Marriage Compromise and a Counteroffer

May 22, 2012 By 42 Comments

Bob Hyatt has a suggestion that he hopes might calm the waters of the gay marriage debate. It’s a common enough suggestion that I hear from both Christians and Libertarians:

As long as we’re talking about “marriage” we’re going to continue to see a stalemate on this issue as those who believe in a traditional, biblical view of sexuality and those who want the basic rights afforded to others all around them each refuse to give an inch.

So what’s the solution?

The State needs to get out of the “marriage” business. It should recognize that as long as it uses that term, and continues to privilege certain types of relationships over others this issue is going to divide us as a nation, and is only going to become more and more contentious. We need to move towards the system used in many European countries where the State issues nothing but civil unions to anyone who wants them, and then those who desire it may seek a marriage from the Church.

Let me be clear that I don’t oppose this suggestion. There are problems, like the fact that “civil unions” are not treated as equal to marriage. We might be able to fix some of that with legislation, but I suspect the lingering taint of “not real marriage” will persist for generations.

But for other reasons as well I’m reluctant to accept such a compromise. Part of my response has to include a little history. Here’s a snippet from Gary Wills:

The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs. When the Empire became Christian under Constantine, Christian emperors continued the imperial control of marriage, as the Code of Justinian makes clear. When the Empire faltered in the West, church courts took up the role of legal adjudicator of valid marriages. But there was still no special religious meaning to the institution. As the best scholar of sacramental history, Joseph Martos, puts it: “Before the eleventh century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony in the Latin church, and throughout the Middle Ages there was no single church ritual for solemnizing marriage between Christians.”

Only in the twelfth century was a claim made for some supernatural favor (grace) bestowed on marriage as a sacrament. By the next century marriage had been added to the biblically sacred number of seven sacraments. Since Thomas Aquinas argued that the spouses’ consent is the efficient cause of marriage and the seal of intercourse was the final cause, it is hard to see what a priest’s blessing could add to the reality of the bond. And bad effects followed. This sacralizing of the natural reality led to a demoting of Yahwist marriage, the only kind Jesus recognized, as inferior to “true marriage” in a church.

The church fathers ranged from men who thought that marriage was a lesser good than celibacy (St. Augustine) and those who thought it a lesser evil than fornication (St. Jerome). Most seemed to agree with St. Paul that “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” (1.Cor 7:1)

The Church came to marriage late and grudgingly. Only in the twelfth century did Aquinas add an Aristotelian spin on marriage and make it a sacrament. Note that this is not a biblical argument but a natural law argument. Protestant founders like Luther and Calvin seemed to reject it when they left marriage as a civil institution.

Which raises the question: exactly what claim does Hyatt think Christianity has over a civil institution that predates the religion, and which the religion resisted for centuries?

So here’s a counteroffer for Hyatt: let’s leave “marriage” as a civil institution. It has an extremely long history of being a civil institution, and for most of its history the Christian church was happy to leave it as such. Perhaps the Church could use a more theologically loaded word like “covenant,” since that already has some legitimacy among conservatives.

This is a serious suggestion. Conservatives have claimed the word “covenant” as a way of reclaiming of the idea of marriage from the 15 min. in Las Vegas variety. Unlike civil unions, covenants will not be tainted as a kind of marriage lite. It stands a much better chance of working for everybody than the original compromise.

Filed Under: Christianity, History, Sexuality 42 Comments
  • http://taste-of-ipecac.blogspot.com/ Ipecac

    The tide of history seems to be firmly on the side of Marriage Equality. To make some compromise with the bigots at this point would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    If the church wants to redefine their own marriages into covenants, that’s fine with me. But marriage will be for all sooner rather than later.

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com Sabio Lantz

    Wow, great post. Up to now, I have also said, in the classic libertarian way, “just get government out of marriage”. Though I realized it would not work, I was still so frustrated with the apparently unnecessary conflict, I could only see that option as best. That is perhaps because being straight and married, I wasn’t invested enough in the issue to think deeply. But your post changed my mind. Thanx.

    But the issue is still a little complicated for me. Imagine that the church took the word “Covenant” — would people say, “We are covenanted”? The Church, according to Wills seems to have empowered the term “marriage” and so if we keep it, we keep all those nuances. Well, unless we destroy the nuances by overloading it with happy, successful “married” gay couples over time — which could happen. Then Christians who are married could brag and say, “My covenant partner”, or “I am planning our covenant marriage” to set themselves apart from us hell-bound nonbelievers. Yeah, I think you are right, that would probably be better.

    I’d still like government out of marriage even after it is secularized but I realize with problems of “power of attorney” and “inheritance” issues some contract term is needed, but I’d like those terms develop in the free marketplace of ideas — but that is unlikely to happen either, perhaps.

    So, you convinced me. I will stop offering a dead-end, idealistic solution of “I just think the government should get out of the marriage business. ” And instead, just fully embrace the notion of “marriage” for anyone who wants to marry — that is probably the best strategy to disempower the word, give gays the rights they absolutely deserve and also get people to realize that the deep aspect of relationships need to transcend both legal and religious labels.

    Thanx for the post

  • vasaroti

    The problem seems to lie with the huge number of benefits that married couples get. If civil unions received the same package deal, then we could stop fighting over words. The religious folk are not about to surrender their claim that marriage is a “sacred” word to them.
    When I lived in Germany, people had a courthouse ceremony with all the attendant paperwork, and then they could have a church ceremony if they desired. That’s the way we should do it here.

  • Sandra Parsons

    I simply love you suggestion! I come from Germany, and the first part of your vision has been true there forever: Because of the division of state and religion, people have to get married in a civil ceremony first before they can go on and get married in a church (if they are so inclined). Consequently, for some the civil ceremony is THE ceremony with all their relatives and friends and gowns and whatnot while for others it is simply a small signing-of-a-contract matter which preceeds their ‘real’ wedding in their church.

    Unfortunately, when gay unions were legalised about a decade ago, they didn’t get the full monty. They are not called marriage but legal partnership, and the rights coming with them are severely clipped (e.g. concerning tax breaks for married couples, inheritance or adoption) which is why it is overall a bad solution and needs fixing, soon!

  • BJ Kramer

    Prior to the advent of Christianity (about which I know little), the Jews had very detailed and involved regulations and requirements about marriage. It is odd that Christians abandoned it, but I guess they abandoned most of their Jewish teachings so it shouldn’t be that surprising. Of course it was likely *also* a social institution 2000+ years ago, but that’s neither here nor there.

    This does mean, however, that marriage was a religious institution long before the social sources you cite. The church has proven flexible enough to re-adopt the notion of religious marriage at some time in the past, and if government would get out of that particular business it would be neither impractical nor irreligious for churches to (continue to) pick up the slack.

    People have expressed concern that eliminating legal marriage would entail huge changes to law. This is true, if you eliminate the legal status altogether, rather than just change it’s name (to ‘civil union’ or something equally bland). Changing the name and leaving ‘marriage’ to religion would be easy and would mostly solve the problem.

    But I’m opposed to it for another reason: it’s embarrassing. If you don’t make fundamental changes to how the government views the rights of couples, it’s just capitulating to the bigots who feel the term ‘marriage’ shouldn’t be allowed to be used for those sinning gay people (formerly: interracial couples). It’s bending over backwards and compromising to hate, even if the end gives legal equality.

    The right answer is to do the hard work to go through all the many relevant laws, and remove all legal references to marriage, and structure things to work on an individual basis, or with any people who get into a contract with each other. The government shouldn’t be promoting coupling, or providing its imprimatur to your personal statement of love.

    • Yoav

      You ignore the fact that, unlike christianity, judaism doesn’t make a distinction between religious and civil issue but rather put all aspects of life under the jurisdiction of religious law. For a marriage to be considered valid in judaism there are very little requirements, some interpretations say that intercourse is sufficient although this interpretation fell out of favor these days since it will mean that any couple who are not virgins will have to get a divorce from any previous sexual partner they had in the past (things were so much simpler when you could just stone a woman if she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night). If a man say the magic words to a woman in the presence of 2 valid witnesses (jewish males over the age of 13) they are, according to halacha law married, having a rabbi officiating the ceremony is a matter of tradition and in modern time is also required for the marriage to be recognized by the secular authorities.

    • vorjack

      This does mean, however, that marriage was a religious institution long before the social sources you cite.

      … and it was a civil institution long before Judaism was a gleam in Moses’ eye. Most forms of polytheism had little to offer on the question of marriage, other than to allow the invoking of a God in order to ensure a vow. What exactly is the point of this?

      I still maintain it would be less onerous to keep the term “marriage” as a civil institution as is and let religious groups define their rites as they see fit.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    “those who believe in a traditional, biblical view of sexuality”
    - Not so, as discussed voluminously on this site and elsewhere.
    .
    If marriage is reserved to the churches, that would affect a lot more than gays. Think of all the secular couples and all the inter-faith couples who would be affected.
    .
    Another point about “covenant” marriages – they are a church thing, and they confer no status or benefits outside the church. Presumably this is the situation which Hyatt wishes for his concept of church-only marriage.

  • Revyloution

    Seems more like an argument over semantics. What ever you call it, it’s a legal joining of a couple. How ever we get there is fine by me. If my state (Oregon) gets a Civil Union bill passed, my wife and I plan on renewing our vows with a civil union.

  • Custador

    I think I go the other way on this issue: Religious marriage ceremonies should have no legal status or standing. In the US I think there’s a strong argument that the Constitution makes them illegal if they alter your legal status anyway. To me, that’s what marriage is: Primarily a legal status issue rather than a spiritual status issue. Stopping the state from using the word “marriage” seems too much like pandering to bigots at the expense pf people who should absolutely NOT have to lose any more rights, status or dignity because of said bigots.

  • Kodie

    I think I said this the last time, but Christians don’t have any problem with a secular marriage or a marriage between anyone else of other faiths or even inter-faith. They know they cannot oppose an inter-faith marriage legally, for example, but they may not promote or allow it or encourage it in their church. So far, this doesn’t affect them. I know certain churches have very strict rules about who can get married there and what kind of hoops they have to go through – up to requiring full conversion of the partner who is not of that religion. These marriages are considered perfectly legal and yet do not interfere with religious requirements. If anything, people who convert just to get married are essentially taking something very lightly and compromising just because they love someone enough to do it.

    I don’t know why Christians, who have to be tolerant of the legality of other 1-man-1-woman marriages that aren’t Christian (or “true Christian”), think they are relevant in respect to allowing gay people to marry or that any terms need to change. Religious officiants are granted the courtesy by the state of being able to sign the paperwork off on a state marriage, it’s not the other way around.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      Christians don’t have any problem with a secular marriage or a marriage between anyone else of other faiths or even inter-faith.

      It’s good to know that you are the official spokesperson for all Christians. So I’ll leave it up to you to contact Bob Hyatt and set him straight on that point.

      • Kodie

        They can’t legally obstruct it, and generally accept a Hindu couple as married. A Christian who works in a hospital would not deny a Jewish husband from visiting his Pagan wife (unless, which is beside the point, the wife said not to let him in). They don’t necessarily like people who aren’t “good Christian folk,” and maybe, if they can get away with it, don’t sell their home to a couple who isn’t. But they’re not making a major deal about it, politically, like, a Buddhist and a Buddhist! They shouldn’t get the same rights as us! Their marriage isn’t valid! They’re not going to marry these couples in their church or recognize them in the eyes of god, but they don’t dispute that the state recognizes and validates these marriages – as long as it’s heterosexual. I don’t know the guy you’re talking about, and he can complain all he wants, but I’ve never heard anyone say the millions of marriages already taken place or established in the US, the heterosexual ones, should not be valid or are threatening to Christian family values. The Catholics can pretend a remarried man is an adulterer, but so what? The law allows for divorce and people who live in the real world get them all the time.

        So, getting back to the point, the state grants their pastor an empowerment to officiate a state marriage, which they take full advantage of simultaneously, and all the chants and bible verses are for their own decorative issues of warped reality/tradition. Even secular married people have a reception; it’s not required and nobody considers that part of a “wedding” to be the part that grants them spousal rights, or even any of the lovely vows they’ve written, none of the candles they light together or who walks them down the aisle, or what they’re wearing. None of that makes it official – it’s the piece of paper that’s filed with the clerk. If religious people don’t want anyone but them to have access to that piece of paper, like gay people, that’s state-imposed religion. If they want to opt out of the state formalities and just have a wedding recognized by their god and other believers, well, they don’t get the spousal rights. Gay people for a long time have been throwing weddings for themselves and what’s missing is the piece of paper. Their families or friends recognizing their marriage means squat in legal terms. Religious people should try that and see what’s fun about not being considered a valid married couple. They don’t, and that’s that. And with that privilege, they grant that other religions have traditions and ceremonies and get just as valid a piece of paper as the Christians.

        • Ken

          Very valid point here: religious folk are more than happy to recognize the “marriage” of every other faith (including those that they will war against and kill as spawn of Satan), but not gays who share their own essential belief systems. Somehow, gays have become some alien species to the God followers, without simple human rights or dignity or even personhood, and that’s good? Somehow I don’t think you’ll see too many supporters for anyone that chucks a rock at Pat Robertson for wearing a wool suit with a silk tie, or throws a female preacher out the front door for trying to teach men. Hypocrisy is spelled R-E-L-I-G-I-O-U-S.

  • Sajanas

    I think there is literally no way the government can not be in the marriage business, because being married provides so many rights that (for the most part) are pretty logical. Why shouldn’t a spouse inherit everything their partner dies without leaving a will, or have decision making authority in medical situations, or the like? All that requires governmental control and authorization, and more importantly, it prevents people from getting a poor deal by marrying into a religion where the spouse will *not* a fair share. If anything, I think the government needs to be a little more proactive in making sure that everyone who gets married knows what their rights are, because I’m sure a lot of religious people would love for married couples to assume that their religious rights are the only ones they get.

  • Troutbane

    In my opinion, the only thing the government should recognize are households, with all adult members having equal rights to what we consider “spousal rights” (power of attorney in cases of health issues, inheritance and such) and all minors protected from abuse. If there are any laws that would favor marriages, rewrite them. Honestly, if someone wants additional contract rights, then make the contracts, separately. Then churches can go do whatever the heck they want.

    I have always been in favor of this idea, and anytime I bring up this argument, I always hear that such and such won’t work because then how would some standard assumed privilege between couples be resolved. Answer: they won’t, remove the special privileges. Honestly, married couples should not have any better or exclusive rights then non standard family units. I have no problems with polygamy, gay unions, non forking family trees, etc, as long as all parties involved are adults. If a group of 14 guys wants to shack up with a pair of hot twins and call themselves a household unit: more power to them.

    I have yet to hear specific cases were this would be a bad idea.

    • Kodie

      How do you establish yourself as a legal “household” as opposed to 6 housemates who met on craigslist.

      • UrsaMinor

        I assume that it would be a matter of formally registering as a legal household and establishing recognized legal kinship to each other. People who do not do so would remain unrelated to each other in the eyes of the law, just as unmarried people who live together now are legally unrelated to each other, regardless of whether they are just roommates sharing living space or a lifelong committed couple.

        • Troutbane

          Yep, one form filled out for each household, revised as needed or by default (turning adult, members passing or being born).
          The ONE snag I could see is there may be a limbo status for young adults: should they remain an adult member of their parents household (if they would let them) or should they join with their roomates or would there perhaps be an ability to claim seperate household status from your roomies.

          • UrsaMinor

            I don’t see that as a show-stopper. You retain legal kinship with your family by default- whatever that family is. Even today, just because you move out of the house and get married, that doesn’t abolish your kinship with your parents, siblings, cousins, etc., for legal purposes. You have to jump through all sorts of hoops if you want to sever those legal ties and disinherit people that the law defines by default as your kin.

            Since you can only have two biological parents, I expect that this relationship might be accorded greater weight and legal durability than your kinship to other adults in the household. But you could also arrange the laws so that all adults in the household have equal status regarding parentship of the minors. Any way you go, it will certainly require a lot of thought and discussion about what sort of strictures you want to build into the system, and why.

            I suppose if plural marriages were legal, it might create some complications in the case where one adult member of the household divorces it. You’d have to iron out the details, such as, if the divorcing adult is your biological parent, how is custody worked out? Certainly it’s an issue with your other biological parent (provided they are your legal parent as well- something that is not always true even today). But what about adults in the household who are not genetically related to you? Do they have parental rights? Should you build the system so that adults in the household can opt in or out of shared legal parenthood as they choose?

            It’s more complicated than the two-parent system, sure, but I don’t see the complexities as insurmountable.

            • Troutbane

              My general belief is that all adults in the household have an equal say, and majority rules in matters of contest, or arbitration/legal procedures would occur in cases of a tie. Parenting rights and responsibilities would be based predominantly off of genetics, so a genetic parent could not opt out (basically “your seed, your responsibility”).

  • Paul

    “Most seemed to agree with St. Paul that “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” (1.Cor 7:1)”
    Doesn’t this explain a lot of the problems the Catholic church has?

    Sorry, that was just a snide aside. I was a fan of Robert Rimmer’s books on relationships / marriages / sexuality, such as the Harrad Experiment. His major concept was that whatever form of relationship adults wish to form and each would form their own contract. Not just monogamy, but polygamy, polyandry and even multiple members of both sex forming one household.

    I think, or at least I hope, that the US will soon begin the turn toward becoming an “unchurched” nation where the extreme views of the religious right are ignored. One way to help this happen is to invade the two parties and make it clear that we vote and we won’t vote for candidates who violate the first amendment by injecting religion into law and pushing for those who will unwind the laws already on the books.

    The religious right used to take the view that mainstream religions had done for a long time, sitting out of politics. Reagan is the one who encouraged the religious right to get off the sidelines and become a strong force in republican politics. The zealots who vote their religion are a relatively small group but the ministers were able to push their flocks into the republican ranks and get them into the polling booths. The republicans needed a small group who would not only vote but would bring others with them who had been persuaded from the pulpit that voting democrat or not voting at all. Jerry Fallwell, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson et al were more than willing to step up and put their televangelism to work as a republican party sub group. They can be deposed if we nontheists, atheists, antitheists and agnostics as well as the more liberal religious groups who are uncomfortable with the moral majority agenda to step up and depose them. This needs to happen both at the primary level – pushing centrist and liberal candidates into the republican party and working to have the democratic party push as well for an unchurched government.

    Change away from the creeping theism of the republicans require working both inside and outside of that party. Only when this begins can we unwind things like the selectivity of marital laws. What label is used – marriage, civil union, covenant – is not as important as providing equal rights to all people.

  • Rich Wilson

    I also used to be in that “anyone can perform a marriage and it has no legal meaning, and governments to civil unions for everyone” camp. What changed my mind was the two lawyers fighting prop 8 http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2010/06/whats_next_in_the_marriage_war.html (the guys who were on the opposite sides of Bush v. Gore)

  • Sarah

    I am in a loving, civil union with the love of my life, my wife, and my partner in crime. Frankly I don’t care if they call it the celebration of the rainbow ponies, please, oh please oh please oh please, just extend to us the 1,138 civil rights you so generously and loosely bestow on the hetero couples. Thank you in advance :)

  • http://aussieseculardad.blogspot.com/ Aussie Secular Dad

    This is the first time I’ve ever heard the ‘government should get out the marriage business’ proposal offering to give the term ‘marriage’ to the churches. Up until now, I’ve always heard it proposed that the use of the term ‘marriage’ would be up to the individual. An atheist is just as entitled to use that term as anyone else. If a Christian felt that they had to get their church’s approval before using the word, that’s between them and their own conscious.

  • Michael

    I don’t understand why marriage needs to be a ritual of the church or the state. For centuries now it has been primarily about the family, and family business has been for the most part left alone by the government. Why can I cheat on my spouse with somebody but not marry them?

    This is also an issue of equality. How can the state hope to deal with polyamorous families and potentially complex marriages?

    If there were no notary witnessing your marriage, it would still probably mean as much to you. Legal issues could be based on cohabitation (which makes more sense anyway from a tax standpoint), and you would simply have to declare family members, but not specific relationships (other than codependency, etc.).

    And of course religious people will continue to have religious marriages, because there’s not a lot our democracy can do about that.

    • UrsaMinor

      State involvement is necessary if you subscribe to the idea that certain relationships are fundamental building blocks of society, and as such deserve/require special considerations and support. In the West, it’s the monogamous couple. Traditionally that means one man and one woman, with the usual result being a family raising children.

      Not all heterosexual couples raise children, of course, but they still reap the benefits of marital status. Tax breaks, inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, immunity from having to provide legal testimony against a spouse in a court of law, etc. Society recognizes the relationship as important, and accords married people many courtesies that couples who are just living together do not get, primarily because they have not publicly confirmed the importance of the relationship by committing to each other in a legal sense even though the option is available.

      Personally, I don’t have a problem with this dichotomy in the way we treat married and unmarried couples, but the current system is inconsistent because it denies the fact that same-sex couples can be just as committed as opposite-sex ones and that these relationships perform the same functions for the participants. They provide mutual support and companionship in life, the same as for heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples can raise children (and often do), and these families are not protected legally the same way that the children of heterosexual married couples are. It’s bad enough when you discriminate against adults, but it seems especially cruel and arbitrary to deny a child basic legal protections because of the gender of his/her parents. For example, a child may be denied access to critical medical treatment in an emergency situation, when the parent of legal record is not available to give consent and the legally unrecognized other parent is not empowered to do so. A child may be taken from the surviving parent if the parent of legal record dies. And so forth. It’s really quite horrible.

      If you don’t think that committed couples and their families deserve special legal status, then it’s not an issue. If you do, it is essential that the government be involved.

      • Michael

        This still excludes polyamorous families for no clear reason. What makes the monogamous couple the “building block” of society? If it really is . . . should it be? That sounds like the retreat of someone with a very limited view of society.

        Besides, the “special considerations” married couples receive are almost entirely financial. How can the government recognition be so important yet so banal? And the justifications for the tax breaks, for instance, seem weird and better suited to apply to cohabitation, unless you see them simply as an incentive to get married, with which I would have even more of a problem.

        • UrsaMinor

          Michael, I think you need to read what I wrote a little more closely. I said “If you subscribe to the idea that certain relationships are the fundamental building blocks of society”. I did not endorse the monogamous couple (or any other form of relationship) as the natural order of things. But they are the norm in Western culture, and have been for many centuries, and few Westerners would even think to question that this arrangement is anything other than the natural order of things. Any changes to marriage laws to accommodate same-sex relationships in Western countries in the foreseeable future are going to be designed to maintain and enforce that norm.

          Please don’t assume that because I used the monogamous Western couple as an example that I have a “limited view of society”. If you take the time to read the rest of my posts on this thread, you will find that I have discussed polyamorous relationships and how they might be accommodated in law.

  • http://fidesquaerens.livejournal.com Marta

    If the purpose of marriage historically really was to identify legitimate heirs, I’m not sure that helps the gay marriage cause. Homosexuals simply aren’t capable of the kind of intercourse that could produce an heir, legitimate or otherwise. It’s not discriminatory to recognize this is a relationship that BY ITS NATURE precludes anyone other than fertile heterosexuals. (Of course to be fair we would have to also not extend marriage rights to post-menopausal women or anyone else who couldn’t in theory produce children, especially people who knew they were infertile at the time of the relationship.)

    If the idea is that society has an interest in encouraging people to enter into lifelong relationships with the erotic element that sets marriage apart from friendship, then we need an institution for that. And based on your description, marriage ain’t it. We could perhaps say that it can be adapted for this purpose, but couldn’t the Christian say with equal validity that marriage could be adapted for a sacramental purpose?

    • UrsaMinor

      If the purpose of marriage historically really was to identify legitimate heirs

      But it wasn’t, and this is where your whole argument derails. Legitimizing heirs has been one function of marriage, but never, ever the sole one, and sometimes not a factor at all. Marriage has always been a complex institution that serves many purposes.

      Singling out one facet of marriage and saying that because this one facet doesn’t apply to gay people is nothing but a rationalization for prejudice.

    • Kodie

      Marriage doesn’t legitimize heirs anyway. It confers legal benefits to the married and children taken on in the marriage. Maybe that’s what you mean by legitimize? But getting married doesn’t automatically make someone’s children biologically theirs because people have affairs or adopt. The hold-up with gay marriage, I think, is that since two gay people cannot make their own biological children together, giving them the same terms as a heterosexual marriage means there is no reason they can’t adopt children. I even think sometimes even uptight bigoted Christians wouldn’t necessarily care what two grown people do privately, it’s just that calling it marriage, and not some specially worded exception leaves no barrier to adoption.

      And they own children, they want to stop all the abortions so those fetuses can be saved and live with good Christian heterosexual couples who fuck and fuck and fuck all day and ….. nothing. They want all the babies to be raised in wholesome Christian homes not with gay couples who will raise them to be gay (that’s how they think it works). They also seem to think heterosexual couples never do it on the kitchen table while they think the kids are at a friend’s house, but gay people do it on the couch while the kids watch Project Runway.

  • wineinthewater

    I think the quote about the history of Christian marriage must be getting taken out of context (Joseph Martos is a good authority and I can’t see him espousing the view he is credited with).
    The middle ages saw a development of the theology of marriage less because there was a development of marital theology and more because there was a development of *Sacramental* theology. The notion of formal Sacraments was being developed and part of this development included the question of whether marriage would be including among their number. As the Sacramental theology developed and the Sacraments became more formalized as THE Sacraments, the rites and ceremonies around them became more formalized as well.
    But there was a means of “solemnizing” Christian marriages long before the era of Church marriage adjudication and Sacramental formalization, most notably the Nuptial Mass. The nuptial mass was developed enough to have a formal place in what we would now call the Roman Missal by the 5th c., but even before that we see blessings of betrothals and other indications of the need for Church “blessing” back to the 2nd c. Just because what we have now in terms of rites and ceremonies does not go back to the beginning of Christianity does not mean that there was not anything.
    But that little bit of history on affects the fundamental question somewhat. The question really does come down to (as many of your commentors have really zeroed in on) is, “What is marriage and what just purpose does the state have for being involved. Throughout history, the state’s purpose for being involved in marriage was self-interest, things like promoting legitimacy in children, ensuring the stability of households to better produce (both biologically and through rearing) more and better citizens for the state. In modern times,the state’s involvement has become less about promoting the state’s self interest of things like producing more and better citizens and more about the state recognizing the seriousness and “legitimacy” of a relationship. And honestly, when we talk about gay marriage in terms of equal rights, it is the latter that we are talking about. All of the legal and financial benefits of marriage can be granted through civil unions (they aren’t always, but they can be), except for someone saying that the two people (or how many you might espouse in your view) are married, except for the state giving the “highest” stamp of legitimacy. I don’t think that is the role of the state in marriage, I don’t think the state has a legitimate role in legitimizing romantic relationships, and that’s why I personally think that the state should get out of the marriage business. What the state offers and has offered never was marriage, and the legitimacy of a state marriage was never a true legitimacy. The legitimacy of a relationship comes from the relationship itself.
    So, I think the question needs to be: What is the state’s current self interest in being involved in romantic relationships. The creation of citizens seems to be less of a priority of the state these days (especially considering how much effort most states are putting into reducing the creation of new citizens), so I think we need to evaluate what the current role for the state is and create policy that way. But using the state’s recognition to legitimize or de-legitimize a relationship is just a misuse of governance.

    • Kodie

      (especially considering how much effort most states are putting into reducing the creation of new citizens)

      What?

      • wineinthewater

        By states, I mean nation-states. So, look at Title X and the contraception mandate for insurance programs here in the US, look at the United Nations Population Fund, look at the prominent role that contraception plays in many anti-poverty programs, and of course China’s one-child policy. There are a few countries whose birth rates have dropped to critical enough levels that they are promoting the creation of citizens, but most countries in the world take far more steps to reduce procreation than to promote it.
        That really changes the state’s interest in marriage. It may still be concerned with ensuring that children are raised well, but it doesn’t seem to be in the state’s interest to promote the actual creation of more children in modern times. That has a profound impact on what privileges the state confers on marriage, and what restrictions it imposes on what relationships will get those privileges.

        • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

          There’s a reason that many states and the UN are trying to gently discourage (or not so gently in China’s case) having lots of children: we’re freaking overcrowded already and the world’s resources can only go so far. That’s simply practical. Having children isn’t the most important thing in the world, nor is it the real purpose of marriage as most states see it today. The state doesn’t have an interest in creating more children right now because that would screw things up for the state and other states. That does not mean all of a sudden the state isn’t allowed to offer marriage to people who love each other and want to get married.

          • wineinthewater

            Read what I wrote again. I took the state’s disinterest in promoting more procreation as a given. My point is that the state’s disinterest in promoting more procreation affects the state’s interest in marriage, and by extension should affect the state’s involvement in marriage (since promoting procreation was one of the motivating reasons for state interest in marriage in the past).

            That being said, the problem we are facing in the world today is much less “too many people” and much more “too much consumption.” If you view people as a good, then the better response is “less gluttonous consumption” not “less people” .. especially when the people targeted with the “less people” programs are almost always those with far lower consumptions rates per capita. Right now, most first world population policies look more like limiting competition for their consumption.

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              You’re making that up, though. Procreation was not a primary motivation for the state’s involvement in marriage in the past, and even if it were, that doesn’t delegitimise their changing perspective on it. You’re simply asserting that it should. Marriage is how society grants status and rights to couples in love, and it doesn’t matter if they can procreate or not. It never has, otherwise the elderly would have been fighting for marriage equality long ago. And yes, consumption is a problem, but that’s going to change a heck of a lot more slowly than the birth rate.

              And honestly, when so many of them wrestle so hard with logic to justify their hatred of other people because they’re gay or a woman or whatever else, I’m not so sure I do view people as good.

            • Kodie

              What’s so special about being in love? It’s as far as I know an incentive to commit to raise children, mostly ones you make yourself, or simulated and/or volunteered by adoption. Not very long ago, a single person could not adopt and it’s still more difficult than if the person was married – the resources and time of 2 people is better, though if one can afford to hire help, I don’t think it should be a barrier. Love is not a reason, it’s an economic bargain and it mostly always was. Love is just the reason you pick one particular person, and money is still a valid reason, and of course the sex, but I don’t think the state is saying, hey you two congratulations on loving each other forever, have some really great benefits! The state expects two married people to feed and shelter children and that’s how they pay them for bringing up citizens and incentivize staying together with that prospect in mind.

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              Since when did the state expect two married people to raise and shelter children, specifically, and since when was marriage a pledge to raise children? Again, if that were the prime reason for the state to dole out marriage licenses, couples who couldn’t conceive would wonder where their marriage rights are. But they already have them, because marriage doesn’t come with the sole purpose of creating new citizens – it also is expected to make things easier or better for current citizens.

              And I didn’t mean that the state goes “aw, you’re in love, here are some rights” with marriage, but that they accept that loving commitment between two people fosters stability in society, whether those people have children or not, and that stability is better served by providing certain rights and protections, like tax breaks and rights to make decisions for an incapacitated partner.

            • Kodie

              In its essential privilege, the state probably didn’t think they had to specify, nor do I think they should, whether a married couple has children. It wasn’t that long ago that it was inevitable. Traditionally, the marriage ceremony consists of elements symbolizing fertility and property exchange. I guess it’s about love now, maybe in most cases, kinda sorta. Promises. Cooperation. The same things that seem to signify love are also about keeping a home together and have all the sex as animals like to have without fear of abandonment of responsibility. I mean, it doesn’t need to be written down as “expected” because basically that’s what happens when a man and a woman have sex in olden times.

              And then what happens? Well, divorce. People don’t wait to have sex until they’re married because we’re animals, but we didn’t used to have to wait so long. And who loves each other for a long time anyway? I guess a lot of people do, but all the ones that fall apart seems to be based on unfulfilled expectations and staleness because being married is about the chores. Being a stabilizing pair-bond with or without children is about a lot of chores. And it used to be you promised to do your half even if it was the thankless half and you couldn’t get out of it. If you’re going to commit for the rest of your life to be full of chores, try to find someone you don’t hate. I do think gay couples obviously count as a pair-bond, if they are inclined to stay together and marry (where so far possible) and raise children. I guess it used to also be, gay people didn’t have any way to arrange that and was another social and civic .. uh, thing? afforded heterosexuals who usually just made their own that is not mutually exclusive to wanting a family. Obviously infertile and/or voluntarily generous couples adopt children all the time – if they’re straight. Laws on the books did not specify a married couple was a man and a woman, that’s why they’re writing them specifically in now. Going back to the first part of my post, things were assumed and not specified, like having children after you got married. Married couples are seen and recorded in the books as being more committed than cohabiting couples, yes? Two people can have a child and not even like each other, much less be married or intend to marry. I mean, I’m not sure the state knows what it’s doing by starting with so many cultural assumptions. I don’t think the state has any particular business requiring natural procreation between a married couple, obviously. They are just late catching up to the idea that if you really, really can’t, it might be because you’re the same sex. And so what? Being that there are children in this country who don’t have parents, it also counts if they match those up with adults.

              And why does it matter that some pair-bonds are the same sex? Because the old way always provided everyone with the illusion that the kids were home-made. And why should that matter? I have no fucking idea. People are concerned about appearances they never have to explain to anyone, and why do people ask when they don’t like you because of the answer? Mostly because everyone has this fear that children will be harmed by confusing circumstances, and children are all there really is. I don’t have any and I’m probably not going to ever. When you hear religious people say stupid things like gay marriage would lead to human extinction, as if gay is an infection that keeps people from procreating, but all of this is for us now but for future generations. Ok, a stabilized society now continues toward future stabilized society – for whom? New people. So they won’t be disoriented or without a home, a root, a place to be from and from which to grow into society as a responsible adult.