Marriage. It means different things to different people. And there are all types of marriages out there both within Western culture and in other cultures around the world.
There’s a big fuss right now about wanting to legally define marriage. I see two problems with that, because there are two parts to the marriage: the legal and the personal.
Marriage throughout history was first and foremost a contract, usually between two men, the bride’s father and either the groom or the groom’s father. The woman was considered property. Gifts, known as dowry or bride price, were exchanged for the woman. If love came after the wedding, that was a blessing, but immaterial to the transaction. There are still parts of the world that practice this tradition and the birth of a daughter was (and is) considered a great financial burden to the family if a dowry is to be paid. Bride price goes the other direction and is paid by the groom or his family.
Plural marriages were the rule throughout much of recorded history and are still the norm in some parts of the world. In Genesis 29, Laban makes use of the custom to take advantage of his nephew, Jacob, who wishes to wed Laban’s second daughter, Rachel. The deal was struck that Jacob would work 7 years for Laban in return for Rachel as his wife. On his wedding night, however, the woman that was brought to his bed was not Rachel, but her older sister, Leah. Personally, I was surprised there wasn’t some punishment against Laban for oathbreaking. Instead, he tossed it off as, “the older must be married first,” and made Jacob work another 7 years for Rachel. I wonder how Leah felt knowing her husband favored another, though he obviously did his duty by her, as she had 6 sons and a daughter. I wonder how she felt knowing he was willing to work 14 years for Rachel, but no time at all for her; that she was swapped for other, better, goods, as if ashamed she could get a husband no other way. But because plural marriages were the norm and allowed, the deception of Laban did not keep Jacob from marrying the woman he loved.
Many cultures had many different wedding traditions before the Christian church came into being. When the Romans carried their faith into Europe, these were generally viewed as “pagan” ceremonies and not allowed within the walls of the church. Closest they could get was to have the ceremony on the steps of the church, then come inside for a celebratory mass. Eventually, to get more control over the customs of the locals, the weddings were moved into the sanctuary and made a “sacrament.”
But this brings us back to the two parts of the wedding/marriage. I have one friend who is advocating that all marriages are just the happy couple and a pair of witnesses before a legal authority, like a judge or JP, in their chambers. After the legal paperwork is done, the couple is free to have whatever kind of wedding ceremony they desire. This separates the legal and personal/religious parts of the ceremony. I believe there are places in Europe that handle it this way, but will research that at a later time.
Now to the persons involved in the marriage.
While not legal, I have seen plural marriages and seen them work. They seem to be as stable as marriages between two people, with the same rate of success and failure. I’ve seen it as three-somes and as two male/female couples. In all cases there were significant financial advantages, more folks to help with the kids and housework. Just generally a larger support system in the home.
But in discussing a two-person relationship, separating the legal from the personal/religious part of the marriage does just that. The issue of whether two consenting adults can marry each other is a legal issue. Period. Race, gender, or any other separation you can put in there is a matter for the courts to decide. Not religion.
My personal belief is that two consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to wed. That’s it, no restrictions. About my only personal (not legal) restriction is in a May-December relationship. My preference is that if there is a significant age difference between the partners, the younger one should be at least 25 years old. In my mind, that makes them old enough to understand the consequences of the decision they are making.
After two people marry, it’s their own business and everyone else should butt out. How they choose to run their life is not going to corrupt your children, spread like a disease, or shatter society. They are just people. Try being a neighbor.
That’s it. Go love one another.
Well thought out and reasoned. My thought is that joinder has little to do with legalisms as it predates such things. It is about family formation, with or without children. If we are to inveigh legal recognition on such arrangements, then it should be accessible to any and all who would form families of any sort.
Works for me.
I heard a lovely bit from Wanda Sykes on the 24/7 Comedy Radio Station driving home from rehearsal tonight. She and her wife have two children and she was getting a lot of mileage out of the different temperaments that child each had and what it was like being a new parent. It was so much fun! There was nothing she said that a straight parent couldn’t relate to as easily as couples in the LGBT communities. It’s families. It’s people. It’s love. And dealing with a crying baby who won’t stop crying and you can’t figure out why will drive any parent to distraction. “We tried everything. We even tried rearranging the furniture in the living room. Will you be happy if we move the sofa over here? How about if I close the blinds?” Oh, I had the giggles. And Wanda’s mimic of the child’s cry, with pauses and hiccups, was so real it truly sounded like a baby crying.
About intervention… If I had to guess (though it isn’t relaly a guess) I would suggest that the problem IS government intervention. If the government wants to help it should extricate itself from the arena posthaste. Stripping tax laws, social work interventions, food stamps, and almost all other involvement between married men and women, and their children (and others as well). While it might get relaly ugly, relaly fast, and for a while, a balance would eventually take hold. A natural balance. Anything else, I am guessing (really guessing here, though based on reliable history) will only make matters worse.Actually, this will occur one way or another. Either society, and the government, will hit a tipping point and collapse (though in which order I can’t tell as they seem neck and neck in the race over the cliff). Or this society will become so weak it will simply not be able to tend laws on arcane books as foreign interlopers of one stripe or another will take over. Or the government will remove itself from family law and and the many interventions it is currently forcing. If it is failure or outside interference, neither will support the artifices of today’s, let alone yesterday’s, social norms.Then again, like with me, it might already be far too late. Perhaps there is no medicine to fix the problems and only lumps remain.
You’ve strayed a bit from my original premise, but you seem a legitimate commenter and I’ll allow it.
I don’t agree with all of your assertions, though. There are some areas where the government has more power to do good than a private citizen or a social organization. Just focussing on family law, child protective services tops that list in my mind. I might be misreading your statements, but it sounds as if you want a society of the fittest, culling the weak and poor and unlucky, whether it be free vaccinations for school children or a helping hand for those temporarily unemployed or under-employed due to the latest recession.
What you are calling “reliable history” sounds like someone making an argument for a master race. I’d appreciate citations when statements like this are made. I’m always willing to learn something new, but without primary sources it lacks credibility.