The Great Marriage Debate

People marry for many reasons, to publicly declare their love or legitimise their relationship, to have a family, improve economic stability, and sometimes for citizenship in a foreign country. Whether the reasons for marriage are legal, emotional, social or financial some truths emerge about the consequences of marriage on the individual. Marriage has been shown repeatedly to make people happier, healthier and wealthier.

The case for wealthier:

It has been shown that married people fair better in employment particularly with regards to earnings. This is most apparent when a large portion of unpaid labour in the home is performed by only one of the married persons; in traditional relationships this is usually a woman. This unequal division of labour provides the working partner with greater freedom to dedicate themselves to their work, become more specialised, receive promotions and ultimately earn more. This greatly increases the combined wealth of the couple. Baxter and Gray (2003) found married men earn 15% more on average than unmarried men.

In addition to increased earning potential marriage creates wealth in other ways depending on the specific tax advantages within a country’s system. Marital status is a determining factor in receiving benefits, rights and privileges. Some of the financial advantages that may be available within marriage are health insurance, inheritance rights, no estate tax and a lower tax rate for joint filing.

The case for happier:

The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes of 2005 undisputedly discovered that married people were considerably happier. 78% of married people rate themselves as 7 or above on 0-10 scale, compared to 63% of the never married. In fact married couples were also happier than de facto couples. Married people were more likely to be in the very happy 9-10 range, 32% compared to 21% among de facto couples. This indicates that marriage itself and not simply being partnered influenced happiness positively. These results have been replicated elsewhere. Data from a 15-year study of over 24,000 individuals living in Germany also indicated that people who get married and stayed married are more satisfied with their lives than their unmarried counterparts.

Casting aside discrepancies between genders, which is a discussion for a whole other article, the fact remains that married people do report higher levels of happiness than unmarried people.

The case for healthier

De Vaus (2002) concluded that marriage is a protective factor against social pathologies, greatly reducing the risk of mental disorders such as depression. He found that married men had better mental health than single men and that married women also had the best mental health. A 2002 study conducted at La Trobe University in Australia revealed that married women with children were the least likely to suffer mental health problems. Single men are twice as likely to commit suicide as married men. (Miller-Tutzauer et al, 1991).

Life expectancy is increased through marriage. Mortality rates for single men are 250% higher than married men. Single women have mortality rates that are 50% higher than married women (Ross et all, 1990). This research demonstrates that marriage protects both men and women against mental disorders and increases life expectancy. These are all good things really.

Enough dry statistics. Lets talk about something more controversial. Same-sex marriage.

Since 2001, five nations have made same-sex marriage legal, namely the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa. In the United States, Massachusetts is the only state to recognize same-sex marriage under the name marriage whilst several other states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant same-sex couples some or all of the same rights under state law granted to married couples.

Civil unions are a separate form of legal union open to couples of the same sex. Denmark was the first country in the world (in 1989) to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples under the name of registered partnership. Civil unions (and registered partnerships) are currently recognized in 24 out of 193 countries worldwide.

Without question stable relationships are better for society. Being happier, healthier and wealthier can only impact positively. It reduces the need for society to support its members as each spouse looks out for the other often providing care that would fall to a public health or social welfare system.

But with de facto status often granted to same-sex couples is there a need for same-sex marriage? Absolutely. Marriage and living together are not the same thing. Brown and Booth (1996) found that cohabitation typically does not bring the benefits—in physical health, wealth, and emotional wellbeing—that marriage does. This is partly due to the tendency of cohabitants orientation towards personal autonomy over the wellbeing of their partner and also due to commitment discrepancies.

Cohabitating couples do not have the same level of commitment. Although married couples often succumb to the same problems and issues as those who are merely cohabiting, marriage provides a level of commitment legally, emotionally, financially and socially. It is much easier to leave a relationship without these entanglements.

When society doesn’t value your relationship it is harder to value it yourself. Society labels same-sex couples as second-class citizens by denying them the opportunity to validate their relationships. This has consequences not just for the individual or couple but also for their entire extended family. Same–sex couples exist within a family unit. They are someone’s daughter, son, niece, nephew, grandchild, sibling, cousin, aunt, uncle, parent or grandparent. The toll taken on a family that experiences the discrimination and exclusion of same-sex individuals within their family is understated and often ignored.

If we acknowledge that to love freely and have your love recognised by society is a fundamental right and that there is absolutely no difference in the ability of same-sex couples to care for each other, then the law of marriage should apply to same-sex couples as well.

Marriage establishes a spouse as a next-of-kin. Your next of kin is involved in practically every legal matter, from medical decision-making to property rights to funeral arrangements. It is a severe violation of human rights to deny this to same-sex couples.

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry will not stop same-sex couples from having loving committed relationships. What it will do is perpetuate prejudice and intolerance to the detriment of the individual, the couple and society as a whole.

Same-sex couples pay the same taxes, fight the same wars and abide by the same laws and responsibilities as other citizens, this is reason enough to grant the same rights.

To claim marriage as a tradition is to suggest that traditions are immutable. Marriage as an arrangement has changed significantly over time. Women are no longer considered their husband’s property, divorce is legal, interracial marriage is legal, polygamy is prohibited, and marital rape is considered a crime. Customs and traditions change and are not justification enough for violating human rights. Same-sex marriage is just another branch in the evolution of the institution of marriage.