avevale_intelligencer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2008-11-15 08:10 am
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2008-11-15 08:10 am
From ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
metaquotes and my reaction
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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*
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*
Traditional marriage is not so traditional after all...
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...