Is Marriage Evolving?
I've been asked to write a series of short articles on issues surrounding the Marriage debate. Here's the first.
A frequent argument among proponents of same-sex marriage is that history demonstrates marriage to be an evolving institution.
Here’s the evidence:
· Prior to 1865 African Americans were not permitted to marry in many states.
· In 1933 married women were granted the right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
· In 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
· Prior to 1967 interracial marriage was forbidden in many states.
· In 1969 laws were established allowing the dissolution of marriage for reasons of ‘irreconcilable differences’.
· In 1975 laws were established allowing married women to establish credit independent of their husbands.
· In 1976 laws were established that allowed married women to get an abortion without spousal notification.
I would suggest another look at this argument. Does it really suggest that marriage is evolving? In the above timeline, do you see where marriage changed?
To be thorough, take the argument even deeper into history and more broadly across cultures.
Consider this:
· In the farthest reaches of history a great number of marriages were arranged and involved no consent on the part of the parties.
· Down through history a great number of marriages had nothing to do with love or consenting relationship but were arranged for religious reasons, tradition or the preservation of a bloodline.
· The official recognition of marriage covenant across time has included everything from the exchange of property, to the payment of dowries, to the public exchange of vows, to a court recorded document.
Did you see where the institution of marriage changed?
In all of these examples, those from American history and those from the farthest reaches of history, marriage in its very definition has not changed: it has always been a relationship between one man and one woman. Be they black, white or interracial, consensual or arranged, for reasons of religion, tradition or love, solemnized by exchanging sandals, the family dairy cow or a marriage license – marriage has always been in definition the relationship of one man and one woman.
The argument for same-sex marriage must be placed into proper context: it is not simply a ‘next step in the evolution of marriage’ – marriage is not evolving. It is, rather, an assault on the very definition of marriage.
A frequent argument among proponents of same-sex marriage is that history demonstrates marriage to be an evolving institution.
Here’s the evidence:
· Prior to 1865 African Americans were not permitted to marry in many states.
· In 1933 married women were granted the right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
· In 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
· Prior to 1967 interracial marriage was forbidden in many states.
· In 1969 laws were established allowing the dissolution of marriage for reasons of ‘irreconcilable differences’.
· In 1975 laws were established allowing married women to establish credit independent of their husbands.
· In 1976 laws were established that allowed married women to get an abortion without spousal notification.
I would suggest another look at this argument. Does it really suggest that marriage is evolving? In the above timeline, do you see where marriage changed?
To be thorough, take the argument even deeper into history and more broadly across cultures.
Consider this:
· In the farthest reaches of history a great number of marriages were arranged and involved no consent on the part of the parties.
· Down through history a great number of marriages had nothing to do with love or consenting relationship but were arranged for religious reasons, tradition or the preservation of a bloodline.
· The official recognition of marriage covenant across time has included everything from the exchange of property, to the payment of dowries, to the public exchange of vows, to a court recorded document.
Did you see where the institution of marriage changed?
In all of these examples, those from American history and those from the farthest reaches of history, marriage in its very definition has not changed: it has always been a relationship between one man and one woman. Be they black, white or interracial, consensual or arranged, for reasons of religion, tradition or love, solemnized by exchanging sandals, the family dairy cow or a marriage license – marriage has always been in definition the relationship of one man and one woman.
The argument for same-sex marriage must be placed into proper context: it is not simply a ‘next step in the evolution of marriage’ – marriage is not evolving. It is, rather, an assault on the very definition of marriage.
4 Comments:
Thats interesting.
In reading your essay, I didn't really see the continuity of marriage defined as between a man and a woman, but rather--where human rights were legitimized. For instance, black people weren't allowed to marry; women weren't granted citizenship until they married, etc.
I've never seen this account of history before but..in my view--the trend seems to me to be more about--what are your rights rather than the relationship itself.
By Anonymous, at 2/13/2006 8:29 PM
I think that was Darin's point. The recognition of rights continues to grow - thus the continuum - but the definition of marriage as (or perhaps the assumption that marriage is) between a man and a woman remains the same.
So the societal rights of individual men and women re. the marriage relationship have increased over time. And it may be plausible to say, "individual societal rights are all that matters; we should continue that progression to include man/man and woman/woman marriages."
I think that logical rigor requires, however, that we recognize that we are changing categories if we do so argue. We're certainly changing definitions - marriage has always been a man/woman arrangement. Does a progression of rights automatically trump a category definition?
Well, I have more rights vis-a-vis my employer than my grandfather did. Yet should those rights progress, will it give you the right to receive a paycheck from my employer? Does the progression of rights trump the relationship? Does it change the category definitions of "employed by Global" and "not employed by Global?"
By Richard Griffin, at 2/13/2006 10:48 PM
Digging a little deeper into the historical perspective, what is clear is the immense value we as humans and societies have placed on marriage. We have recognized it as a core, if not THE core relationship.
Upon marriage have rested nations, treaties and empires, both national and business. Upon marriage have rested the hopes of families and countries for their future.
What is the implicit nature of these hopes? The offspring. That the "issue" of the marriage (i.e. children) would embody the bringing together of two sides into one.
What then, of the childless marriage, does that invalidate or weaken the concept?
Not at all. The man-woman marriage always has the CAPACITY to bring forth children (whether it occurs or not).
And the issuing of children are in a way a picture of "two becoming one". It is clear from how we've used marriage in the past that we have implicitly understood that marriage means two separate entities becoming one. That becoming one then cementing OTHER unions.
Two men are not different. They are the same. Two women are not different. They are the same.
While I can empathize that they seek some sort of solemnification and celebration of their bond, it is a violence to the concept of marriage to equate same-sex couplings to it.
I have before me a bagel. I want it to be a deep, dark, chocolate truffle. No, really I do, you have NO idea how much I want this.
I believe I shall walk to the counter and demand that the bagel be called a truffle. That all persons ordering the bagel must specify that they want a truffle.
Hmmm... that's funny. What's on their plate still looks like a bagel!
D--
By Higher Up, Further In, at 2/14/2006 9:33 AM
... OK, I that illustration has been bugging me all day.
Let me try again.
My favorite chocolate shop (are you sensing a theme here?) is Dilettante Chocolates of Seattle.
Suppose I go in one day and order a plate of 3 truffles (a meal in itself!) and a cup of coffee (with REAL CREAM!!! YUM!!!).
What I am handed is a plate with 3 whole grain bagels.
On complaint, I am told that the definition of "truffle" was too restrictive. That eating has gotten healthier since last I was there years ago. That lowfat, high fiber foods were under-represented as a food class. That I must expand my food embracing and accept this as a truffle.
Is it truffles that I have on my plate? Or do words and constructs have intrinsic, base-level meanings, unchangeable regardless of whim, fashion and the ACLU?
D--
By Higher Up, Further In, at 2/14/2006 4:49 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home