Same Sex Marriage, Yes or No?
Voters in eleven states will try to answer that question this week, and it has been one of many “side issues” in the presidential campaign. If you add up all the tv and radio hours, the printed column inches and the internet gigabytes, it’s one of the most widely discussed questions in history… and it has a simple, one word answer: No! But not for the reasons you might think. The answer is no because this is the wrong question!
The real question is: Marriage, Yes or No? Seriously, should the State be involved in what is essentially an arrangement between two people? Most people take that as a given, because the traditional nuclear family structure has been at the core of our society for so long. Current marriage law dates to Medieval Europe, where it was dictated by churches, and it rests on two fundamental requirements of the State (which was also the Church): control of breeding, and enforcement of morality. Thus the traditional family is the core structure in our society. The Church, in partnership with the State, had complete control over breeding and morality. The traditions persevere, but the core structure is crumbling around the edges and it is time to consider whether the traditional institutions of Marriage and Family are an adequate model for life in the 21st Century.
Most people think that getting married is a RIGHT, but it is not. It can’t be regarded as a right if you have to get a license from the government in order to do it!
If you look at the marriage laws in the 50 states you will see an incredible amount of variety in the details, but it is easy to see that they all have something in common: they are a means for the state to control breeding and enforce morality. Not so long ago the wife literally became the property of her husband, along with everything she owned on her wedding day. She vowed to obey her husband, and she gave up her family name Not so long ago women couldn’t vote, they couldn’t work except in a few “suitable” occupations, and single adult women were regarded as “spinsters.” We are quick to mock societies or religions which are carrying on those “traditions” today, but in fact the concepts of “equal rights,” “community property”and preservation of a married woman’s “individuality” are very recent phenomena and pretty much restricted to the western industrialized world.
Religious beliefs and traditions still permeate the marriage laws that are on the books in every state. Many of the laws have been modernized in recent years, but not all of them. You still have to get a marriage license, and you still have to meet the eligibility requirements. In some states you can marry a cousin, but in some states you can’t. In some states you must get a blood test and prove that you don’t have syphilis, in others you don’t. In at least one state you need your parents’ permission if you are under twenty-one, in others you’re all grown up at 18. Until the 1960’s, you could not marry a person of another race in some states, but in others you could. In most states, until late in the 20th Century it was illegal to “cohabit” or live with a person of the opposite sex unless you were married.
The cousin thing is particularly interesting because it is the most blatant attempt to control breeding. We found a map showing “cousin laws” in the United States, with all 50 states color-coded as follows:
Purple= first cousins once removed may not marry
Blue = only double first cousins prohibited
Green = all cousin marriages legal
Pink = first cousin marriage prohibited
Yellow =cousin marriage allowed if couple is unable to bear children.
It’s the Greens and the Yellows that are most interesting. In nineteen green states, all cousin marriages are legal. In six yellow states cousins can marry only if they are sterile.
In Utah, cousins can marry IF they are 65 years of age or older, or if they are 55 and can prove they are sterile.
There’s an interesting amount of variety in pre-marital blood tests, too. Historically most of the blood tests have been to prove that the potential breeders do not have syphilis. In the few states that continue to require blood testing, syphilis is still mentioned, but at least one state requires an AIDS test. Montana requires a blood test for the bride only– to certify that she does not have Rubella (German measles). In Massachusetts both bride and groom must get a medical certificate from a doctor who has examined them.
These “breeding laws” made a little more sense when the vast majority of children were conceived within the context of a marriage, even if the conception preceded the nuptials. Think about the weight that the word “bastard” and it’s slightly more polite cousin “illegitimate” used to carry.
Today it is almost certain that a majority of sexual activity, and consequently a significant amount of breeding, takes place outside the constraints of marriage and government control. In fact, in many states the more obscure or technical laws are not enforced and getting a marriage license is simply a matter of signing a form and paying a fee. The state may not be enforcing the breeding laws this year, but the laws are still on the books.
Generally speaking, getting married is a two-phase operation.
In phase one, the prospective couple proves to the State that they are suitable breeders, and obtains a license.
In phase two, the marriage has to be “solemnized.” A third party, traditionally a clergyman, has to certify to the State that he or she has performed a ceremony or “wedding.” Again, the rules vary widely from state to state, but the closeness of the Church and some States can be seen in the rule for Arkansas, where “Any licensed minister of the gospel in regular communion with the Christian church or society of which he is a member may perform marriages. Also, marriages may be performed by the pastor of any religious society according to the rules of the religious society.” Presumably Rabbis, Mullahs, and Shinto Priests can be counted as “pastors” but atheists cannot legally conduct weddings Arkansas.
What about the importance of the traditional family in the raising of children? Thirty percent of all children under 18 in the US live with a single parent. Thirty-two percent of all births in 1997 were to single mothers. The percentage of children who live with both parents has been declining steadily in all ethnic and racial groups. And a majority of children live in a family with at least one step-parent or step-sibling. There are about 2.5 million divorces each year, and first marriages that end in divorce last all of 11 years on average.
There’s a lot more to parenting than conceiving or giving birth to a child, and we are approaching a point where (statistically) most parenting will not be done by a pair of biological parents. It’s important to stress the word “statistically,” because we all know of cases where a step-parent is a better parent than the biological parent he or she replaced, or where a single mother is doing a better job of raising her children than the alcoholic couple next door. The old “nuclear family” just ain’t what it used to be.
That’s despite the fact that it’s an order of magnitude harder to get divorced than it is to get married. There must be something about marriage that, for some, makes it worth any price to get out of it.
Gays and lesbians have suggested lots of reasons for wanting to marry, but the main reason is that while they regard themselves as couples, they are not treated as couples in the eyes of the law. There are indeed all sorts of special privileges and rights that are accorded to a spouse and to no other– insurance benefit rights, health care proxy rights, surviving spouse rights, the list goes on.
The suggestion that the State should allow for some sort of “civil union” is pretty much on the mark, if ill-intentioned. Those that are promoting the concept are doing so because it addresses the issue of rights for same-sex couples, while it “preserves” traditional marriage. It’s like they are saying “you can’t get married, but here’s this partnership agreement that means you’ll be treated exactly the same as a married couple.”
Marriage is often described as a “partnership.” In the business world, the “partnership agreement” creates a “new entity” out of two or more individuals, each of whom has equal proprietorship and rights. Partnership law is much less complicated than matrimonial law, even though the principles are almost identical. A partnership does not have to be solemnized, the partners do not need a license from the State, and if at some point the partnership needs to be dissolved, it can usually be done without going to court. So a business partnership is a good model for a “civil union.”
Same-sex couples should not be told they can’t have a license to breed, if only because they can’t breed by definition. They should not be told they can’t have a license on moral grounds, because the State has no business enforcing morality. Besides, if they do manage to get a license from the State, they might still have some trouble finding a “licensed minister of the gospel” to say the magic words.
We do indeed support the development of a “civil union” contract for same-sex couples– because there’s no way it could be denied to heterosexual couples who will immediately see that it is a better bet than the traditional marriage they have been trying to “protect.” And for those couples, heterosexual or otherwise, who want to make a solemn commitment to each other (forsaking all others, until death do them part)– that very commitment is what is important, not a license from City Hall. Or, in the ironic words of William Shakespeare (Sonnet 116 to be precise)– “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments.”
–SG
What do you think? Please enter a comment below.
November 2nd, 2004 at 8:26 am
Dear Sir or Madam,
You concluded your article with “in the ironic words of William Shaespeare.” Did you mean “iconic?” I’m not seeing any irony there. It is a very good summary of your very pesuasive article. Well said, both of you.
November 2nd, 2004 at 2:27 pm
I don’t know if you are gay or not, but you sure hit the nail on the head! It sure is refreshing to see somebody cut through all the BS. THANK YOU!!!
November 3rd, 2004 at 11:36 am
Thanks for the feedback, Hal, and we’re glad you enjoyed the piece. But to answer your question, we did indeed mean ironic. But is the irony in Shakespeare’s words? Or is it in our choice of that particular sonnet? Or both? We’ll give extra credit for a correct answer. But on reflection, “iconic” almost fits, doesn’t it? Good call!
November 4th, 2004 at 12:28 pm
Even though I’m brand, spanking new here, I think I’m gonna like it…and I’ll even take a stab at the extra credit: Irony, in the sense of “The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning,” comes from the use of “marriage,” here, in the NON-legal, or religious sense, but in the true sense of cleaving, blending, melding, in a personal, unique way, without need of any official sanctions…not, unfortunately, a sense in which it is typically seen.
November 4th, 2004 at 11:37 pm
Close. SO close! But no cigar. Hint: it’s a matter of context. It has long been thought that the earlier sonnets are addressed to a young man. Although 116 is regarded as one of the greatest love poems of all time, it is essentially a justification for a relationship that is illegal and immoral. Some apologists have argued that Shakespeare is talking about “Platonic love” which would remove the sonnet from any sexual context; others have said it is a premature or misclassified Dark Lady Sonnet. But if 116 was addressed to his Dark Lady he was still justifying a relationship that was illegal and immoral: Shakespeare was unfaithful to his wife, and his dark mistress was unfaithful her husband. Towards the end of the series, she dumps him, and Shakespeare admits that he has been unfaithful (to his wife) but accuses the Dark Lady of being doubly unfaithful– cheating on her husband and cheating on her cheating boyfriend!