Marriage by Will Stanton

“Ah am again’ a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman.  It ain’t right; it ain’t natural.  Marriage should be between one man and one woman, just as it always has been for thousands of years!  Ah believe in traditional marriage!”    

At least those people who hold such beliefs and who make such statements are consistent : they generally are ignorant of the facts concerning most things.  Facts mean nothing to them.  Throughout history, so-called “traditional marriage” has not been anything like what these people say.  On the contrary, usually marriage has been quite different.

In most early societies, marriage was a private agreement between two families.  Neither the Church nor the State had any say in the matter. Of course now-days, a bride’s family is shirking its duty if they do not provide the groom’s family with a number of sheep or horses.

Often, not even family-consent was necessary for marriage. Two people who simply regarded themselves as being married were viewed by the Church as having a valid marriage, provided neither one was a slave of course.  It was not until 1754 that England preferred to have couples obtain a marriage license, although that was not regularly enforced. Even in socially backward countries such as America, authorities initially simply inferred marriage from a couple’s behavior rather than requiring either a license or a church wedding.  Just living together was all that was needed.

Considering that so many “good Christians” would like to alter civil law to conform to their religion, they would be upset to learn that the type of marriage most often mentioned in the first five books of the Old Testament was not one-man, one-woman, but instead was one-man, several-women.  So, in today’s “traditional marriage,” how many women should a man be allowed to marry?

If a man chooses only one woman to marry, then he is allowed to either divorce his first wife or add another wife or concubine if the first wife does not produce a child.  After all, producing offspring is the only reason to marry; no one else should want to marry.  

Early Christian records document some same-sex marriages.  It is said that, in the 4th century, Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus were united in a church service.  They even are portrayed close, side-by-side in a religious icon.  

When the Church later promoted two-person marriages, the Church would nullify a marriage if the man was impotent, but not if one of the spouses was sterile.  One wonders to what extent the Church went to determine which was which.  In 18th-century Ireland, one aristocratic lass insisted upon marrying the great castrato singer Tenducci, only to employ the law of the time to divorce him when she discovered the greater pleasures of a fully intact man.  The New York Court ruled in 1898, however, “It cannot be held, as a matter of law, that the possession of the organs necessary to conception are essential to entrance to the married state, so long as there is no impediment to the indulgence of the passion incident to this state.”  So apparently, two guys who are partners don’t have to keep trying to make babies.

Only in more recent times have American legislatures and courts felt obliged to intrude upon what has been, in truth, real traditional marriage.  Black slaves in America could marry, but only with the permission of the slave owner.  By the 1920s, thirty-eight states had laws prohibiting marriage between whites and blacks, Mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays, or Filipinos.  Twelve states prohibited marriage to a “drunk” or “mental defective.”  There even was a prohibition to marrying any  (quote) “drunkard, habitual criminal, imbecile, feeble-minded person, idiot, or insane person.”  If we adhered to this “traditional” concept of marriage today, that would eliminate the right to marry to most members of the GOP and all of Fox News.

In conclusion, and to paraphrase conservative pundit George Will, what is the cost / benefit of so many Americans believing in, and subscribing to, the hate-filled, irrational rantings of so many so-called “good–Christian” politicians, voters, and  preachers?  The cost to American society, and especially to the civil rights of GLBT citizens, is clear.  But, I see no true benefit from having millions of Americans standing foursquare with bloviating ignoramuses. The recent statement  by  a  North-Carolina,  Baptist  minister who said, “Ah could just puke!  Can you imagine kissin’ a man?” is redundant proof that high authority allows for someone of extremely low IQ to insert himself into the debate concerning human civil rights.

© 01 June 2012 

About the Author 

I have had a life-long fascination with people and their life stories.  I also realize that, although my own life has not brought me particular fame or fortune, I too have had some noteworthy experiences and, at times, unusual ones.  Since I joined this Story Time group, I have derived pleasure and satisfaction participating in the group.  I do put some thought and effort into my stories, and I hope that you find them interesting.