There is a creature in the world known as an aardvark. I think most of us who are aware of this creature believe, or at least work on the assumption that it exists apart from our understanding of it. Whatever we say or think of an aardvark, an aardvark is what it is. In this way an aardvark is not like marriage. Marriage does not exist apart from our understanding of it. Marriage is a hypothetical construct. It does not exist outside of our minds. And we have power over how we view it and the definitions and parameters we place upon it.
Some claim that marriage predates legal definitions and human understanding because their god created it. That is, of course, questionable. But nevertheless those who are fighting for marriage equality are not trying to take anyone’s religious beliefs away from them. The debate about marriage equality is centered on civil marriage, marriage as it is defined and restricted by our government, not our various religious institutions.
I’ve noticed that many talk about the story of Adam and Eve in relation to the topic of marriage equality. Well, just like the idea that someone’s god created the institution of marriage is questionable, so to is the idea that Adam and Eve were real, historical people, much less the ideal married couple. Does their story even present them as a married couple? Was there some kind of religious ceremony where they pledged they would stick together through thick and thin? Did they ask a government to recognize their union? I always thought that Adam and Eve were shacked up, not married in our modern sense of the term.
I suspect that throughout human history, many if not most couples shacked up without the benefit of a government issued marriage license or an official blessing by a religious authority. If we’re going to include these couples as being part of the heritage of the institution of marriage, then I think we shouldn’t forget that in all likelihood there are countless numbers of same-sex couples who shacked up in the past. Maybe they told people they were “married”, or maybe they didn’t. Maybe some were “married” to opposite sex partners, too. Who knows. But I think it’s a safe bet that same-sex couples have been forming lasting bonds since the beginning.
I’m not all that familiar with marriage history, so I don’t know how often same-sex couples of the past were officially recognized by government or religion. But I don’t think it’s of any consequence in regard to the debate about marriage equality today. There’s nothing wrong with trying something new if it makes sense. And allowing same-sex couples to marry in our society in this day and age makes sense in my opinion.
Some talk about how marriage is meant to bring male and female together. I realize that for many this is what marriage does in general and for them in particular. But our understanding of sex, gender, and sexual orientation have evolved a great deal in the last 150 years. We now know that for many people this simple binary code of male and female just doesn’t work. And I don’t think that recognizing this and accommodating it jeopardizes heterosexual relationships. No matter what, most men will still be strongly attracted to women, and most women will be strongly attracted to men, and most men and women will want to bond with someone of the opposite sex. Being gay, or bi, or trans, or intersex are not acquired tastes. People are these things no matter if they like it or not. If we refuse to make room in our society and our society’s institutions for those who fall in the middle of the male-female divide, it’s not like they’re going to go away. We’ll just make life more difficult for them. And what purpose will that serve?
As for the idea that we can’t allow same-sex couples to get married because that will mean the institution will come to be regarded as something that primarily serves adults rather than children. Well, it’s already come to be regarded in that light, and marriage equality had nothing to do with it. In the past marriages were often arranged and romantic love or personal fulfillment had little to do with it, but that has all changed now. When people get married today, they generally don’t do it out of a sense of obligation, not even to their own children. Pregnancy, either planned or accidental, may be the impetus for some marriages, but, by and large, if the individuals involved aren't interested in getting married they don’t. I can’t see how marriage equality will change that one way or the other.
There are people in our society who are attracted to members of their own sex. If they get married many of them will want a partner of the same sex. Allowing them to do so will not prevent straight people from getting married. I seriously doubt allowing them to do so will cause straight people to view their relationships or their marriages or the institution of marriage differently. I don’t see how allowing same-sex couples to marry makes polygamy or bestiality any more likely or legitimate. And I’m pretty sure that most of those who still oppose marriage equality do so because on some level they just don’t like the idea of same-sex couples falling in love, having sex, living together, making a life together, and raising families. I suspect that all of this talk about protecting the institution of marriage is nothing more than a smoke screen for those who want to discriminate against same-sex couples while refusing to own their fears, discomfort and bigotry.
Like!
ReplyDelete