The Marital Contract
''We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,'' ... Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
So earlier this week our Senators debated and voted on the subject of marriage. The vote was 49 for a ban on "gay marriage" and 48 against - or was it vice versa - actually, I do not think it really matters. Everyone who cared knew this was a bogus vote because everyone who cared knew that there was no possibility of getting a two thirds vote (needed for a Constitutional Amendment). I will not waste too many words on the idiocy of having this vote when nothing was to be gained or lost by it, especially when there are so many other pressing matters facing the nation.
Of course there are many who believe that marriage as an institution is under assault and for years have been on the lookout, ever vigilant for bogeymen out to destroy it for good. What with high divorce rates, common law marriages, prenuptial agreements, no fault divorces, domestic partnerships, etc., why so called marriage advocates want to keep anyone from getting married is beyond me.
Honestly though, I must admit some ambivalence to the concept of "gay marriage". I do not understand why a segment of the population that is admittedly different from the majority needs validation from one of it's institutions. Growing up in the '70s and '80s, I got the impression that gays at that time looked down upon being bound by the concept traditional marriage. I think it is only recently that the issue has come to the forefront for a variety of reasons. Possibly, it is because of greater acceptance in the general community that gays feel more able to fight for greater official legitimacy. However, I think there are more immediate concerns, such as the availability of health insurance to a partner or the ability to stand in for a loved one in time of crisis and make decisions and determinations that a traditional spouse could, which provide greater urgency.
When asked recently on my take on gay marriage I responded by saying that I really did not have strong feelings on the matter but was inclined to accept the notion that marriage was an institution that, throughout known human history and amongst most cultures primitive or advanced, was reserved for a union between a man and a women. To me, civil unions accomplished the same thing as lawful gay marriage.
I think before tackling the question of whether gays should be able to "marry" or not, we should define what marriage is. Marriage traditions amongst all of the major religions throughout recorded history showed marriage to be a contract between two individuals and, more importantly, between two families that formed bonds of kinship where no bonds of kinship existed. These bonds of kinship placed obligations on and provided benefits to both individuals united by the covenant of a marriage. This contract was traditionally arranged between families and not individuals. As Joseph Campbell explains to Bill Moyer in the Power of Myth, the notion of individual or romantic love was not introduced into the western tradition until the troubadours (aristocratic poets/musicians from Provence in France) introduced it in the 12th century. Until recently, even in Europe, marriages were arranged affairs in which social standing and economics were much more important considerations than affection or attraction. Arranged marriages are still the norm in many Asian traditions.
Throughout history, the benefits of the marriage contract have most often accrued to the male partner and the obligations to the female one. This can be easily determined by studying Roman and Christian traditions as well as Muslim or Hindu ones. Women have always had inferior rights and few or no claims to property. Adultery by a woman meant certain death whereas for a man it was hardly a major crime. It is not until recent times that any sense of equality has been achieved in laws governing marriage. This has been achieved by legislating the concepts of equal rights and equal protections under the law into the marriage contract. As Professor Hendrik Hartog explains in this article for the History News Network in 2004, it was only late in the 19th century that as a result of "republican institutions pursuing the public good" that "legislators passed a variety of rules that formally moderated the inequalities of marriage -- particularly marital property reforms, earnings acts, and child custody reforms." As he further explains, it was only because of "women entering the paid labor market in much larger numbers, easily available contraception and the separation of sexuality from marriage" after World War II that real changes in law came into effect to put women on an equal footing in the marital contract and also giving them equal rights to freely enter into or out of such a contract.
Those who argue against gay marriage do so on the basis that marriage is a sacred institution reserved to be shared between only a man and a woman. Biologically, that makes sense of course. One of the main results of heterosexual marriage is procreation. However, I would argue that marriage is basically a contract that governs the commitment made by two individuals to each other. What is sacred is the commitment, not the contract. My point here is that rights were gained by government legislating rights into the marital contract where no equality or rights existed for centuries. Governments place is to ensure that all represented by it are treated equitably, not legislate who can make a commitment to whom. We do not need protection from people trying to become part of a tradition that they are certainly not trying to destroy.
So earlier this week our Senators debated and voted on the subject of marriage. The vote was 49 for a ban on "gay marriage" and 48 against - or was it vice versa - actually, I do not think it really matters. Everyone who cared knew this was a bogus vote because everyone who cared knew that there was no possibility of getting a two thirds vote (needed for a Constitutional Amendment). I will not waste too many words on the idiocy of having this vote when nothing was to be gained or lost by it, especially when there are so many other pressing matters facing the nation.
Of course there are many who believe that marriage as an institution is under assault and for years have been on the lookout, ever vigilant for bogeymen out to destroy it for good. What with high divorce rates, common law marriages, prenuptial agreements, no fault divorces, domestic partnerships, etc., why so called marriage advocates want to keep anyone from getting married is beyond me.
Honestly though, I must admit some ambivalence to the concept of "gay marriage". I do not understand why a segment of the population that is admittedly different from the majority needs validation from one of it's institutions. Growing up in the '70s and '80s, I got the impression that gays at that time looked down upon being bound by the concept traditional marriage. I think it is only recently that the issue has come to the forefront for a variety of reasons. Possibly, it is because of greater acceptance in the general community that gays feel more able to fight for greater official legitimacy. However, I think there are more immediate concerns, such as the availability of health insurance to a partner or the ability to stand in for a loved one in time of crisis and make decisions and determinations that a traditional spouse could, which provide greater urgency.
When asked recently on my take on gay marriage I responded by saying that I really did not have strong feelings on the matter but was inclined to accept the notion that marriage was an institution that, throughout known human history and amongst most cultures primitive or advanced, was reserved for a union between a man and a women. To me, civil unions accomplished the same thing as lawful gay marriage.
I think before tackling the question of whether gays should be able to "marry" or not, we should define what marriage is. Marriage traditions amongst all of the major religions throughout recorded history showed marriage to be a contract between two individuals and, more importantly, between two families that formed bonds of kinship where no bonds of kinship existed. These bonds of kinship placed obligations on and provided benefits to both individuals united by the covenant of a marriage. This contract was traditionally arranged between families and not individuals. As Joseph Campbell explains to Bill Moyer in the Power of Myth, the notion of individual or romantic love was not introduced into the western tradition until the troubadours (aristocratic poets/musicians from Provence in France) introduced it in the 12th century. Until recently, even in Europe, marriages were arranged affairs in which social standing and economics were much more important considerations than affection or attraction. Arranged marriages are still the norm in many Asian traditions.
Throughout history, the benefits of the marriage contract have most often accrued to the male partner and the obligations to the female one. This can be easily determined by studying Roman and Christian traditions as well as Muslim or Hindu ones. Women have always had inferior rights and few or no claims to property. Adultery by a woman meant certain death whereas for a man it was hardly a major crime. It is not until recent times that any sense of equality has been achieved in laws governing marriage. This has been achieved by legislating the concepts of equal rights and equal protections under the law into the marriage contract. As Professor Hendrik Hartog explains in this article for the History News Network in 2004, it was only late in the 19th century that as a result of "republican institutions pursuing the public good" that "legislators passed a variety of rules that formally moderated the inequalities of marriage -- particularly marital property reforms, earnings acts, and child custody reforms." As he further explains, it was only because of "women entering the paid labor market in much larger numbers, easily available contraception and the separation of sexuality from marriage" after World War II that real changes in law came into effect to put women on an equal footing in the marital contract and also giving them equal rights to freely enter into or out of such a contract.
Those who argue against gay marriage do so on the basis that marriage is a sacred institution reserved to be shared between only a man and a woman. Biologically, that makes sense of course. One of the main results of heterosexual marriage is procreation. However, I would argue that marriage is basically a contract that governs the commitment made by two individuals to each other. What is sacred is the commitment, not the contract. My point here is that rights were gained by government legislating rights into the marital contract where no equality or rights existed for centuries. Governments place is to ensure that all represented by it are treated equitably, not legislate who can make a commitment to whom. We do not need protection from people trying to become part of a tradition that they are certainly not trying to destroy.
posted by MyView at 8:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home