Marriage and its definition seems to be the hot topic in the media nowadays. One side screams about the sanctity of it and the other side shouts for equality in it. I don’t expect to change any minds on this subject through this blog, but I want to voice my opinion on the matter. I grew up in a family that would be called traditional and stable by any definition. My parents, who are both still alive, have been married for more than fifty (50) years. They raised their children, paid our way through college, and instilled in us what would be called old fashioned or traditional values. My siblings have all married and had children. None have divorced and considering all pondered the question of marriage by dating, in some cases, for years, I don’t foresee any getting divorced anytime soon.
And isn’t that what everyone wants when they find themselves looking for love? I think everyone asks essentially the same questions Can I see myself growing old with this person? Will I be able to tolerate their little annoyances through the years? These thoughts go through our head at some point in the relationship. We may never be conscious of it, but I think they do. The ceremony of marriage, culturally, is merely the outward declaration of “this person is mine, so hands off”.
So why all the yelling about marriage between people of the same gender? Religion aside, it amounts to those in positions of power feeling threatened by a changing world. These people don’t want the status quo to change because they may lose precious power over the minds and pocketbooks of those that follow them. Words such as ‘sanctity’ and ‘tradition’ are tossed around like free candy to children as a way to play on fears. Concepts of change are used to make people fear what they don’t know much about because they have never had to learn about it. What you don’t know, can’t hurt you. Right?
The problem with all of this fear mongering is that it keeps people ignorant and make bigots out of otherwise loving and caring people. Put a pair of cats or dogs together that are the same gender and have them show affection for each other and most people will go ‘Awww! How cute!’ However, have two humans of the same gender do the same thing (show affection for each other by kissing or holding hands), and how many would either get nervous or embarrassed about that, but never bat an eyelash when it’s an opposite gender couple? We are all a product of our upbringing and altering ourselves away from that takes time and effort. Also, there has to be a desire to change. The same thing goes for the concept of what marriage is really about.
So what is marriage really about, you ask? Isn’t it about two people saying I love you before family and friends? Promising each other to stay together no matter what? Given the prevalence of divorce in today’s society, I’d say for a vast number of people, not so.
Marriage today is a huge industry. In fact, in 2008 it took in a whopping $86 billion (http://afwpi.com/wedstats.html). Also, marriage is a controlled, benefits-driven contract regulated by both state and federal governments. Some states have loose controls while others have tighter controls. We all know this because some states require blood tests, limit who can marry and why (i.e.: gender and/or familial relationship), and have time limits of various types. Then there are those things that are granted as a privilege for having gotten married. Things like medical decision-making, inheritance, communal property, tax breaks, and more. These benefits are attractive and assumed by most of us because it was so for previous generations. For these reasons, I see marriage, in today’s world, more as a social contract between two parties. A contract that is unique in that many want to celebrate its signing with a public ceremony. Further proof that marriage is a contract is the relative ease at which it can be ended. Divorce is legal throughout the US, and in most all countries worldwide. So we can enter and exit marriage almost at will, with damages during the breaking of that contract as the divorce settlement dictates.
Yet there is the religious aspect of marriage that cannot be overlooked or ignored, even if we tried. Religion’s role in our society now and the important role it has played in our social and cultural development in the past cannot be belittled. Ridiculed, chastised, and recognized as the hate-inducing, fear mongering, violence condoning aspect of the human psyche certainly, but not belittled. However, for all the importance religion has played in creating our current civilization, it can also be blamed for the hate and fear toward homosexuality and the attitudes toward marriage.
What do I mean? Historically (one of many sites: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html), marriage was seen as a religious ceremony mostly, but a means of upward mobility, or consolidation of power and prestige. Prior to the nineteenth century (1800s, folks), marriages were arranged by parents for their children. This was essentially an agreement between families with no consideration of the children’s feelings on the matter. For some, it was to take what was considered a liability, a girl, off her parents hands. The parents would find as rich a man as they could that would make them look good, and then give him their daughter and money, or property of one form or another, in what’s called a dowry. But let’s be real, here folks, women weren’t always much better off than a horse or dog, since they were seen as the virtually the PROPERTY of their husband or father. And, since children were expected, there was little recourse for the reluctant partner. Divorce, while possible, was a public shame to the family name on both sides. So when the words ‘traditional marriage’ are bandied about, this is what I understand is wanted or meant.
Then, during the 1800s, the Romanticism movement changed the concepts behind marriage. Around the time of the 1850s, laws also started appearing in the US governing marriage. Prior to this time there were no or few laws governing marriage. Was it to stop men from marrying men? No, it was to keep the races separate and the white race pure, at least in the US. Slowly, but surely, more and varied laws were added until we have the jungle of legalese that fills our lives. Now marriage is a benefits rich aspect of our society. What benefits? Well, As I stated earlier, automatic inheritance upon the death of a spouse, right to make medical decisions, tax breaks, social security benefits continue, ability to put the spouse on your insurance at work, and the list goes on and on. In fact, this website (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html) has a rather long list of various benefits typical of the US.
So how does a marriage between two men, two women, or some variation of men and women affect the contractual aspect of our modern day marriage? How does it ruin or belittle my parents fifty plus years of marriage? It doesn’t. All that it does is reduce the perceived power of a few people, both politically and religiously. Two men, two women, a man and multiple women or one woman and multiple men doesn’t really change anyone else’s marriage. Presumably the parties are all adults and have consented to the implied contract that is marriage. The genders of the parties don’t matter to anyone except those that don’t like change; don’t like seeing something different than what they grew up with; don’t want to explain to their child what sex is or why two men or two women are kissing because they themselves as adults are too embarrassed by the act of sex they’re imagining happening to simply say, “They must like, or love, each other. You know, like your parents love each other.”
What about children, you cry. Marriage is about procreation and bringing children into the world!
Really? In this day and age of 7 BILLION people you’re worried about there not being enough humans in the world? If that’s why people get married, then that’s their business, but where’s the love between them that will be conveyed to the child? I can’t comment on what a loveless marriage does to children, because I didn’t come from one. My parents didn’t do much PDA, but we all knew they loved each other. I have a number of friends that purposely didn’t have children, their reasons as varied a them. Marriage doesn’t mean procreation in today’s medically empowered fertility capable society. With a surrogate, any couple can have a child. Through adoption, anyONE or any couple can have a child. Procreation by natural means is no longer the prerogative or sole venue of marriage. That is one area society has not caught up to technology on, but is getting there. I’ve known same sex couples that I would trust to raise a child before I would the actual opposite gender couple that have birth to children. Personally, I think people should be required to babysit a three to four year old child that’s sick and cranky before they ever have children. It would so help the human race. So the idea that only opposite gender couples can properly raise children is a lie. A lie that is being debunked constantly. Look at video testimonials like this one: http://youtu.be/1VnEexIhBTU. And then there’s this article about a study on the subject of gays raising children: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
So get a grip, pull up, and take it like the man/woman/thing you are. You don’t have a monopoly on love, nor will you ever be able to get one. The most you can hope for is the ability to control your own love life as you slink from one to another while trying to understand, justify, or make others do as you command. In a constantly changing world and human society, the reasons we marry change as well. We should simply hope that we make as many people and creatures as happy as possible during our life as we can. Anything else is just being a dick. Don’t be a dick. Or an asshole.
But that’s just my opinion. What’s yours?
Read Full Post »
A Minotaur's Musings 