posted
Warning, this is a gay marriage thread in disguise.
Right now there are two men getting married in Massachuetses.
I've listened to the arguments, pro and con, and dove into a few myself. There is one theme that I've picked out of all of them, good or bad.
The definition of marriage has changed. And this change, which has been creeping in for centuries, or at least decades, is fundamental and been mostly ignored.
The marriage of two men or two women, and the acceptance of them as a couple in love is a basic victory for Romanticism.
If you believe that marriage is the formalized linking of two people, dedicated to each other by the undeniable bonds of love, then you can not stand in the way of two people in love, no matter who they are.
If, however, you believe in the more traditional view of marriage, then this is will not work.
What is the more traditional view? It is the view of marriage as an economic contract between two people. In exchange for services rendered by the female, the male will provide for and protect her. Together they will create offspring that will also be provided for and protected, but by both parents.
This basic contract is the root of what many consider "Family Values." It is traditional, going back thousands of years.
The only cause for divorce was a breaking of that contract. If the husband harmed the wife instead of protecting her, or if the wife was unable to provide the promised children, then divorce was allowed.
Of course, it is only relatively recently that this agreement was limited to one man and one woman. In previous centuries, if a man could afford to provide for multiple wives, they he got multiple wives. There are still many places in the world where this system still rules.
It wasn't only the fun thing to do, it was a familiar responsibility. Check your Old Testament. If your brother dies you did not just let his wife and kids move in with you, you were supposed to marry her.
And this contract was backed up by law. Even if you did not agree to the arrangements, if you deflowered a young women, and were caught, you were forced to marry her. After all, her value declined kind of like driving a new car off the lot.
If you got a woman pregnant, the marriage was mandatory. This was not for the woman's well being, but for the child. There was no welfare system to help the unemployable single mother.
For centuries this economic contract called marriage was the cornerstone of most cultures. Marriages were arranged at all levels of society to promote the wealth of the family. It was rarely allowed to be relinquished to the hands of the young folks themselves.
I have friends in India who never met their wives until their wedding day. This was common through out most of our history. Money in the form of Dowry's were exchanged.
This was often perverted to have women become nothing more than chattel, to be bought and sold.
Yet there was sparked a counter thought, a new meme, an idea that talked about love.
Love will conquer all.
Those are four dangerous words that have resulted in the turnover of all of our family values.
Love will conquer all.
The ironic thing is that people in Love want the romantic word, Marriage. People who see Marriage along the more contractual basis, want the romantics to settle for the contractual sounding "Civil Unions."
It is for the Romantic phrase that they fight. But to understand it better, perhaps we need to determine where this Romantic Ideal first came from.
Where did it begin? The first recorded love story that I am aware of is in Gilgimesh. Of coure, that's the relationship between Gilgimesh and his buddy Enkidu. They are the classic star crossed lovers, one a city boy (who built cities) and the other a country rube (who talked with his animal friends) who find each other despite troubles. The love between them makes Gilgimesh a better king, and the loss of Enkidu drives Gilgimesh to spiritual enlightenment.
But I don't think two guys should be the start of our talk of Romance.
We could turn to the Illiad, but the most loving couple there is not Helen and Paris, or Helen and Meneleus. Its Achilies and Patrocolus.
Again, lets look somewhere else to start our Romanticism.
There are a lot of stories in the ancient Greek myths that result in two people pro-creating. However, most of the Gods/Human mixtures are more lust or rape than "Love".
Hero & Leander? here is a nice romantic story. Hero is the female, surprisingly. Leander fell in love and swam the sea each day to be with her. He didn't make it one night, drowning in the sea. She threw herself in.
There we go.
That and the story of Pyrramis and Thisbe--star crossed juvenile lovers who end up killing themselves.
That story, which would become Romeo and Juliet, is the start of the Romantic idea.
And that romantic idea has grown. First in storys and plays, then in books and songs. Most recently, repeated to us in Movies and on TV, the idea that LOVE CONQUERS ALL keeps coming at us.
It has grown, this romantic ideal.
We no longer allow our parents to chose who is best for us to marry. Instead we allow our hearts to choose.
Or we allow what we think is our hearts, but is often other organs, including our scared brains fearing we will never get married.
And when we find we are not in love, we disolve the marriage to find true love, for it conquers all.
Hence the divorce rate.
Hence the increase in single mothers, who having little to value in their chastity, surrender it to men undeserving, because they think they are in love.
Love Conquers All.
It has conquered family bonds.
It has conquered the urge to procreate.
It has often conquered the love a father has for his child, when he turns his back on those children to find love elsewhere.
If love truly conquers all, then Love is an all powerful.
Power corrupts.
Love is the best binding force that holds people together, in family or in romance. Yet its pleasures and power, when absent, drives people away. That is destructive.
Like Enkidu and Gilgamesh, two men are right now promising their eternal love.
I will not tell them no.
Who am I to step in the way of all powerful, unstoppable, unconquerable love.
If I cry at their wedding, its the romantic in me.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fell in love with my wife when she told me that she thinks the idea "Love conquers all" is a load of crap.
I think a succesful marriage has much more to do with the *decision* to commit to each other than the *feeling* of being in love.
If we assume that the above post is correct, then since 1)the ideal of romantic love has been detrimental to family values and 2)gay marriage is a natural extension of the ideal of romantic love then it's no wonder that proponents of family values are against it.
Are you sure your syllogism is correct? It doesn't make sense to me the way you have it.
This is what makes sense to me:
quote: 1)the ideal of romantic love has been detrimental to family values and 2)gay marriage is a natural extension of the ideal of romantic love then it's no wonder that proponents of family values are against it.
if gay marriage was a natural extension of family values than the family values people should be for it and they mostly aren't.
quote:What is the more traditional view? It is the view of marriage as an economic contract between two people. In exchange for services rendered by the female, the male will provide for and protect her. Together they will create offspring that will also be provided for and protected, but by both parents.
Is not a fair statement of the traditional view of marriage that most are worried about.
Traditional marriage may be defined by some as a convenantal relationship established by God to be a relationship between a man and a woman, as set forth in the Bible and mirroring the commitment Christ has to the church.
That has nothing to do with property or economics. I would have married my husband even if it gave us no advantage in the areas of owning property or paying taxes, because of my beliefs that marriage is the ordained state that God set forth for men and women to join together in. Become one flesh, as it were.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I said Traditional, I should have said Historical.
Where we are now is a very nice place, that combines both the romantic and family/economic reasons for getting marriage. Although we can look back and say this is why we got married, and why our parents got married, and maybe even why our grandparents got married, if you look back even farther, its all about the ability to feed and protect the family.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Dan, you leave out two trends: One, people did get married for love, even back then, in the sense that some people got to pick their mate and picked someone they loved. Two, the idea of romantic love as the sole driving force legitimizes an ethic of not working at relationships when they go sour. When marriage is simply seen as one more step in the dating game, something significant has been lost.
posted
Belle, your definition doesn't have much bearing on the secular, or at least, pluralistic, US or MA government, right? Your covenant cannot be validated by the state, by law (and probably shouldn't on principle besides), so the state isn't even using your definition when it means marriage.
As a result you (and other opponents, this isn't a direct attack on you, please understand) would rather force the state to rewrite a bunch of laws, at taxpayer expense, to preserve _a_ definition of marriage (I think it's pretty clear that there is no one universally accepted definition for the word "marriage", just widely accepted definitions that vary in age) that the state doesn't even use today (merely a close approximation, or everything except the God stuff, but that isn't truly important, so long as the result is acceptable to your God, if not other citizens); Or force everyone to use YOUR definition, which would alienate otherwise law-abiding citizens, since they'd have to buy into your theology to be truly married.
If your definition of marriage is what you say it is, Belle, why should we have the government enforce THAT definition?
I do worry about the idea of acceptance though, that a few opponents here have worried about. That's an issue I can empathize with, the "What do I tell my children?" question. I don't know any quick answer that wouldn't come off as ultimately a bit supercilious.
First point, well since I did absolutely no research on this topic, I don't know if that is true, or to what extent. I have friends in places such as India where it is definately not true, until recently. People married who their parents arranged for them to marry. The wife's place was to submit. If you were lucky, and worked hard, the two people came to love each other.
Second point, I agree whole heartedly. If we declare Marriage as the highlight of the dating experience, then Marriage has lost something important. Yet every romantic comedy ends in marriage, as it has since before Shakespeare's day.
I am not arguing that this has happened recently. It has been a growing trend for centuries.
Marriage has become the goal of Romance. It used to be the begining of life.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Although we can look back and say this is why we got married, and why our parents got married, and maybe even why our grandparents got married, if you look back even farther, its all about the ability to feed and protect the family.
You are partially correct. I remember reading the life history of my great-great-great-great-great grandfather Sanford Porter. He wanted to be a farmer, and there was really no way to be a farmer without a wife back home taking care of the home while you were out taking care of the farm. The romantic aspect was there, but the economic aspect was very strong.
posted
Belle, I reread your post and would like to make a further point.
Your main reason for getting married was because God ordained that is the way things are.
I am not disagreeing with you.
What I am saying is that the format that God used was that of a contract. (God is very big on contracts) It is a sacred, perhaps one of the most sacred contract, originally between God, the husband, wife, and their children when they came.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I was thinking only of European tradition in my response, since it's the tradition that was directly affected by the Romanticists. From my (limited) research, lower class people had much more freedom to marry for love. The economic considerations were always there as well.
Marriage as the goal of Romance is fine and good. But that doesn't remove the other aspects of marriage, so I'm not sure it constitutes a redefinition so much as a modification that still fits in a coherent whole.
posted
Bok, you know, I don't know how to answer all of what you brought up.
Should we make marriage just a civil union? Would everyone then have to go to a courthouse to be married, and the state no longer recognize marriages performed by clergy? Now, we recognize unions performed in religious houses of worship, we recognize what is essentially a religious service.
If we take the religious definition away from marriage, then would that leave us with only civil unions?
I guess I'm not seeing how this is forcing the state to re-write laws - the state currently recognizes religious unions. If we dissolve it all down to the civil/governmental aspect, then would that mean that all unions are nothing more than civil? Are we saying then, that religious unions carry no weight in the civil law?
So we would separate civil unions from the state of marriage, make one a civil affair, and the other a religious one? So a man and woman would have to go perform a ceremony at the courthouse to be civilly bound together under the state law, and then go to church to get married. What importance you place on each of those acts is up to the individual.
That way, I could then teach my children what my religion considers marriage. and let them know that in our belief system marriage is the only union blessed by God, and ordained by Him. That there is also this matter of a civil union, that should be done if you want to jointly own property in the state, but it's essentially just a bureaucratic function, like having a driver's license. In my belief system, the marriage, performed in the church, would be what really mattered.
Each church would probably define marriage differently. Some churches would allow homosexual marriages, many Christian churches wouldn't.
I'm not saying I'm totally for this solution, I'm just talking out loud. Typing out loud. Thinking while typing. Whatever.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think allowing religious clergy (and anyone else that pays the fee) to create civil unions in the course of their religious ceremonies wouldn't be problematic for Church/State. In many ways, this is what happens now. When I marry in July, I will be fulfilling certain civil conditions and certain religious (much more severe) conditions. The civil portion of the marriage can be dissolved with a civil divorce; the religious part cannot be.
I don't see how replacing civil marriage and replacing it with civil unions would require any changes to this setup.
That's got to be one of the most original and thought-provoking posts about gay marriage on Hatrack in a long, long time. Problably the best since the original, "Yes they should! No they shouldn't! God says no! God doesn't care! There is no God!" gay marriage thread.
Second of all, mph,
quote:I think a succesful marriage has much more to do with the *decision* to commit to each other than the *feeling* of being in love.
You know, this may be true. But call me a Romantic (by Dan's definition, I am) if you will -- but I think if the feeling gets lost in the decision it's a very sad thing. The feeling is what's so wonderful, and I would hope the committment to nurturing and growing that feeling (despite the ways in which it will change) is one of the most important parts of a successful marriage.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Dagonee on this one, I think. I have no problem with religious officials, however regulated, to have the power to confer both the religious and civil mantles of marriage. If a religious official doesn't want to marry a couple, for whatever reason, that is there right, as it is even now. No one (that I know of) is asking for religious officials to confer civil marriage to couples they don't want to (we are asking officials, who are solely civil in function, to do so, however).
Whether it is civil union, [EDIT: or marriage], I don't care too much, except that by reducing the name to civil union, you will get less educated or more emotional people to think (and, with a well placed discussion or sermon, believe) that the gays took marriage away from them, when their religious marriage is as exclusive as ever.
posted
This is a very interesting take on the matter, Dan. Do you mind if I borrow your ideas? Wow. Also, I almost cried. Very well-written.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could someone help me with the semantics of this, please?
Cause while yes, marriage is a religious ceremony (and I agree that religious officials have the discretion to marry whomever than wish to, or not), it is also a function performed by the state.
You can have a civil ceremony, but it's still a *marriage*. Every couple is issued a *marriage* licence by the state. You don't get a 'civil union' license.
I just don't see how the line between marriage and 'civil union' is so clearly delineated, with one as religious and the other as non-religious. A marriage can be non-religious too.
[ May 18, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There IS no clearly delineated line, and that would be one of the reasons there is a controversy.
People think the two should be separate church and state functions, but we already recognize what is essentially a church function when we acknowledge marriages performed in a church. So, that makes it problematic.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
The way I use it is that civil unions are the legal consequences of two consenting adults forming a bond that is intended to be permanant. These consequences can be tax-related, property-related, divorce-related, etc.
"Marriage" is whatever the couple puts on top of that legal institution. It does not have to be religious - non-religious couples attach meaning above a set of legal rules to their marriages. Even the idea of romantic love is not part of the civil union part.
Under current law, the civil union (or civil marriage) is represented by the marriage license. The marriage is represented by whatever ceremony beyond the minimum needed to execute the license is conducted, and whatever beliefs the couple attach to it.
The proposal at issue here would simply make the distinction formal.
Dagonee Edit: And in this scenario, the minister or priest serves a dual role in executing the civil marriage license and solemnizing the event. In the Catholic setting, we would say administering the Sacrament of Matrimony.
posted
I sent a copy of your essay Dan to my Aunt Jenny, who is a lawyer, and she had a very interesting reply. I'll post it here...
quote:> Karl, > An interesting essay, if not completely accurate. > > From the legal perspective, the marriage contract was > also there to keep > some sort of track of who, and what, belonged to whom. > It helped > communities settle genetics, descent and distribution of > property, and > familial rights and obligations. Frankly, the concept of > legal marriage > today is to do much the same thing. I promise you, the > majority of County > Clerks couldn't give a rat's ass about how people feel > when they get > married. Are you a Romantic? Okay. Just there to fill > out a family > expectation? Line forms on the right. > > They're just there to record who, and what, belongs to > whom. > > I won't speak to the more philosophic or theologic > aspects to the essay, > as they are not germane to the current debate. All that > matters is > whether a person's sexual orientation is enough to deny > them the rights > of their peers under the law. A palpable public purpose > must be > articulated (other than personal or theological > squeamishness) for > forbidding same-sex marriage. Who does it hurt as a > concept? The answer > is: no one. > > So this is legal slam dunk, which is why conservatives > are shitting > bricks. They cloak themselves in the same rhetoric as > the essay which is > nothing more than an argument to supplant culture for the > law. > > This is what lawyers do when their case sucks. > > Just stick to the facts, the Constitution, and let the > law do its thing. > This is just a version of Brown v. Board of Education. > > All my love, > > Aunt Jenny, Esq.
posted
I'm not sure there's any need for religious unions on top of civil ones--not because God's approval isn't important, but because I don't think he requires a special ceremony. But I guess that's up to each church.
I'm seeing a problem with this idea of civil unions in that it will force religious people to flee government jobs in which they might have to marry homosexuals.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd seriously doubt that would ever be the case, Mabus. In my state, at least, there are only non-government marriage officials. Judges can do it, but don't ever HAVE to do it, so they maintain discretion.
Now, if a clerk has a problem issuing a marriage license to a homosexual or some other ministerial function, they'd have a problem. But I doubt most religions would have a problem with that. It's not making the marriage; it's filing paperwork.
It'd be like a very religious person filing building and use permits for a strip club (or even brothel in Nevada). Probably not a big deal.
posted
The actual wording of Brown is funny. It basically says blacks can't be seperate because it hurts their self esteem. Last time I checked, there's no constitutional guarantee for self esteem. You could argue it falls under the pursuit of happines from...my brain just died. The preamble? The Declaration of Independance? I'm off to google.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independance.
quote:If its not a slam dunk, why is the only recourse of its opponents a Constitutional Amendment ?
If it's not a slam dunk, why hasn't a suit been filed in federal court? Why was the Mass. decision 4-3? And while I think the amendment is a very bad idea, the amendment is needed from the opponent's perspective to forestall potential full faith and credit issues.
quote:Also, Mr. P, what are Brown's constitutional problems? Not questioning your statement, just hadn't ever heard that arguement before.
Well, for one, it specifically ruled that the original intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment with regard to school segregation was unclear, when these same drafters authorized segregated schools in DC.
The Brown issues are not fatal, there were several ways they could have gotten around the originalism issue fairly easily and still reached the same decision. Instead they chose to rely on some pretty iffy sociological conclusions. The Brown reasoning relied heavily on the evolving role of education in society, yet Brown was cited in an opinion without comment to make illegal segregation in city golf courses.
From a legal analysis perspective it's not the best opinion ever written. However, in Brown's case, I think Warren sacrificed some of the analytical edge of the very valid constitutional arguments in favor of integration simply to secure a unanimous decision. This was probably the correct move politically.
Dagonee Edit: I just want to be clear that there is a much more traditional structural/principle based argument that could have been used to reach the Brown decision - I'm not arguing against the decision, just the reasoning used to get there.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I like it a lot.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
