Anything You Can Do, Gays Can Do Better; Homosexuals As Equally Capable of Maintaining A Prepolitical Institution

In Cheshire Calhoun’s proponent argument of same sex marriage, the vehement author mounts a scathing attack on our culture’s perception of marriage as beyond the reach of political neutrality.

Calhoun argues that our society treats marriage as a prepolitical institution. That is to say, we treat marriage as if civil society depends on it. The concept of a prepolitical institution holds that the institution itself plays some integral role in the creation of the society. The prepolitical institution must exist as a foundation, before a civilization can be supported upon it. As a result, married couples are treated as if they somehow make a direct contribution to maintaining the community, simply by participating in the ‘age old’ construct of marriage.

As a liberal state, our governmental body is obligated to maintain a neutral position about all political institutions. Every citizen has the right to choose their favorite institutions, and decide weather or not they are going to adopt them.  However, this is not the case for marriage. So how come the state can pick sides on same sex marriage and get away with it?  The answer rests with the political classification of traditional marriage as a prepolitical entity.

 Because a prepolitical institution must exist in order for the state to exist, the state may openly support prepolitical institutions without opposition- no one would expect an entity to reject that which gives it life.  Furthermore, the state is justified to openly promote those institutions that sustain its existence. Because the state sees heterosexual spouses as integral to the survival of civil society, they are allowed to encourage their citizens to continue to participate in the tradition, without leaving the ‘liberal camp’ behind. Opponents of same sex marriage claim that marriage exists independently from the state; that marriage is ordained by God or human nature or absolute morality- thus rendering the state as unqualified to do anything but support the institution from whence it came. This places marriage beyond the reach of obligatory state neutrality.

Calhoun argues that banning same sex marriage, positions heterosexual couples as having a “uniquely privileged status” in society.  By allowing heterosexual, but not homosexual marriages, the state elevates heterosexual citizens to a position above political liberalism. In doing so, the state essentially displaces homosexual couples from civil society by stripping them of their rights to the equality of institutional liberalism. 

Calhoun fumes that heterosexuals are NOT the only ones who are able to maintain this prepolitical foundation. She argues that the best way to reverse this inequality is to demand same sex marriages. Doing so, she says, we will force the community to treat homosexual couples as equally capable of contributing to the foundational support of society.