The transformation of marriage: what if you could marry anyone--or anything? A cultural...

Perhaps more than any other discipline, futurism is driven by questions. But the concepts behind those questions change over time. Before the Industrial Revolution, for example, a computer was a person who performed mathematical calculations; today, as a result of technology's advance, a computer

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The meaning of the word marriage has similarly altered, as have the questions its usage evokes. Had this essay on the future of marriage been written decades ago, a reader might have assumed it was about the then-increasing rate of divorce. We have come to live, after all, in a society of transience, one in which traditional human institutions are attacked and eroded by the swift and accelerating current of stress-producing change.

But more than the transience of marriage is at issue now. It is the very definition of the term that futurists must now address. A radical redefinition of marriage is now under way that promises to transform its meaning for all future time.

To be sure, ours is not the first time in modern history when efforts have been made to redefine traditional marriage. The communal "group marriages" of the 1960s and the individualistic "open marriages" of the 1970s each challenged the notion of a nonnegotiable contract between one woman and one man. The frequency of cohabitation, whether as a prelude to or as a substitute for a ceremony with legal force, has further undermined the concept of wedlock as a discrete and distinctive state. All of these challenges, however, were or are predicated upon a relationship that is heterosexual, fashioned upon the Adam-and-Eve template. The most recent and radical challenge to traditional marriage, however, rejects this religious template.

Same-Sex Marriage: Action and Reaction

Inspired by the activism in the 1960s that secured political and economic rights for blacks and women, American gays and lesbians mobilized to end what they viewed as the discriminatory practice of granting marriage licenses only to heterosexual couples. As law professor William N. Eskridge Jr. has stated in his book, The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (Free Press, 1996): "Marriage is the most important right the state has to offer, in part because being married entails dozens of associated rights, benefits, and obligations under state and federal law." These pertain to such matters as parenthood, property ownership, guardianship, and inheritance.

Although Eskridge cites anthropological and ethnographic evidence of same-sex unions throughout history, the modern movement to legitimize same-sex marriage provoked a profound public and political reaction. To date, more than half the states in the United States have passed statutes that either have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman or have explicitly declared same-sex marriages to be illegal, whether performed in or out of state. This position was buttressed by the so-called Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and declared that a state is free to reject the legitimacy of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

In 1999, however, Vermont's Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples were entitled to the same legal benefits as heterosexual ones. The following year, the Vermont legislature--while guaranteeing such benefits to gay and lesbian couples--established the special legal category of civil union, not marriage, to describe their relationship. In a number of states, local governments and employers had already been allowing same-sex couples to register as domestic partnerships to obtain a limited number of rights.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Outside the United States, however, efforts to legitimize same-sex marriage have met with more success. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to provide civil marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. In 2003, Belgium followed suit. And in 2002 and 2003, courts in three Canadian provinces ruled that the denial of marriage to same-sex couples constituted a violation of Canada's Charter of Rights. (The Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts made a similar ruling at the end of 2003.)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In particular, the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2003 declared that the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage was legally invalid and asserted that marriage must henceforth be redefined in common law as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others." In response, Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced the federal government would not challenge the court's decision, but it would propose legislation protecting "the right of churches and religious organizations to sanctify marriage as they define it." As of this writing, the federal government has submitted a draft of this bill to Canada's Supreme Court for a ruling on its constitutionality.

Besides altering the fundamental heterosexual definition of marriage in North America, a positive ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada would reject the traditional notion that marriage is primarily for reproductive purposes. Historically, elderly couples beyond childbearing age have married, and younger couples capable of producing offspring have elected not to do so, but the generalized validation of marriage between partners biologically incapable of jointly producing children would represent a radical departure from the origins of marriage as the social and religious sanctioning of procreation.

To be sure, parent-hood could be achieved by same-sex couples through the use of a surrogate mother (in gay marriage), the artificial insemination of one or both females (in lesbian marriage), and/or adoption. The validation of same-sex marriage would have the effect of increasing the occurrence and popularity of all three procedures.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Many homosexual couples will look upon the prospect of marriage as an enduring affirmation of their mutual commitment and love. On the other hand, many members of the gay and lesbian community view marriage not as an opportunity they have long been unjustly denied but as an inducement to abandon their creative countercultural lifestyle in exchange for membership in the dull and monogamous conformity of mainstream society.

The legalization of same-sex marriages could set a precedent for other, even more radical unions. Though these may seem like low-probability scenarios, they offer futurists a useful exercise in exploring the potential implications of a radical trajectory.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Interspecies Marriage

The exploration of outer space may result in the colonization of planets--and the potential for the sexual union of human beings and aliens. While the reports of individual abductions here on Earth for the purpose of reproductive experiments may rightly or wrongly be dismissed as delusional, the intent of the people of Earth to explore the universe in search of extraterrestrial life is a practical reality. Whether such extraterrestrial life exists, or whether explorers from Earth will ever encounter it and mate with it, cannot be known at present, but the possibility surely exists. Under what jurisdiction(s), if any, such marriages will occur, and with what biological and social consequences, can also not be known.

Yet, the potential for interspecies marriage already exists on our own planet--not for sexual or reproductive purposes, but for valid emotional ones similar to those that have motivated human couples down through history.

It has been said that the dog is man's best friend. As evidence, pet cemeteries exist where the last remains of loyal and loving pets have been interred with a measure of dignity and respect equal to that accorded to human relatives and friends. The licensing of pet ownership has long been a function of government, and some pet shops carefully screen the intentions and character of prospective human applicants before granting them rights to pet adoption. Pets, moreover, have sometimes been named as beneficiaries in their masters' or mistresses' wills.

Why then, one might ask, should not an individual choose to affirm the emotional attachment he or she feels for a pet with the formality of a documented ceremony in which the human partner promises to love and honor the animal companion? Though the devoted pet would be unable to verbally acknowledge its willingness to enter into such a relationship, affidavits could be obtained from witnesses attesting to the caring and affectionate bond between pet and owner. Such a contract could be construed as providing the basis for greater legal protection for the pet in the event of a human partner's death. Animal-rights activists might well serve as advocates to secure such protection. In addition, during their lifetimes, the pet and its owner could wear matching license tags (like wedding rings) as tokens of their bond. (In fact, one Web site encourages and facilitates human-pet commitments: www.Marry YourPet.com.)

Though the notion of a companionate union between a human being and an animal of different species may seem sacrilegious, a close reading of Genesis 2:18-25 reveals that, before God created a woman to be a "help-meet" for man, He experimented by creating a series of other living beings that proved unsatisfactory and unequal to the task. It was only then that God created woman.

To propose the possibility of interspecies marriage is not to demean the desire of human couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, to marry. Rather, it is meant to suggest that the concept of marriage as a socially and spiritually sanctioned partnership need not be restricted to humans alone if the partners to the arrangement are bound by a clear sense of loving and lifelong commitment.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Marriage of Human Being And Inanimate Object

If the element of sexuality is removed from the definition of marriage, then the marriage of human beings to inanimate objects becomes theoretically possible.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Critics of American society have frequently observed how Americans are "wedded" to their material possessions. Why might not such a relationship be validated by ceremony?

Many men are in love with their cars, especially classic models, and expend significant amounts of time and money to maintain them. Why not license both the right to drive and the commitment of the driver to the car that faithfully serves him? The relationship would terminate in the event of irreparable mechanical breakdown (equivalent to the death of a spouse) or the disposal of the car by sale (equivalent to divorce).

Many an individual, moreover, has formed an intimate relationship with his or her computer, spending long hours in its close company, often to the exclusion of human contact. Why should not this bond of tactile intimacy be validated by more than an owner's manual? Though the computer could not express its desire for monogamous union, its acknowledgment of a secret password, its ability to keep secrets that it shares only with its operator, and its instantaneous compliance would signal its faithfulness and obedience. Of course, the conditions of traditional marriage could be more nearly fulfilled if the computer were endowed with a welcoming facial expression, a warm voice, and an artificial body that could deliver sensual gratification to its human partner beyond mere sight and sound.

Is Marriage Necessary?

Naturally, some would argue that a wedding ceremony between our-selves and our material possessions is unlikely and unnecessary. Few legal benefits, after all, would accrue to inanimate objects from such an arrangement. And whatever benefits would accrue to us, we already have.

Indeed, the more artificial and impersonal our society becomes, the less necessary and more alien a human ceremony of commitment becomes. Someday, in fact, the original notion of marriage may seem a semantic artifact of a lost world.

FEEDBACK: Send your comments about this article to letters@wfs.org.

About the Author

Stephen Bertman is professor emeritus of languages, literatures, and cultures at Canada's University of Windsor. He is the author of Climbing Olympus: What You Can Learn from Greek Myth and Wisdom (Sourcebooks, 2003), Cultural Amnesia: America's Future and the Crisis of Memory (Praeger, 2000), and Hyperculture: The Human Cost of Speed (Praeger, 1998), all of which may be ordered online at www.wfs.org/bkshelf.htm. His last article for THE FUTURIST, "Cultural Amnesia: A Threat to Our Future," appeared in the January-February 2001 issue. He may be reached by e-mail at Profbertman1 @aol.com.