There are those among us who choose to embrace the heterosexist institution of marriage without question or qualm; those who will enter it but with the intension to change it from within; and those who wish it would wither and die. Melanie Judge explores whether, despite the legal reforms afoot, same-sex couples should marry at all.

Should we marry? A brave question that the LGBT community has not sufficiently begun to grapple with. No doubt there is great diversity of opinion on such a complex and layered issue which requires more application than a mere yay or nay response.

There is little doubt of the immense social, cultural and religious pressure to marry. Same-sex couples are not immune to societal conformism. Indeed, we also often perpetuate it. Is this internal homophobia at play, perhaps, or maybe the idea that we will never be good enough if we don’t fit into the normative heterosexual mould?

Much attention has been given to the practical reasons why marriage may be a safe haven for lesbian and gay people, particularly in the context of growing homophobic violence. Marriage has the potential to enhance the integration of the realities of sexual minorities into social norms and mores, and to mitigate negative social attitudes in the long term. Also, marriage promotes familial and community acceptance for same-sex relationships through social witnessing, legal protection and the symbolic weight and value that marital status, rightly or wrongly, accords intimate partnerships. There are also the material and non-material benefits of marriage, which both legally and socially sanction our relationships. And within our most intimate private space, marriage accords us equal rights and responsibilities. For the partners in marriage, it holds automatic access to legal protections that might otherwise be financially costly or personally difficult to negotiate. The right to marry is indeed the culmination of a long road toward LGBT equality and human dignity in South Africa. The list of the virtues of marriage is substantial.

But, as activists for social equality and justice we have to pose the question: “Isn’t marriage in essence a flawed choice?” Is entry into a conservative, heterosexist convention called ‘marriage’ the price we pay for full social and legal relationship status? The cornerstone of the patriarchal system and gender oppression is marriage - the single institution that has done more harm, economically, socially and psychologically, to women than any other. In the west and increasingly in South Africa, models of the nuclear family entrenched through marriage are presented as the only ‘legitimate’ way to build the social fabric, to strengthen communities, and to rear healthy children. However, many lesbian and gay people born out of heterosexual marriage had to work out survival strategies in the conventional family system as it is the seat of alienation and exclusion for those who hold up a contradiction to sexual and gender norms.

Marriage is a form of social prescription and control, around which our society – both socially and economically - is constructed. Despite the popularity of marriage, and by extension, divorce, we live in an unequal society which the institution of marriage maintains and perpetuates. The social elevation accorded marriage also says much about those who choose not to marry, as it subordinates other forms of partnerships, family structures, and parenting. We are therefore compelled to interrogate whether choosing to marry is not another form of systemic discrimination that we must slay rather than slide into.

“But we will do it differently,” I hear. Same-sex couples do have the power to redefine the institution with its prescribed gender roles and hierarchy and its inherent financial, sexual and social power dynamics. This would demand a conscious rejection of the heterosexist norms that govern the social construction of marriage for a form that is akin to the kinds of equitable relationships and family systems we strive for.

One thing is certain, tying the knot will not bring us any closer to understanding the diversity and complexity of human and sexual relations. On the contrary, stripping marriage of its special social status is a better way to create a legal and social space for diverse forms of partnerships and families instead of prescribed power systems and structures. Imagine the time when, in applying for a passport, purchasing a car, or opening a bank account, we won’t have to state whether we are ‘married’, ‘unmarried’, ‘never married’ (or ‘wanna be married’, for that matter!). Yes, imagine a time when our relationship to a significant other does not become the key defining factor in our right to social status. From this vantage point, couples, whether in domestic partnership arrangements, co-habitation, or marriage, could be afforded equal social and legal standing. This would offer a radical reconstitution of human relationships and speed up the undoing of millennia of heterosexist, patriarchal social engineering.

In conclusion, our current debates around marriage must foreground structural and systemic transformation as our long-term goal. In our current context, given the socio-economic challenges which many LGBT people face, there is no doubt that securing the right to marry for same-sex couples is an important step in achieving this. But, when this right is achieved, we must continue the struggle towards another kind of world.

Melanie Judge is the Programme Manager at OUT LGBT Well-being. She writes this piece in her personal capacity.