The political philosophy of marriage is concerned with how marriage is treated by the state. More specifically, it is concerned with the question of what the law of marriage should be, given that there should be a law of marriage.  As same-sex marriage has been a major part of the national conversation in recent years, with various states either officially banning or instituting same-sex marriage, this topic should be quite familiar to most. I should say, however, that same-sex mariage is only one of a number of major issues in the political philosophy of marriage.

Before discussing various questions for the meet, I'll mention that the following discussion does a great job in clarifying various aspects of the topic:

http://vimeo.com/31510618

It's a conversation between two political philosophy professors, Elizabeth Brake and Simon May, whose work more or less directly relates to marriage.

A basic question in the political philosophy of marriage is that of what justifies legal recognition of marriage at all.  What business has the state in keeping track of certain amorous relationships among adults in the first place? A reasonable answer to this is that such relationships have strong legal significance relating to property, death without a will, custody of children, and so on.  The question remains, however, why legal provisions that accomodate these issues should be conceived in a way that coincides so closely with a certain amorous relationship between one man and one woman.  Should it continue in this narrow way?

This of course is one of the questions that divide people on the same-sex marriage debate.  There seems to be three main positions on this: one position is that marriage should be left as it traditionally has been because changing the meaning of 'marriage' by including same-sex couples would compromise a valued tradition;  a second position is that marriage should be extended to other consenting adults who wish to marry as it is a violation of equality not to; a third position is that the interpretation of "marriage" should be left to the private sphere and that law should focus on provisions that have less to do with the traditional notion of marriage and more to do with practical legal issues.  

The second and third positions above are positions that might be justified on the basis of the political philosophy of John Rawls.  The relevant general idea of Rawlsian liberalism is that state policies should be justified not on the basis of particular comprehensive moral or religious views but on values that all such comprehensive views would reasonably affirm, such as equality.  For a Rawlsian, then, the question becomes: on what basis could same-sex couples be excluded from marriage? If there is no justifying value that transcends particular comprehensive views, then excluding same-sex couples from marriage is forbidden on the basis of equality.  Here I should mention that Professor Martin "Marty" Carcieri, a political theorist at S.F. State, informed me that he plans to attend the meet and will be willing to explain Rawls' general philosophy to us in greater detail, as well as inform us about the prospects of Proposition 8--the 2008 California ballot proposition that seeks to ban same-sex marriage in California via constitutional amendment--which has been working its way through appeals.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8

Beyond the more familiar same-sex marriage issue, there's the question of group marriage.  Should groups of three or more consenting adults be legally allowed to marry, or something similar?  How does your answer to this question fit with your views on earlier questions? 

Generally, our conversation at the meet will be on what consistent and ethical view can unify the diverse issues regarding the state's treatment of marriage.  In preparing for this, another reading that might be interesting to peruse is the Wikipedia entry on marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

As usual, I look forward to the conversation.

Cheers,

Paul