COLUMN: Marriage sanctity was lost long ago
For months now, The Statesman has echoed with angry words from enemies of same-sex marriage. Homosexual nuptials, it’s being said, will tarnish the “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage.
Gosh, do these folks ever read the newspaper? Or a history book? Marriage has been deeply de-sanctified for centuries.
Apologists for “traditional values” seem to forget the real history of marriage. Christian civilization was built by royalty and nobility who saw marriage as dynastic. People wedded for titles, wealth, feudal estates, vassals, heirs – to link empires and win wars. Lifelong compulsory monogamy and chastity belts were invented to ensure that a husband passed his power only to his genetic offspring. While these marriages were sprinkled in holy water by ministers of “heaven.”
When the American Revolution separated church and state, it also separated marriage from church control. Marriage became basically a civil arrangement. Today, many American nuptials still start with church bells. But the “sanctity” of civil marriage is arguable, since it boils down to a list of heterosexual legalities that judges can rule on. These include inheritance rights, tax breaks, hospital visitation, pensions, joint custody – all things that homosexuals want too, and are told they can’t have, in the name of “sanctity.” Since when do the arbiters of “holiness” include probate courts, hospital receptionists, company pension plans and the IRS?
Americans also rely on marriage for certain perks and conveniences. For minors, getting married is a way of evading parental custody. For embarrassed parents of a pregnant teen, shotgun marriage (hopefully) preserves the family honor. Marriage can get you a dental plan, diplomatic privileges, free housing on military bases, U.S. citizenship, the boss’ daughter, and slave labor in the form of lots of kids. Marriage routinely enhances a celebrity career, even serves as cover for some CIA intelligence work. Repeated marriage-and-divorce allows some folks to cloak sexual adventure in legality.
Are these profane perks protected by state and federal law? Yes. Are they sacred? Hardly. It is amusing to think how many heterosexual Americans would scream bloody murder if they lost their “right” to this array of conveniences. Yet they would turn around and deny those same perks to gay people.
Marriage has no global agreement about what makes it “sacred.” It’s social silly-putty, squished into a thousand shapes by bias and blind belief. To the Israelites of the Ten Commandments, “sanctity” of marriage included polygamy, and a man’s right to kill his wife and children if they got out of line. To feudal lords, the “sacredness” of a serf wedding required the bride to give her virginity to the lord. To the American colonists, a woman could work her way into marriage through contract labor or being an indentured servant. To Southern slave owners, marriage was out of bounds for black people. To Catholic forebearers, the marriage knot required a priest’s “authority.” To Protestant forebearers, Catholic sacraments were “evil popery,” so only a preacher’s words could authorize the knot. But to bride and groom on the high seas, a ship captain’s authority is “sacred” enough.
Some of my native American forebearers had more sensible views. A couple stood before Creation and married each other on their own authority as human beings. They had no concept of being married by the power of some other person’s religion or authority. If things went bad, all the aggrieved person had to do was put the partner’s moccasins outside the teepee door … with the toes pointing away.
Can today’s American marriage overcome its sorry history as a list of perks? Can a person today make it sacred and wonderful?
Yes, I believe so. Real sacredness is infused into any relationship only by the two people themselves, be they straight or gay. They build a balance between their own self-respect and their respect for each other – and for their children, if they have them. If this sacredness is not deeply felt on the personal level, no law or sermon or tax break can put it there.
Not every heterosexual wants this kind of relationship. Not every homosexual does either. But those who do deserve the best that marriage can offer.
So, yes … marriage today is darkly tarnished. But denying marriage to gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people will not untarnish it.
Reid Furniss is the staff assistant in the journalism and communication department. Comments can be sent to reid@cc.usu.edu.