| In a society with increasingly diverse familial arrangements, scholars have debated the efficacy of status-based models, present in the legal framework of marriage, versus contractually-based models of the family. Anti-contractarians assert that the use of contracts in intimate relationships is evidence of the infiltration of market principles into the family, while advocates emphasize contracts as a model of negotiation, and the ability of contracts to provide legal mooring for diverse familial forms. In light of these debates, this research compares marital and same-sex couples' use of contracts.; I rely upon two empirical fields. In the first, I have coded and analyzed California Appellate Court cases dating back to 1850 where a contractual dispute was adjudicated between intimate partners. This analysis uncovers the scenarios that lead to contractual disputes between intimates, the outcomes of these disputes, and how judicial approaches to contractual disputes between intimates change over time. The second empirical field draws from in-depth interviews with fifty individuals in marital and same-sex relationships where a contract was at issue.; Findings show that property and parenting arrangements are most often the subject of contractual agreements in both marital and same-sex relationships. Interview data illustrates that the meanings given to these contracts depend upon the institutional position of the couples who use them. For example, premarital agreements are often viewed as signaling a lack of trust because these agreements often plan for the demise of the relationship prior to marriage. This affirms the anti-contractarian view which sees contract as antithetical to the tenets of intimacy. In marital contexts then, "contracting" not only refers to a written agreement, but is synonymous with a "shrinking" of intimate principles. However, contracts in same-sex relationships are often imbued with meanings of solemnity and long-term commitment often associated with the institution of marriage. "Contracting" there is associated with "obtaining" legal mooring of intimate commitment in the absence of more culturally and institutionally embedded alternatives. Thus the contractual model is not inherently incompatible with familial principles, and the meanings given to the contracts are determined in part by the institutional position of the couples who create them. |
