Marriage matters

Bush calls it "the most fundamental institution of civilization." Sherif Girgis '08, the president of the Anscombe Society, calls it a "unique, irreplaceable contribution to real people's (especially children's) well being." Yet millions of people around the world are denied it in an ongoing struggle of grassroots protest and get-out-the-vote campaigns. Let's face it: Marriage matters.

Though the New Jersey Supreme Court recently held to extend to gay couples the same rights as married couples, the battle for true equality in New Jersey is only half-won: The practical and symbolic discriminatory implication of creating an expensive two-tiered system for gays and straights calls to mind the failed "separate but equal" paradigm of the Jim Crow era.

Many conservative groups question the place of gays in marriage altogether. According to Girgis, marriage enters within the purview of the state because of its role in providing a healthy next generation of citizens. Girgis cites the group Child Trends, according to whom the family structure most beneficial to children is "headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

As for Child Trends' first qualification — "two biological parents" — according to the American Psychological Association (APA), no comprehensive study has concluded that children of heterosexuals are better off than those of homosexuals. In fact, the APA recently issued a statement encouraging the legalization of gay marriages and adoptions, asserting that "numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents."

But what about gay couples' ability to maintain "low-conflict marriages?" Trends in the United States demonstrate that gay couples do as well, if not better, in maintaining low-conflict households than their heterosexual counterparts. As reported by The Advocate, in Vermont roughly one percent of gay couples (78 in total) have applied for divorce after five years — a number that pales in compare to the United States aggregate divorce rate of nearly 50 percent. Unlike the APA findings refuting the importance of biological parentage, research published by Paul Amato and Alan Booth in the Journal of Marriage and the Family suggests that "problematic parent-child relations associated with divorce persist throughout the life course." Strangely, though divorce-prone households provide "non-ideal" environments to children, the government nonetheless sanctions them.

Girgis argues that it is against the state's interest to promote "non-ideal environments." Following this logic, other minority groups might be barred from marriage as well. According to a document from the National Data Analysis System, children in American Indian-Alaskan Native and African American households report abuse at over twice the rate of other children — statistically "non-ideal environments" to be sure. To be consistent, divorce could be limited as well and licenses issued to hopeful parents after completing a parental competency test. These logical offshoots of eliminating "non-ideal" households seem ludicrous because they are myopically consequentialist.

Along the same lines, thousands of infertile couples could be prohibited from marriage — since according to Girgis, they provide "non-ideal environments" because their children are not biologically theirs. Though they don't produce their own offspring, gay couples offer a much needed home for unwanted children across the world — a number Human Rights Watch estimates to be in the millions. Surely the love of a married gay couple is preferable to the occasional glance of an orphanage worker.

President Bush, who has repeatedly called for a constitutional same-sex marriage ban, argues that gay marriage will undermine the institution of heterosexual marriage. Preliminary data suggest otherwise. Massachusetts, which recently became the only state to legalize gay marriage, saw one of the largest drops in divorce rates out of any state in both 2004 and 2005.

Gay Family Rights Project (GFRP) and Princeton Justice Project (PJP), the organizations behind last year's amicus brief in support of gay marriage in New Jersey, strongly urge Princeton students to take an active role in giving Princeton a voice in statewide politics by joining GFRP's efforts and supporting its upcoming petition.

Though it is certainly the state's role to foster its next generation of citizens, the wellbeing of its current citizens should not be forgotten. According to the APA, same-sex couples "experience several kinds of state-sanctioned discrimination that can adversely affect the stability of their relationships and their mental health." Through codified discrimination against gays, the state promotes the stigma surrounding homosexuality — the harmful effects of which are visible from the Capitol to New Jersey's own governorship. Ryan Ebanks '09 writes on behalf of the Princeton Justice Project and the Gay Family Rights Project. He may be reached at rebanks@princeton.edu.