Stephanie Coontz, the Director of Research and Public Education for the Council of Contemporary Families, has a fascinating article up on the organization's website. She asks the question "Which Traditional Marriage?"
It is an intriguing question. One of the main arguements in favor of banning same-sex marriage is to "protect traditional marriage."
The Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the year 1215, and their were no official wedding ceremonies until 1563. There was not even a marriage license in England until 1754. It was only 130 years ago that husbands still had the legal right to physically beat or iimprison their wives. Would our society really be better off if it had protected THAT traditional marriage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
YES! I have often used the same argument to question people on the concept of "marriage" and why such an institution is being co-opted by religious intolerants as the end-all, be-all against gays and lesbians. The individuals who spout this diatribe claim they are protecting "traditional" marriage but is it the tradition that began as families sold their female children to another family (dowry) to try to gain status or position within the community? I had an interesting conversation with a boss a few years back when he made a comment that his wife had to take his last name because women who didn't were somehow "less committed" to the marriage. I reminded him that the entire naming issue was because women went from being their father's daughter to being their husbsnd's wife and could never have their own identify.
ReplyDeleteMarriage, as a concept, no longer has the meanings it once used to and people who hang on to the "ideal" are trying to create something that never really was that "ideal." Instead, a loving relationship between two individuals who promise to love, honor, cherish, and respect each other as equal participants should be venerated, regardless of what you call it.
I'm glad the argument is out there!
Yes, and how about the "marriage is between one man and one woman" argument? Seems to me that biblical marriage was pretty much "one man and as many wives, concubines, and slaves as he could afford." How about that for a biblical, traditonal marriage?
ReplyDelete