On Marriage, and History
I promised to defend this assertion some time ago:
Let me make my point clear, first of all.
Government legislation defining marriage as a "union between a man and a woman" is a bad idea. Historically, it's inaccurate (not in "man and woman" but in the ambiguous word "union"). The institution that will suffer most from this legislation is the church.
And my suggested solution:
The church, because it has always defined marriage, will continue to do so. Let the individual churches duke it out amongst themselves whether or not they will admit homosexual matrimony. The government only has a say in who should be considered a unit for the purposes of taxation, and therefore homosexual civil unions should be allowed for that purpose. Civil unions are not marriages.
And one more thing, to defend myself. I never said this:
And so, on to my defense:
1) Historically, the claim that "marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman" is inaccurate.
The easiest and most well-known examples come from The Iliad and Odyssey - not history by any stretch of the imagination, but they do give a good insight into how people of their time thought about institutions such as marriage. And what we find is rampant infidelity on the part of the men, and strict fidelity on the part of the woman.
The reason is simple - the men had property, and, absent a better system of property distribution, they needed a good way to know who was the rightful heir, lest other powerful men come and take all their stuff, as men were wont to do during that time (if the stories are true). The solution was female fidelity - whatever child came out of her loins was the father's child, and he, therefore, was the rightful heir.
The father often had a great many children by other mothers, if Odysseus' careless attitude towards fidelity reflects accurately the attitude of the time - but none of them would inherit his property. Only the child of his wife would do that.
Point? Yes, marriage was between a man and a woman. But it wasn't in any way the kind of "union" that the church - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. - espouse. If anything, it was an agreement geared more towards expediency than achieving a union to reflect God's love.
(This is the argument I'll usually take - that the problem isn't with "man and woman" but with "union.")
And it was an institution of the church. Given that government and religion in those days were hardly seperable, it's hard to make that claim. What is clear, however, is that "government" in those days amounted to nothing more than tribal chiefs who had the ability to make their will the law (Thucydides attests to this, too, in his introduction to his History). Religion operated in much the same fashion - the gods enforced their rule because they could, and often went against their own rules because they wanted to. Religion became a good way to keep on their good side - you scratch my back, and I won't kill you with plague. In short, the purpose was expediency, and this is exactly how their definition of marriage evolved - what was expedient.
In Rome, where the historical records are a bit more reliable than Homer, marriage operated the same way: a young girl, usually prepubescent, would be wed to a man around thirty for the purpose of child-rearing. And that's it. Notions of "companionship" or anything else usually taken for granted in a marriage were conspicuously absent - so much so that men often found themselves other companions that were more their equals - flute girls, prostitutes, or other men. The "other men" was a carryover from the Greeks, and, recall, they considered the love between a male pupil and a male teacher the highest form of love.
But it wasn't marriage, and only because marraige was for having children. And it was also sacred, in the sense that it was defined by the church (still the government at this time), but it was hardly a union, except where "union" means only "together."
Moving on -
Ancient Hebrews - Solomon's 300 wives and 700 concubines. Granted, he went against the wishes of God. But the point is not that he disobeyed; the point is that his actions aren't seen as odd by his contemporaries. And his disobedience, further, was in the fact that his wives would lead him astray, not in the fact that he had a great many.
Celts - Huh boy. Best leave that one alone (ancient Ireland, the sexual code is pretty much...well, there isn't a sexual code, except that where sex is available, it is taken).
Moslems - Women, and little boys as well. But you didn't marry the boys; you just loved them.
Mormons - we all know this one.
The point is simple - history furnishes all sorts of examples of marriage being between a man and a woman, but it's often for the most obvious of reasons (men and women can make babies). Absent is any indication that the union between men and women was the only one permitted (excepting, of course, Christianity's prohibitions). And most conspicuously absent is any indication that marriage was always the sort of union that most Christians espouse (being equally yoked). It was very unequal, and there were no qualms about it being so.
That said, here are my complaints about government legislation:
The Christian Church claimed the right to define marriage a long time ago (whether they were justified is beyond the point; it's now clearly their domain).
David, however, has raised a good question:
"How do you propose to deal with (the fact that) law is inherently infused with social values(?)"
I've honestly no idea, because it's impossible to separate the two. I see a huge difference in degree, however, between legislating morality and giving the definition of morality to government. The former says, "this is the right thing to do, and so we do it." The latter says, "this is the right thing to do because we said so."
Derek had a question as well:
"Wazoo, you seem to suggest that we HAVEN'T legislated morality prior to 1973, and that our sudden interest in marriage is tantamount to "losing" the battle. In reality, it's about preserving something that's worked pretty well for, oh, 6000 years. American Christians did it before when polygamy threatened the West, and they succeeded."
Derek's obviously correct in that America has been legislating morality for a good long time. But the church has done it from a standpoint of "these things are wrong," not "the government now says that THIS is what marriage is." And I would argue that legislation in the past was tantamount to "losing" the battle as well.
On his "6,000 years" quote, I contend that that's little more than a tautology. Marriage has "worked" in the past 6,000 years because...why?
It has produced children (duh). If that's the gauge of success, then congratulations for winning.
I can't think of any other gauge of success by which to judge marriage, by which to say that marriage has been "successful." But I'm open to changing my mind.
(Derek - please humor me - why 1973? I know there's a reason, but I can't remember, and your history on this point is far better than mine.)
This is getting long. I'll finish later.
Here it is.The church has, in history, always (and I will defend this later) defined
marriage.
Let me make my point clear, first of all.
Government legislation defining marriage as a "union between a man and a woman" is a bad idea. Historically, it's inaccurate (not in "man and woman" but in the ambiguous word "union"). The institution that will suffer most from this legislation is the church.
And my suggested solution:
The church, because it has always defined marriage, will continue to do so. Let the individual churches duke it out amongst themselves whether or not they will admit homosexual matrimony. The government only has a say in who should be considered a unit for the purposes of taxation, and therefore homosexual civil unions should be allowed for that purpose. Civil unions are not marriages.
And one more thing, to defend myself. I never said this:
I said precisely the contrary - that marriage was an institution of the church.Your assertion that "marriage is not an institution of God, but of the
government" is as logically absurd as me saying "a prohibition on murder is not
a command of God, but of the government."
And so, on to my defense:
1) Historically, the claim that "marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman" is inaccurate.
The easiest and most well-known examples come from The Iliad and Odyssey - not history by any stretch of the imagination, but they do give a good insight into how people of their time thought about institutions such as marriage. And what we find is rampant infidelity on the part of the men, and strict fidelity on the part of the woman.
The reason is simple - the men had property, and, absent a better system of property distribution, they needed a good way to know who was the rightful heir, lest other powerful men come and take all their stuff, as men were wont to do during that time (if the stories are true). The solution was female fidelity - whatever child came out of her loins was the father's child, and he, therefore, was the rightful heir.
The father often had a great many children by other mothers, if Odysseus' careless attitude towards fidelity reflects accurately the attitude of the time - but none of them would inherit his property. Only the child of his wife would do that.
Point? Yes, marriage was between a man and a woman. But it wasn't in any way the kind of "union" that the church - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. - espouse. If anything, it was an agreement geared more towards expediency than achieving a union to reflect God's love.
(This is the argument I'll usually take - that the problem isn't with "man and woman" but with "union.")
And it was an institution of the church. Given that government and religion in those days were hardly seperable, it's hard to make that claim. What is clear, however, is that "government" in those days amounted to nothing more than tribal chiefs who had the ability to make their will the law (Thucydides attests to this, too, in his introduction to his History). Religion operated in much the same fashion - the gods enforced their rule because they could, and often went against their own rules because they wanted to. Religion became a good way to keep on their good side - you scratch my back, and I won't kill you with plague. In short, the purpose was expediency, and this is exactly how their definition of marriage evolved - what was expedient.
In Rome, where the historical records are a bit more reliable than Homer, marriage operated the same way: a young girl, usually prepubescent, would be wed to a man around thirty for the purpose of child-rearing. And that's it. Notions of "companionship" or anything else usually taken for granted in a marriage were conspicuously absent - so much so that men often found themselves other companions that were more their equals - flute girls, prostitutes, or other men. The "other men" was a carryover from the Greeks, and, recall, they considered the love between a male pupil and a male teacher the highest form of love.
But it wasn't marriage, and only because marraige was for having children. And it was also sacred, in the sense that it was defined by the church (still the government at this time), but it was hardly a union, except where "union" means only "together."
Moving on -
Ancient Hebrews - Solomon's 300 wives and 700 concubines. Granted, he went against the wishes of God. But the point is not that he disobeyed; the point is that his actions aren't seen as odd by his contemporaries. And his disobedience, further, was in the fact that his wives would lead him astray, not in the fact that he had a great many.
Celts - Huh boy. Best leave that one alone (ancient Ireland, the sexual code is pretty much...well, there isn't a sexual code, except that where sex is available, it is taken).
Moslems - Women, and little boys as well. But you didn't marry the boys; you just loved them.
Mormons - we all know this one.
The point is simple - history furnishes all sorts of examples of marriage being between a man and a woman, but it's often for the most obvious of reasons (men and women can make babies). Absent is any indication that the union between men and women was the only one permitted (excepting, of course, Christianity's prohibitions). And most conspicuously absent is any indication that marriage was always the sort of union that most Christians espouse (being equally yoked). It was very unequal, and there were no qualms about it being so.
That said, here are my complaints about government legislation:
The Christian Church claimed the right to define marriage a long time ago (whether they were justified is beyond the point; it's now clearly their domain).
David, however, has raised a good question:
"How do you propose to deal with (the fact that) law is inherently infused with social values(?)"
I've honestly no idea, because it's impossible to separate the two. I see a huge difference in degree, however, between legislating morality and giving the definition of morality to government. The former says, "this is the right thing to do, and so we do it." The latter says, "this is the right thing to do because we said so."
Derek had a question as well:
"Wazoo, you seem to suggest that we HAVEN'T legislated morality prior to 1973, and that our sudden interest in marriage is tantamount to "losing" the battle. In reality, it's about preserving something that's worked pretty well for, oh, 6000 years. American Christians did it before when polygamy threatened the West, and they succeeded."
Derek's obviously correct in that America has been legislating morality for a good long time. But the church has done it from a standpoint of "these things are wrong," not "the government now says that THIS is what marriage is." And I would argue that legislation in the past was tantamount to "losing" the battle as well.
On his "6,000 years" quote, I contend that that's little more than a tautology. Marriage has "worked" in the past 6,000 years because...why?
It has produced children (duh). If that's the gauge of success, then congratulations for winning.
I can't think of any other gauge of success by which to judge marriage, by which to say that marriage has been "successful." But I'm open to changing my mind.
(Derek - please humor me - why 1973? I know there's a reason, but I can't remember, and your history on this point is far better than mine.)
This is getting long. I'll finish later.
posted by NateWazoo at 1:33 PM
0 comments
