Over the past two weeks I must have asked roughly 20 people to answer the question "what is marriage for?" I spoke to as many of my friends and family as I could — some who have been married for more than 50 years, and some who were getting married the day after I interviewed them. My Uncle Gary, in characteristic fashion, was the only one to turn my question into a joke.

"Marriage four comes after marriage three," he teased.

His joke got me to laugh; but it also stings a bit. The state of marriage in the U.S. has become the brunt of a joke, which is why Gary's take has more significance than the generally idealized answers I heard from others. Our dreams about what marriage is for and what it should be like are generally beautiful and sincere. Yet, Gary's answer draws attention to the fact that such ideals are realized only rarely and that marriage isn't as wonderfully straightforward as we imagine.

Ideals dominate our talk about marriage while the realities of such relationships are much more complicated and imperfect. The marriage rate in the U.S. is in decline according to the National Center for Health Statistics. In 1998 there were only 8.9 marriages per 1,000 people, whereas the peak of the marriage rate in the last 50 years was 12.4 in 1948. Back then, less than a quarter of all marriages ended in divorce. Today, about half of all marriages end in divorce.

The rhetoric of the Right reminds us that the institution of marriage is in trouble. While statistics demonstrate that their concern is warranted, the tactic of scapegoating queer people for marriage's demise is off base. They blame crumbling families and high divorce rates on those of us who are crusading for the chance to revitalize this dying institution. They imply that heterosexual unions are so fragile that giving legal sanction to homosexual unions would almost certainly drive a nail into the heart of this "sacrament" (which is how one of my aunts refered to it).

Being a martyr for the sake of marriage myself, I have a little more faith than that. I see the task of promoting a new and improved understanding of marriage as the best option for its future. The challenge of assuaging our fears of change will be tough. But, it doesn't have to mean radical reform. Reconceiving marriage to include same-sex couples doesn't have to undermine the values of love, honor, and everlasting exclusivity that underpin the sanctity of such unions. Merely expanding the entitlements of marriage to include any two adults who wish to make serious, enduring commitments of monogamy to each other (my cousin's definition) regardless of sexual orientation, won't ruin the value of marriage. Doing so would only give new life and new hope for more successful marriages, once again.

Preventing responsible and committed same-sex partners from having the same equal opportunity to make their marriages work is unjust. Conservatives and marriage traditionalists confuse the issue of what it will take to save marriage by insisting on controlling who should have the right to marry. If I were to form a committed monogamous relationship based in love, though, it wouldn't threaten your right or ability to do so yourself. Giving the same sanction of commitment to same-sex couples does not devalue marriage because it does not interfere with or inhibit heterosexual couples from forming their own.

Marriage is an institution that has progressed throughout history to become increasingly more about love and personal commitment than ever before. Ample evidence has been collected that shows property contracts, sovereignty, and religious expectations have shaped marriage agreements in the past to a greater extent than personal choice. Wouldn't you say that the ideal toward which we have been progressing is a bit better than those previous conceptions? Previous generations have redefined and reconceptualized marriage for the better. Why can't ours?

People who are queer aren't the ones who are failing at marriages. We're not even allowed to give it a shot, at least not legally. As someone who wishes he could get married — that is, wishes he had the legal right to get married — I resent the fact that the privilege of legally sanctioned marriage is so commonly taken for granted and progressively losing its value as a result.

The institution of marriage may just pass away naturally if left alone to diminish in its current state. Reform is needed, and who better to lead the reform than the lesbian and gay people who have enough faith to believe their commitments are at least as strong and valid as anyone else's? Marriage should be for people like that, for any two responsible people who have enough faith in each other to believe their union will be a boon for themselves and for society.

Frank is a freelance writer and doctoral student at Teachers College, Columbia University. His column, Assumptions, is nationally syndicated and runs biweekly. He can be reached via email at: fs94@columbia.edu.

Copyright © 1999, Frank Morris Susa.