“The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Going back in history, marriage has never been solely about procreation, with issues like property management taking center stage, marriage has almost never been about joining one man and one woman, but instead about “two families.” In that sense, same-sex couples looking for equal protection under the law with respect to healthcare and property rights are pretty consistent with “traditional marriage.”
Since the announcement of the historical ruling of the US Supreme Court on same-sex marriage last Friday, June 26th, I pondered on wether I should change my personal Facebook avatar to the famous rainbow colored filter, so I decided it was time to pen a few thoughts down.
As I stated in my previous and first post, I intend not only to write as a means of conveying my opinions and perspective, but also as a means of learning a thing or two along the way.
Here’s a merely objective opinion based on one part research and one part logic.
Going back in the timeline of history, during the Stone Age, the bonding of two people was about organization, child bearing and daily life. In other words, the protection of procreation. The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts date back a few thousand years ago in Mesopotamia. Marriage in ancient times primarily served as a way of power preservation, kingdom alliances and the production of heirs, with women having no say whatsoever in the matter. After all, the latin word matrimonium derives from the word mater, meaning mother.
For example, the Greek’s views on marriage favored interfamilial marriages for the sake of property security and the ensuring of male heirs, whilst, once again, women had no say on the subject and were abused and violently segregated. All this while polygyny being very common.
It was not until its collapse that in Ancient Rome, marriage was governed by imperial law, and with church courts taking over and with the power of the catholic church evolving throughout the Middle Ages, it was stated as one of its main sacraments along with baptism and penance.
Up until the 17th century, with the age of enlightenment and the concept of love and happiness, the institution of marriage had been throughout history merely a form of convenience.
With women rights movement evolving and gaining strength later on in the past centuries, gender neutrality began to transform marriage into a decision between a man and a woman, based on the concept of love, for the sake of stability, happiness, protection of the law and now with the ability to choose how many children, if any, to have.
The recent ruling of the US Supreme Court marks yet again another shift in the history of marriage. The fact is that nowadays, the concept of love is what conquered marriage.
Same-sex unions are not a new idea or a trend per se. I’ve seen several comments on social media mocking the LGBT community, or implying that this is just merely a trend now that it has been ruled legal in all 50 states. Not to forget that many of the poems of Sappho, born in the island of Lesbos, from which the word lesbian derives from, content many emotional writings towards other women.
Medieval records of liturgies for same-sex unions between men included the marriage rite, though some historians believe these unions were a way of sealing alliances and business deals.
Quoting Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment: “it is difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned. That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.”
Now, objectively speaking, the ruling of the US Supreme Court is one of the greatest forms of modern state and church separation. The state by no means should oppose the union of same-sex marriage. It interferes with the American Declaration of Rights and Duties.
“…the protection of the essential rights of man and the creation of circumstances that allow them spiritual and material progress and attain happiness; men are born free and equal in dignity and endowed with reason and conscience; rights and duties are in the social and political activity of man.”
If modern marriage is a contract based on gender neutrality of men and women with the freedom to choose, then by all means same-sex marriage is objectively fair. On the other hand, and always based on the freedom of religion, religious ceremonies for marriages still have the freedom to decline performing same-sex weddings. The church for example, has stated that it will not change its doctrine of the Divine Institution of Marriage and that is perfectly fine.
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court’s decision does not alter the Lord’s doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice.”
Change is inevitable in everything. Nothing is ever perpetual, and as we see, marriage is not excluded from it. Marriage has evolved in the 21st century and most likely, will continue to evolve.
Love conquered marriage.
Till next time,
MM
It’s Friday night and I’m at “the home”. We’ll call it “the home” for now because it’s where I spend most of my week nights and weekends. No, it’s not my boyfriend’s pad. It’s a secluded place. A home away from home where chaos and peace come together all at once. A place to escape reality and also face it all at once. And I’ve always been a fan of all things paradox. And it’s where I do most of my writing. Where I get all my mojo back after a long day at work.
Marie Momentum 