From metaquotes and my reaction

[avevale_intelligencer]

This, on proposition 8, has already been linked to by several of my friends, and narrowly prevented me from posting something of my own on the subject.

It's good reading, and makes a lot of sense, and someone early in the comment thread by the name of almightyhat has a wonderfully snarky icon on the subject that takes longer to read than the post and should be required reading for all of us who don't live in California. Seriously. Dude. (I'm quoting. I don't normally say dude.) They got it, okay?

But I will not be cheated of my opportunity to wibble (nyahahahahaa) and it does occur to me that defining marriage as "family" simply gives the right another concept they can hijack and "traditionalise." How long before we start hearing about "traditional" families? The ones with a parent of each gender, where the children are if at all possible brought forth of the body of the woman by the "traditional" method? We take divorce and IVF and such things for granted now, but I can oh so easily imagine those freedoms getting rolled back, given the slightest opportunity. We're not out of the woods yet. And, of course, they could just turn it round and say "family is marriage," meaning "traditional" marriage, and everyone's out in the cold again. Besides, on the other side there are undoubtedly those who are in families and have made a point of not being married, for whatever reason. As far as I'm concerned, one family I'm in is over a hundred strong, and I'm definitely not married to all of them.

What marriage is, in my heart, is a loving commitment to a shared life, witnessed by an external authority. There are certain problems with this definition, of course, which is why I was hesitating. The post makes the point that some families come to hate each other (though I'm fairly sure they don't start out that way), and of course there are some cultures and social milieux in which love plays little or no part in the selection of a marriage partner (though I'm fairly sure marriage, in those cultures and those milieux, didn't start out that way.) I believe love is essential because of the culture I grew up in; it could be left out.

But a definition needs to define. It needs to say what marriage is and what it isn't. And unfortunately, we do now need a definition. We have allowed churches and governments to define marriage narrowly, according to what they want it to be, but it isn't theirs, it's ours. It belongs to humanity, not to its institutions, and not even to its gods. The problem is that while it's difficult replacing one definition with another, it's impossible to replace one definition with *no* definition. Saying "marriage is family" is not a definition. Saying "marriage is a commitment to a shared life, witnessed by an external authority" is, and it's a definition that does not exclude anyone on grounds of race, colour, creed, gender, orientation or number. (I do believe it excludes fertilised ova, Rafe, if you're interested, and also should exclude children under the age of consent, though what the age of consent should be is perhaps a topic for another time.) It doesn't turn marriage into "only" a legal contract or a business arrangement, but it doesn't leave out the commitment part, which I think is important. It doesn't insist that the external authority be divine, or exclude that possibility--

(And I do think, while we're on the subject, that if someone who sincerely believes in a deity wants that deity to witness their union, then what the religious authority involved needs to do is to damn well buckle down and do it. I would compel churches to recognise all forms of marriage among their members, and I'd do it by law and across the board, because a church is a thing, not a person, and the job of a church is to serve as a mediator between god and man. Serve. Not dictate. And if other members of that church don't like it, they can close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and hum real loud till it's over, because it's none of their damn business. And I can see that this would lead to arguments with the Pope and such, but maybe it's about time. Churches are not above the law.

Wow, that parenthesis got out of control. Where was I?) Oh yes. Or exclude that possibility. In short, despite the fact that I came up with it, I think it works as a definition, including everyone we want to include, without leaving out any of the people we don't want to leave out. But it doesn't have the "pling" effect of saying "marriage is family," so I don't suppose anyone will be metaquoting this post any time soon. Full many a pearl of purest ray serene, et cetera. It's all right. I can take it. My shoulders are broad, my head is unbowed, and my knees are held on with gaffa tape. Don't worry about me. *stares heroically into middle distance and catches custard pie full in face*

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

"Churches are not above the law."
But how they have wished they were... With my mediaevalist hat on, my mind is now full of megalomaniac popes (Gregory VII) and Henry II's problems with Beckett....

[the-changeling.livejournal.com]

Marriage is a legal contract.

It takes two people, and makes them legally reponsible for each other, and their fiscal and legal affairs.

Aanyone who isn't really and truly aware of that, shouldn't be getting married.

And anyone who wants to make that status declaration with another person, in order to protct their legal standing as a couple, should be allowed to do so.

My only caveat is that they need to be:

a) human

b) alive

c) consenting

call me old fasioned, I do object to people marrying animals...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything except your first sentence. That happens when people get married. It isn't what marriage is.

[the-changeling.livejournal.com]

No, I still stick by it. For when nothing else is left in a marriage, that is still true.

And that's the bit everyone tends to forget.

All the other things that happen, mutual support, love, companionship - that happens in a _relationship_. Marriage doesn't have to have a relationship.

And a marriage doesn't have to have a relationship.

When I got married the second time, I was _acutely_ aware, that first and foremost, I was making a legal and binding contract with my partner.

And that should be the primary consideration on whether or not you want to marry them. Otherwise, just have a relationship.

It's why Prop 8 is a real problem - for it's _denying_ the legal status of two people acting as one.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that, because I think California law (or anywhere else's law) could be revised to allow civil partners to have absolutely the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, right down to the last dotted I and crossed T, and some people would still want to be married.

I married my wife because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her, I wanted to commit myself to that, and I wanted to make a statement of that commitment witnessed by my friends, by her God (who was also, briefly, mine) and by the state. Not for any legal reason, not for any quid pro quo, not because I wanted half of her land, or so that when I murdered my brother she couldn't testify against me. Not even so that she would do the same for me. I loved her. I knew I was going to love her for as long as I had on this earth. I wanted to stand up and say so in front of everybody so that I could never take it back. And I've never wanted to.

The original post talked about what marriage is in the heart, and that's what I've been talking about, and that's what I think matters most about this right being extended to everyone. The legal stuff matters as well, of course, but I think this matters more...and the legal stuff has nothing at all to do with the heart.

Relationships are fine, and lots of people have them, and that should be an option as well, because some people aren't sure, or don't like commitment, or whatever. But the idea that all I did back then in 1985, all I did, was sign a legal and binding contract...sorry. I just cannot and will not accept that.

[the-changeling.livejournal.com]

But that's a personal statement of what marriage means to you. You may not have thought about your marriage as a welding of two to one legal status - but it is what you did! :-) The also ejoyed the 'add-on' cultural statemtn that you intended it to be for ever!

You could have stood up and had a relationship ceremony wihtout a marriage certificate.. what made it 'more real' was that you did the legal binding! That was proof of the committment! It was the legal binding that underpinned why this statement was so meaningful!

I have to stop now, I've used up my daily quota of exclamation marks. :-)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I didn't know there was any such thing as a "relationship ceremony." If I had, I wouldn't have cared about it, or any other lesser alternative. And I still don't agree with you that the legal part is the (only?) important or meaningful part. I suppose it depends on one's definition of "important" or "meaningful."

Yes, it is a personal statement. As I said, that was the language used by the original post: "what marriage is, in one's heart." That, to me, is what's "important"; that's the right that needs to be defended. Marriage isn't a product of our legal system. Marriage predates all our legal systems. Therefore, it is, it must logically be, more than simply part of our legal system, it must logically embody something older and greater. "With all my worldly goods I thee endow" is not a legal statement, it's an outpouring of passion. It doesn't come with conditions and codicils, or it never used to, and the correct response is not to ask for an itemised list.

I say again, I really think we need to agree to differ.

[jahura.livejournal.com]

I would add to that:

d) mature

I'm not big on children marrying, whatever age they are.

[the-changeling.livejournal.com]

Yup. I suppose I should add in that this is a caveat of 'consent'. You have to be of an age to give legal consent!

Which I think is actually 18 in the UK. Whilst you can get married at 16, you cannot give your own legal consent alone, you also require your legal guardian/parent's.

But otherwise, I can't see how you get round 'mature'!

I know 40 year olds not old enough to marry!

[ci5rod.livejournal.com]

How long before we start hearing about "traditional" families?

Minus a couple of decades, I think.

Your definition of marriage fits very well, though. I'm right with you on that one.

Traditional marriage is not so traditional after all...

[earth-wizard.livejournal.com]

I've been reading of late a couple books that are both incisive, interesting, and to the point about the institution of marriage.

I Don't: A Contrarian History of Marriage by Susan Squire
Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz

What's interesting in both these books and others like them is how late to the game the idea of the Christian conception of marriage came in the human scenario. In most societies it is neither the most common nor prevalent form of marriage. Both authors point out the fact that family came first, not marriage, and that marriage was seen within a communal bond not in an individual atomistic sense of a man and woman in love. In most ancient and modern non-western societies Love (in capitol) have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage was about property rights (and, neither author is Marxist per say, both are sociologists and anthropologists).

So the religious argument that the Right tries to weave into their arguments for a sacred institution of marrage as the inviolable contractual obligation between a man and woman is based on both ahistorical knowledge and legalistic nonsense that is neither supported by the facts of history nor true of its own religious ideology. A close reading even of the Catholic strictures and codes guiding the church before the reformation and Luther's proclamation show clearly that the Church used marriage as part of a social tool to control and manipulate its subjects through the use of taboo and sanctions.

Both authors show that the institution of marriage has evolved, changed as societies needs, laws, and mores required it. We are living in such a time, and it is up to the multitude, the organised citizenry of radical and liberal elements in our society to speak out, protest, and force this issue to the forefront where lawyers and politicians, not only in America, but across the world will be forced to change the current laws and truly practice an open society rather than pretending to its enactment.

What's interesting is that Gays around the globe are uniting and forming a spontaneous revolution against the bigotry of these so called "traditionalists" that, I believe, will ultimately awaken the silent liberal beast from its lethargic sleep. Let's hope with Obama in power that he will hear the voice of this minority and act in their benifit, and that State's will be shamed into complying with the voice and opinion of a true solidarity of human freedom.

Re: Traditional marriage is not so traditional after all...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Ah. I commented on this in yours before I saw this comment. Oops.