on this. He has said gay leaders didn’t really want a big push for same-sex marriage; rather, “this movement has been driven by the grassroots right from the first days.” I believe him. Though I suspect he and other like-minded Inside-the-Beltway types did their part in wresting the agenda away from the Human Rights Campaign (with its focus on homosexuals as a protected class) and the deconstructionist acolytes of theorists like Judith Butler, Edward Said, and Franz Fanon (Franke favorably cites all three). Also, Rauch has long said that new rights for him must not encroach on other Americans’ right to religious freedom. He tries to persuade other gay leaders to be tolerant in this respect. This is laudable, but a tough task. Franke’s bellicosity on the issue is on full display in Wedlocked. She regards protecting faith as protecting bigotry, period.

It turns out that the legions of boringly bourgeois gays out there are willing to trade the pleasures of “a lawless homosexuality” for the rigors of the law. Popular will of that sort makes Katherine Franke, and others who favor “fantasmatic curiosities,” uneasy. Truth be told, the advent of gay marriage unsettled me too. But in the end my concern about the removal of children from the center of marriage and my conviction that gay marriage should not have become a matter of constitutional right were not enough to keep me from the lawn of a Maryland courthouse, where I married my partner of 34 years. If “new forms of state discipline and regulation” are on the way, as Wedlocked ominously predicts, well then we’ll face them together.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on August 12, 2015 at 10:41:31 am

Congratulations! If you've been together for 34 years, you already know how tough it can be. All the best, and thanks for this account of some possible monkey wrenches in the works...some of Franke's insight sounds really valuable.

read full comment
Image of aez
on August 12, 2015 at 15:47:11 pm

I’m an equal-protection guy. I want public schools to be available to kids regardless of race. And if I later read a book talking about how public schools are full of lots of tricky rules, and that some black kids prefer going to private schools -- that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

So now civil marriage is available to couples regardless of gender. Did the campaign for equality fail to emphasize the diversity of perspective among same-sex couples? Sure; but the fact that civil marriage may not be a good fit for all same-sex couples was not relevant to the question of whether the option should be available to those couples.

So Franke doesn’t regard Justice Kennedy as an “ally” because he writes decisions that defend the rights of homosexual to have sex within kinship bonds, but not otherwise. But before Kennedy wrote his decision, I’m not aware that the Constitution provided any protections for homosexual sex. So no, I don’t regard Kennedy as an “ally,” because I don’t view the world in dichotomous Us vs. Them modes. Rather, I view Lawrence like this: Kennedy wrote a decision that reflected his views – some of which Franke likes and some she doesn’t. It’s really no more complicated than that.

Yup, employers may not extend benefits to partners of gay employees unless the employee marries the partner. But if that’s the definition of being “dragooned” or “corralled,” it a dynamic male/female couples have endured for decades. We can like or dislike this dynamic, but I really don’t see the rationale for having different dynamics based on the genders of the people involved.

The fact that a gay couple has a prenup with a $100,000 penalty for infidelity is evidence that the couple isn’t taking marriage seriously? Seems serious to me. But more to the point, what concern is it of mine that couples negotiate the terms of their relationship to suit themselves rather than me, or some existing “norm”?
But I do like the discussion of the problems that arose when former slaves found themselves suddenly within into the institution of civil marriage. I’m reminded of Mr. Doolittle, a happy-go-lucky bum in Pygmalion (and My Fair Lady) who is abruptly burdened with a large inheritance, thus thrusting him it the middle class and the responsibilities of “middle class morality.” There’s an unanticipated consequence…!

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
on August 12, 2015 at 21:25:53 pm


Very sensible;

"But before Kennedy wrote his decision, I’m not aware that the Constitution provided any protections for homosexual sex."

I would only add this: You are correct - prior to Lawrence, there was no Constitutional protection for homosexual sex:
and there should not be!

Frankly, it simply is not the governments' business. I really cannot recall having read of Madison, Hamilton, Wilson etc. discussing this during the Philadelphia convention. The Fed ought to just stay out of it!!!!

Kennedy's *opinion* notwithstanding! What next will they outlaw (or mandate?) trapezes from (or in) the bedroom? Ha!

read full comment
Image of gabe
on August 12, 2015 at 23:30:01 pm

prior to Lawrence, there was no Constitutional protection for homosexual sex:
and there should not be!

Frankly, it simply is not the governments’ business.

"Frankly, it is simply not the governments' business" summarizes the entire Lawrence decision.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
on August 13, 2015 at 09:46:25 am

I have no problem with Lawrence.
It is with it's lineage that I may take issue and based upon your earlier comments, I think you may agree, re: impact upon religious beliefs, etc.

Don't have any resolution, do you?

take care

read full comment
Image of gabe
on August 13, 2015 at 10:22:41 am

I save my resolutions for New Year's.

And no, I thus far don't have a lot of problem with how Supreme Court cases on homosexuality have affected freedom of religion. Problems may arise with future cases, but I haven't seen the problems with the current ones. (Ok, I would have relied on a different rationale with some, but why quibble....?)

If anything, I wonder if Hobby Lobby didn't provide too much accommodation. But Kennedy's concurrence arguably provides the real holding, and that arguably provides an appropriate balance.

But since you asked, I'll once again trot out my proposed Market Power Defense to Title II claims: A person accused of discriminating on the basis of a suspect category could be relieved of liability if he informed the plaintiff where the plaintiff could find equivalent housing/employment/public accommodation at equivalent terms in close proximity. It's akin to the "mitigation of harms" in contract law. It might look like this:

- “I’m very sorry, sir, but in accordance with my faith I regret that I will not be able to serve you here. But I know the establishment across the street would be more than happy to accommodate you. Here are their Yelp reviews, and a coupon -- with our compliments!”

- “Please forgive me; I don’t handle birth control. Jerry, our other pharmacist, will be with you momentarily.”

- “Oh, ma’am - if you don’t mind, could you please move down to the next cab in line? Abdul’s a nice guy, but has religious qualms about transporting single women, alcohol, and dogs. Since there are plenty of cabs here, I hope you won’t mind….”

Discriminators shouldn’t shift the burden of their preferences onto others. But where those burdens are trivial – really, only symbolic – couldn’t we make some accommodation for freedom of religion?

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
on August 13, 2015 at 10:43:15 am

Okey dokey - I like Market Power approach; and yes, some "issues" are really nothing more than symbolic.
The question is "Why do some folks want to make a Federal Case out of it."

"Move along, nothing to see here", would be a more appropriate response to these symbolic assaults.

Instead, some folks insist on "frightening the horses"!!!!

read full comment
Image of gabe
on August 13, 2015 at 10:57:43 am

The Civil War informed us that anytime a people rebuke physics-based ethics, they invite woe. According to physics, a person cannot own the fruits of another person's labor; a person cannot own a person.

Second, the Civil War informed us that a people who employ a god in their will to rebuke physics invite personal woe. Millennia ago, the evil of slavery should have become evident to African gods. The advent of guns should not have motivated papal gods to commission the acquisition of lands by invasion of lands and conversion, enslavement, or murder of the inhabitants (1452 papal bull) or to use the African slave trade to accelerate the settlement of invaded lands (1455 papal bull). The evil of slavery was evident to many 17th century colonists and to Thomas Paine in his 1775 letter "African Slavery in America." See www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm.

When an ovum is fertilized by sperm, a unique human heritage is determined, and if that single cell emerges as a child, the child owns that heritage. Adult contracts that separate the child from its heritage rebuke physics-based ethics.

Mitochondrial DNA informs us that everyone alive is a descendant of one woman who lived some 140,000 years ago to 200,000 years ago. It seems she had many mates. Blood lines from her contemporary women did not survive the environmental changes those people encountered. With humanoids emerging perhaps 2600 million years ago, everybody's ancestral mother emerged at only 5% ago in the humanoid path to us. How would technology and adult contracts have impacted evolution?

Should a child's right to its heritage be honored? Is a child entitled to equality and dignity? Why did the Supreme Court ignore these obvious questions?

I think a civic people should turn their backs on both god-based ethics and opinion about Supreme Court opinion, especially Supreme Court opinion about Supreme Court opinion, and employ physics-based ethics to determine civic morality. Civic reform is too important to children, grandchildren, and beyond for a civic people to ignore.

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on August 13, 2015 at 18:37:17 pm


BTW: What do you think of the results of the Lawrence "lineage" that proclaims a Constitutional basis for a "dignity" right? Recall, this also was an opinion (concoction?) of Black Robe Kennedy.

Clearly, this is not something that a) can be defined in a universally acceptable manner and b) does not appear to have any reasonable chance of being achieved. Ought not the guvmnt limit itself to some things that can be achieved or are attainable.

In the final analysis, this is what troubles me the most about some recent pronouncements from the bench.

What say you?

read full comment
Image of gabe
on August 22, 2015 at 23:25:53 pm

[…] The Rigors of Boringly Bourgeois Marriage […]

read full comment
Image of In Defense of Scalia’s Style - Freedom's Floodgates
In Defense of Scalia’s Style - Freedom's Floodgates

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.