Today I became distracted by a lengthy essay by science-fiction author and devout Mormon Orson Scott Card. Today Mr. Card is writing about marriage. I am sometimes amused by the sanctity of marriage crowd, people who get downright vehement about marriage being “between one man and one woman”. The basic arguments for this boil down to this:
- It’s always been that way.
- It’s that way for biological reasons, because only one man and one woman can make kids together, and the kids deserve the protections of a stable family unit.
It is worth noting that Mr. Card begins not from this point, but by blasting the courts for what he considers to be overriding the voter consensus. It has apparently never occurred to him that voters can be wrong. Voters once thought keeping slaves was a perfectly good thing. What if there were a referendum to execute any American Idol contestant who performed inadequately; Would the courts be wrong to override that?
But back to the issues and the arguments. The “it’s for the kids” argument appears sound on its face, but we all know that just because it takes a man and a woman to make a baby doesn’t mean that the man is actually required beyond the first day. Don’t get me wrong, I have no envy of single parents, but the “stable family unit” that could be had with a loving partner could also be had with extended family or even a community of like-minded friends.
The argument I truly take issue with is the “it’s always been that way.” I have never liked these self-referential logic deals: we do it that way because that’s the way we do it. And why exactly is that? And this particular one — “marriage is a man and a woman because it’s been that way for thousands of years” — doesn’t even hold up to scrutiny.
How quickly we forget all the cultures mentioned in the Wikipedia article on polygamy.
How quickly we forget that even modern Islam allows multiple wives, a provision that allowed for young widows to be taken into another man’s home in an environment where women were prohibited from work outside the home. Interesting side note, Islam doesn’t allow for adoption either; so much for the “it’s for the kids” argument too.
How quickly we forget that multiple wives and concubines were common among wealthy Japanese and Chinese until as late as the 19th century — within the living memory of some.
Some may criticize and say that it’s always been that way in the Bible. I suggest reading the Bible before saying that.
How quickly we forget Abraham, Father of Many Nations, who had children both with his wife and his servant-woman.
How quickly we forget Jacob, Father of the 12 Tribes of Israel, who was married to a pair of sisters.
How quickly we forget the harems of King David and King Solomon.
Sure. We’ve always done it this way; marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Sure, none of these situations is gay marriage; I am only taking out the old logic, not bringing in the new logic.
In spite of all this I am willing to make a deal with the people who think marriage is a religious institution and the government has no business being involved, because there actually is something to that. The problem is that modern marriage is a synthesis of a relationship and a business contract, with common law and statutory law baggage going back thousands of years. Let’s start calling the religious institution “marriage”, and the government can issue licenses for “civil union.” The various churches can define marriage however they like, but the civil union will have what is now the government definition and protections of marriage. Everyone will be free to choose whether they want one, both, or none of the above. However, not only will the government not be able to say who can and can’t be married, the church will not have any authority whatsoever to say who can and can’t have a civil union.
How does that sound?
It’s almost the end of the month, so I thought I would go ahead and quickly bring you a July Retrospective: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.
In closing: how convenient that we can blame another country for our salmonella problem; new moderation policy looks much like the old moderation policy; Julie is right about illegal immigration; how ironic that gas prices are making communities force developers to observe common sense; an interesting view on education; Shark-fu writes about the federal budget so I don’t have to; some new daily reading, Kill This Character, Please; the campaign commercial that backfired due to lousy research; Federal Employees Work for Us; granted ADP job numbers tend to be pessimistic compared to the Department of Labor, but they say we only gained 9,000 jobs in July (and the scary part is that Vegas alone may account for that — I kid, those jobs start in spring); and finally, talk to your kids about Linux, before somebody else does.
You are SO right about marriage relationships. There are a lot of people who would love to marry, but for many reasons do not ‘tie the knot’, but instead opt to live together. One reason prevalent in relationships between senior adults is that one partner, or sometimes both, would stand to actually LOSE government benefits if they married. This is not uncommon, and is a pretty sorry commentary that ties right in to ‘that’s how we’ve always done it’. Bravo for you!