Q:
Are queer arranged marriages a thing?
I’m a trans guy in my late 20s, have next to no dating experience and giving myself permission to stop feeling like I’m “less than” for not being in a relationship has been one of the kindest things I have done for myself in the last few years. Rarely do I long for romantic or sexual partnership, but I’ve been feeling the itch to settle down and start thinking about kids. And the finances and logistics of doing that solo seem difficult, to put it mildly. Not that it couldn’t work, but it would be hard.
I feel like in some ways, I could be down for a marriage in the sense of contract-to-build-a-family-unit rather than the marriage-driven-by-romantic-love sense. My own parents somewhat fall into that (perhaps due in part to probable autism, which applies to me as well) and while for a long time I had a hard time wrapping my head around it, the fact that they prioritized family stability over personal compatibility makes more sense to me lately. I don’t really want to date, but I think I could make a decent spouse and parent — I’m a kind & reliable person, I like to go places & learn things and I am very responsible financially.
I know there are definitely contingents of straight women who are very upfront about their desire to only pursue relationships that could progress to marriage and kids, but my impression is that is more common in a cishet, “professional” type social scene. Any thoughts about pursuing this in a queer context?
A:
Gotta say, this isn’t the question I expected to see when I checked the inbox. It’s way more interesting and I have some input.
So, I’m South African. We’re a remarkably socioculturally diverse nation — not always willingly, but that’s who we are. We urbanized rapidly, but there’s always an interplay between old prerogatives and new necessities. This matters because it leads to inevitable friction between contemporary morality and old customs. Literally a tale as old as time.
An example: 85% of Black South Africans describe themselves as Christian. Many of these self-identified Christians also recognize and venerate spiritual ancestors. These belief systems are highly varied across ethnic and cultural groups, and there’s no prescribed ‘correct’ way of believing. Reading from the outside, one might think ‘pagan’ beliefs in the ancestors are incompatible with Christianity but believers make it work. Yes, there’s debate and friction, but debate doesn’t stop people from going to church while also celebrating pivotal ancestors on feast days.
That’s pertinent here because when I saw the words arranged marriage, my head went to oh we’re queering the old ways! I majored in Anthropology and studied marriage customs throughout undergrad. I didn’t come away with a knee-jerk negative reaction to the term ‘arranged marriage’.
Who does the arranging?
You’ll never find consensus among social scientists, but most of us accept that an ‘arranged marriage’ is primarily arranged by people who are not the people to be married. Most arranged marriages are arranged between a bride and a groom (not necessarily monogamous). Most are arranged by parents, but input from influential community members can also contribute to the decision.
The minutiae of the arrangement? Infinite. Every marriage arrangement will be different, and even when a group of people have a broad understanding of the rules, they’ll still omit, bend, or break the rules as convenient. A common ‘modernization’ to arranged marriages gives the bride or groom veto power over candidates. Sometimes, the betrothed won’t meet each other before the wedding. Some relatives and figures will be explicitly included or excluded from the process. There may be an exchange of gifts between the families to cement the new connection.
For the curious, dowry is generally given to a groom’s family by the bride’s family. Bride price is generally given to the bride’s family by the groom’s family. Despite the caustic association ceremonial gifting has with ‘buying’ a partner, actual dowry and bride price practices are much more complex and varied. They run a whole spectrum from basically slavery to a fun way to bring the whole family together.
What makes an arranged marriage distinct is that it’s a social affair involving people other than the betrothed. There’s politicking, gossip, laughter, misery… everything that comes with a family event. The involvement of others is one of the main reasons arranged marriages leave egalitarian societies with a bad mouthfeel. Societies that prize equality and personal agency (often accurately) see outside influence on marriage as coercion or an imposition on individual rights, especially where brides in gender-unequal societies are concerned. Make no mistake: Arranged marriages have a long history of injustice, especially as it relates to women and girls. Their moral and legal status is still a searing topic of debate between the right of people to practice religion and culture, and the right to self-determination.
But there are plenty of ways to practice arranged marriages without falling into these flaws.
We’re making culture gay again (and I approve)
By now, you’re probably seeing a disconnect between the relationship you’d be down for and an ‘arranged marriage’ in the sociocultural sense. You’re looking for a cards-on-the-table partnership with familial intent and robust organization. Your relationship goal doesn’t need an arranged marriage unless you want other people in your business. And your future partner’s business.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I actually think you’ve got a case for how civil unions can have a place. Hear me out.
While queer people (often accurately) see civil unions as a consolation prize for not giving us marriage equality, it is an existing legal and social institution. We do have some control over what values we ascribe to it and how to shape it. There are also people who choose a civil union over marriage for a range of reasons. I’ll never tell anyone marriage is a universal ideal, and I won’t start now.
If you’re not familiar, a civil union is a legally binding arrangement between partners that resembles a marriage. The main criterion is that it has to be recognized in your jurisdiction and follow relevant laws and customs. Where it breaks down is that civil unions lack the legal consensus of marriage. Different jurisdictions provide different (often unequal) rights to civil unions versus marriages. A common point of contention is that civil unions may prohibit adoption or legal recognition of biological children from the union. That’s horseshit and should rightfully be opposed. Indeed, I’ve never heard of a civil union providing more legal privileges and protections than a marriage, but we’re awash with examples of civil unions having less.
However, people still choose civil unions, especially in places where the rights of a civil union are equal to marriage and there is well-established support for queer living. Many ‘legacy’ queers chose civil unions because it still represented a culmination of their advocacy and effort. Others pick it because it’s a secular alternative to marriage. In places where civil unions are legally equal to marriages, they’re a good idea for people who don’t believe in the baggage that comes with marriage. All the sociocultural and religious stuff that ‘marriage’ implies can put a real bad taste in people with religious trauma. Marriage can also turn off asexuals who dislike the sexual and romantic implications inherent to the institution. As much as we ought to have a right to marry, we have to acknowledge it’s not for everyone.
Robustly recognized civil unions appeal to nerds like me who care more about the organization and logistics of relationships than marriage as a concept. I’m not intensely attached to the ‘culture’ of marriage because to me, all culture is peer pressure from dead people. The term ‘civil union’ is evocative of a contract with rights and responsibilities. Yes, that’s what marriage is, but there can be less romantic overtones to it. Like wedding vows for spreadsheet people.
Your personal arrangement
Pursuing a ‘partnership’ or ‘union’ can also inform your approach to relationships. Everything you’ve laid out in your question is stuff that will be conveyed to future partners. It’s the groundwork for your dating portfolio. Not like a Tinder profile, but a full who you are and what you need that’ll match you to someone with fitting desires.
You’ve mentioned not feeling very romantic or sexual about your future relationship. But you want someone cool by your side to face life’s challenges. There’ll be love in the form of consensus and support, not necessarily romance. There’re definitely people out there who match your needs. Queer existence is practically defined by modifying traditional partnerships to better match personal needs.
As for how you’d steer yourself in this direction? By being upfront about what you’re looking for. If you use dating apps, they’re full of indicators you can opt into to tell other swipers your intentions. Whether you want kids or not, want long-term or not, all of it. Use those functions. Make a note in your bio text stating that you’re aiming for something that’ll involve mutual reliance and children. Present your case after a few dates and hear the other person’s intentions. People who have a task-oriented approach to dating and love do exist. I’m one of them.
Oh, and from one assessed-and-confirmed autistic to someone who thinks they’re a bit autistic: Consider talking to a professional or getting an assessment. Your submission was the most autistic thing I’ve read today, and I mean that with maximum love.
One of my queer friends has found – in her case two – people she raises a child with and neither of them are romantically involved with each other. You can find the constellation that works for you, put yourself out there, saying exactly what you’re looking for!