As state courts are faced with the question of same-sex marriages, the State Supreme Court in California narrowed the question to what is the definition of marriage during arguments yesterday.
For almost four hours on Tuesday, the California Supreme Court heard arguments in the most important same-sex marriage case since Massachusetts’s highest court allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry there more than four years ago.
But it took only 15 minutes for Justice Carlos R. Moreno to identify the central question. “Doesn’t this just boil down to the use of the m-word — marriage?” he asked.
But, when both sides in the suit presented their argument that marriage was a unique bond an with ancient roots, both were wrong.
Love didn’t come into the picture until about 200 years ago.
The personal relationship between partners is only part of the function of marriage. Only recently -since sexual reform started about 200 years ago, has the idea of love as a basis for marriage come up in our society. In fact, however, the same interests are at stake: property, keeping a household together, having children and raising them.
As marriage has evolved, so has the definition. If we just look at the history of marriage in America, we find that not only has the “institution” of marriage changed, but so has the definition.
As America has evolved over the centuries, so too has the institution of marriage.
In colonial times, marriage was largely a matter of property and reproduction.
When a colonial woman married, she gave up any legal right as an individual. She was legally bound to obey her husband, just as she would obey God.
[...]As the times changed, so did marriage. Romantic love came into vogue, only with the Victorian era. The 20th century created fundamental and lasting changes in the realms of courtship and marriage.
It’s not so much the definition of marriage that is so important for groups arguing for or against same-sex marriage. Instead, this question posed by Justice Moreno is important:
California has a domestic partnership law that gives gay and lesbian couples nearly all of the legal rights and responsibilities that come with heterosexual marriage. That leaves open the question posed by Justice Moreno, one freighted with history, symbolism and emotion: What is so special about marriage?
I’ve been asking myself that same question for a while now. One does not have to be married to procreate or raise children. One does not have to be married to love their partner. But, one does need to be able to legally pass on their property, or be able to make decisions for their partner, when their partner can’t.
Perhaps we should just get rid of the whole “marriage” institution an revert back to civil unions.
[...] the question The Crone is asking this morning: It’s not so much the definition of marriage that is so important for groups arguing [...]
<em?”nearly all of the legal rights and responsibilities”
The word nearly is pretty key. Whether the word marriage is important, legal rights and responsibilities are important, imo.
[...] Archcrone has a pretty interesting post entitled “What is so Special About Marriage.” In it, the Crone discusses the definition of marriage and ends the post with the question, “Perhaps we should just get rid of the whole ‘marriage’ institution an revert back to civil unions.” [...]
It is not quit clear to me why so many right-wing conservatives are completely against gay marriage. They are essentially trying to convince people that mutually respectful relationships are not beneficial to the couple or the society around them. In addition, Democrats that favor civil unions over marriage rights are opening the door to straight couples entering into civil unions so that they can get the benefits alloted, without actually getting married. Civil unions, then , will actually lower the overall marriage rate. Who is to stop two straight “friends” from filing for a civil union in order to get work-related benefits in a state. Legalizing gay marriage would raise the overall marriage rates and civil unions would lower it. This is perhaps the goal of both political parties. Civil unions means no access to Social Security, whereas marriage does give access.
I’m a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, and because there is no federal recognition of our marriage, we will not contribute the bankruptcy of Social Security because we will not have access to the money that we pay for legally married straight couples tat into the Social Security Benefits of his/her spouse. Civil Unions may have nothing to do with gay rights, but rather may be a way of keeping money available in Social Security.
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com
Civil Unions may have nothing to do with gay rights, but rather may be a way of keeping money available in Social Security.
Very interesting point. I have to think on this a bit more.
[...] Actually, after nearly 25 years of being married, I don’t agree with marriage and I fall into the group that views monogamy and marriage as social constructs, for the simple reason that the definition of marriage has changed (vastly) over the years. [...]
[...] to the whole marriage a dire situation issue, as I have noted in the past, the definition of marriage has evolved over the centuries, and continues to evolve. Instead of [...]