Some objected to my suggestion that London’s new Tory Mayor Boris Johnson might be a hero to gay conservatives because he saw accepting gay marriage akin to consecrating unions “between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.”
I grant the Mayor’s analogy is a little over the top, but it seems he’s mocking the notion of redefining marriage from its traditional understanding as a union of one man and one woman to a bond of love between two individuals. If we depart from the traditional understanding of the insitution as a union of two individual of differing genders, where, then, he (as well as many others) asks, do we draw the line?
Sensible gay marriage advocates would say we draw the line at the union of two consenting adults in a monogamous bond. But, other advocates don’t want to set such strictures on the institution, in fact they don’t see it as an institution. They would rather redefine it.
No matter how much we dress up our arguments, we can’t change the historical and sociological meaning of marriage. While, various cultures accepted polygamy (mostly polygyny, one man to more than one wife, but also rarely polyandry where a woman has more than one husband), that tended to be limited to the upper classes. Even then, the man was married to each of his wives; the women were not married to each other. Gender difference still defined the institution.
As I have studied cultures recognizing same-sex unions, I have observed that that societies which (up until the 1990s) consecrated same-sex unions called them something different than marriage. Yes, there were cultures (notably many Native American tribes) which called same-sex unions marriage, but they required one of the partners to live in the guise of the opposite sex and accept the roles assigned to that gender in an order far more sexually stratified than contemporary Western society.
If an Athapaskan woman, for example, wanted to take a bride, she would have to wear male clothing, kill a female bear and tie its ovaries to her belt while she lived and socialized with the men of the tribe. She would become a hunter. Her bride could not hunt with her, but would stay home, running the household, living and dressing as a woman.
Thus, even those cultures recognizing same-sex marriage saw sexual difference as a defining aspect of the institution.
As we have that necessary conversation on gay marriage, we need to understand the reality of that institution. Sexual difference is part of that reality.
If you don’t believe me, turn to any study on marriage and you will see that, traditionally understood, marriage ceremonies involved the ritual joining together of two individuals from different groups.
And there were also formalized relationships within groups, but they weren’t marriage. That is where Boswell went wrong I think. He, from a modern western viewpoint, looked at a society where kinship defines things, where people were not defined as straight or gay, and got it all dead wrong. If you are of a right age, and the right ethic background, it is so very wrong as to be funny.
I think marriage fundamentally comes down to children. Yes some marriages are barren for various reasons, but a big part of it was to protect and assure the raising of the kids, who represented often the union of two families. Kinship ties again. You can always find specifics that argue against an pattern. (We seem to have lost the ability to see both the pattern and the data. It’s all one or the other.)
One thing this whole debate strikes me with is the cultural divide of the rich technologically advanced secular west and the rest of the world. And our assumptions it will always last.
You make very good points. I happen to believe that over the next several weeks, as I begin to publicize the things that “marriage equality” activists are planning as part of their redefinition of marriage (some of which I’ve showed you but that’s just the tip of the iceberg), you will find yourself with no choice but to publicly endorse the ballot initiative on this November’s ballot in California.
I’ve known some lesbians like that.
The issue of marriage between two men/two women is easily resolved by dissolution of all tax benefits and privileges in our society. “Marriage” can remain a religious tradition while civil unions reflect a secular ceremony.
Marriage itself should not be “legal”, it’s better off served as just a ceremony before/after two individuals are united in civil ceremony.
Any two people wishing to engage in a civil union may do so whereby the only benefits derived are those of “right of survivorship” with regard to property.
All divorce proceedings ought have no more dividing of the property equitably; you take what you came in with or what you personally acquired during its tenure. It’s the personal responsibility of each individual to take care of him or her self in the marriage/union and stop extortion of the other upon dissolving the agreement.
If a couple decides to have one stay home, then that choice is solely the individual’s and he or she must be able to respond in the future if the relationship ends, to the task of seeking employment, etc.
Since “marriage” is so important to those who are religious, keep it out of government where it gets mucked up; it has no business in government to begin with. People ought not be talking religion in public anyway, save for their church gatherings; it doesn’t belong in the public square. Religion is personal, belongs to the individual, and has no business being utilized as a weapon in government or politics.
The United States has two attributes which separates it from other nations: 1) We govern ourselves in strict accord with our written and little changed Constitution, and; 2) we are a largely religious nation with multiple sects that are rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic.
When an issue of law rises to the Supreme Court, one of the first tests applied is whether the state has a compelling interest in restricting an individual’s freedom in exchange for a greater societal benefit. In regard to gay marriage, two questions arise: 1) How does society as whole benefit from gay marriage, and; 2) what detriment accrues to society in denying gay marriage?
As of yet, I have seen no compelling reason for the state to enter into the issue of changing its marriage requirements. Gays are not prohibited from marrying. What many gays wish is to have the same sex restriction removed. In doing so, the court is thrust into examining the basis for the change and testing the overall compelling state interest in making the change.
It appears that the main reason gays favor gay marriage is in the pursuit of their own happiness. This is not a basis for compelling state interest. Gay marriage and polygamy are no different in their basis for a desired change in the state requirements. The polygamists may have a slight edge in that they can cloud the issue with references to the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition.
Our culture has evolved since 1789, but not radically. The Constitution has been amended only a few times and most of the amendments tinker with process. The thirteenth and eighteenth amendments were our two forays into radical change. The thirteenth came on the heels of violent and forceful change which is often the catalyst for radical change. The eighteenth amendment was so poorly conceived and impossibly beyond any enforcement of the compelling state interest that it was neutered by the twenty-first amendment.
Since we are a largely religious nation, the Judeo-Christian ethic has a tremendous influence on our culture, traditions and ethos. The state has set marriage requirements and will override religious practices that ignore the requirements. However, there are only occasional conflicts between the state requirements and the religious practices of some rare sect.
Many gays seem to want to bypass religion and particularly those sects that see engaging in homosexual acts as a sin. These gays assume that the state should find a compelling state reason to silence the religions.
What Indians, the ancient Greeks, modern Swedes or the Conch Republic do or have done is of very little importance to “We the People” in the application of our laws.
I think it is unfortunate that the gay marriage issue carries the umbrella of gays-lesbians-transgendered-bisexual relationships with it.
In all seriousness, why shouldn’t a bisexual governor of New Jersey not have a male spouse and a female spouse? If these are consenting adults…………
Modern liberalism has evolved into a change for the sake of change tradition that denigrates stodgy tradition. It is sees a constant upward spiral of improvement and happiness based on compelling the society to be hopeful and accepting “enlightened reformation.”
Realistically, “enlightened reformation” can not be imposed in a constitutional democracy where “We the People” are the final arbiters. Modern liberals must control the courts in order to bypass the Constitutional democracy. They rely on the courts to impose “change” on the unwilling masses.
Until gays can articulate the compelling reason that society in general will benefit from changing the marriage requirements, the best gays can hope for is a patchwork system of civil unions.
Cultures do evolve. But it takes time and positive experiences for long standing traditions to shift. Currently, our universities are awash in “diversity studies” and there is an on-going push for “hate crimes” and monitoring of political correctness in speech and action. These are all signs that modern liberalism can not win the debate, so it has made its opinions a matter for adjudication rather than discussion.
For many, what I have written is typical homophobe boilerplate. But at the same time, those same folks will not take the time or be able to provide unemotional, point by point counter argument. That, in a nut shell, it the state of the gay marriage issue.
Dan, I agree that we should look at the historical and traditional understanding of marriage. But we should also see that it has not remain unchanged and see where the trend is going.
Granted, up until very recently, there has been a sexual difference regarding marriage. But your examples of when there were same-sex married couples in the past having to feign the sexual differences shows exactly how things have changed (and for the better, in my opinion). We don’t require the man to work and the woman stay at home any more. And we certainly don’t require men to kill a bear and wear her ovaries any more.
So many of the traditional roles of men and women in the past have gone by the wayside. Marriage easily adjusted to these changes. And we see that marriage has been extended to those who cannot or do not want to have children. Marriage has adjusted by accepting these additional changes. Now I think it’s a natural extension to now allow those of the same sex to get married.
So I don’t see the extension of marriage to two men or two women akin to marrying more than two or more persons and certainly not one involving non-human life forms. Even with polygamy in the past (or in some that exist today), the “wedding” consecrated two people, not the other wives. And we’ve seen that even this brand of polygamy has been phased out in Western culture, because of the harm it’s caused to society and the inherent inequality.
I am not arguing one way or another whether marriages involving more than two persons are good, bad, or indifferent. I tend to think they will not be a benefit to society, although arrangements in which all parties are regarded as equals would be preferable to the traditional polygamy model. I’ll leave it to others to argue if they believe it’s more beneficial to society. I don’t think they can argue it’s a logical extension of allowing same-sex couples to marry.
I agree, but what about, for example, the Waterford stemware that you and I chipped in together and bought for the dining room or the cherry china cabinet Uncle John Doe gave us?