Is Same Sex Marriage A Threat To The Institution Of Marriage?

Photo by Michelle Nichols

The following was originally written on May 17, 2009:

In reaction to the struggle on the part of the gay community to legalize same sex marriage, many people have said that this would weaken or degrade the institution of marriage. For the longest time I have been unable to understand why so many people object to gay marriage, or same sex marriage as it is often called. I literally could not understand why anyone would be worried about what two consenting adults did with their lives or how they characterized their relationship. I did not understand the very emotional responses some people had to the homosexual community’s struggle to gain for themselves the legal and financial benefits for couples in committed relationships that have been so long enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Then I realized that these people who objected to same sex marriage weren’t actually worried that existing heterosexual marriages would be damaged by gay marriage. It wasn’t the actual marriages that were in danger. It was the definition of the purpose of marriage that they felt would be changed by the advent of same sex marriage. This shift in the general understanding of the very reason for marriage is what terrifies these people so much.

For most people in modern western society, like myself, the purpose of marriage is the fulfillment of romantic love. Many in today’s world have come to view the purpose of marriage as an opportunity for two people who love each other to establish a (hopefully) lifelong relationship that fulfills their emotional and sexual needs, helps to provide financial security, and establishes legal rights for either spouse in the event of the incapacitation or death of the other spouse. For many there is also the desire to have their union recognized by society at large. And, for those who choose to have and raise children, marriage also offers the opportunity to do so with the help of a committed partner. If one sees the purpose of marriage in this manner, same sex marriage does nothing to weaken the institution of marriage whatsoever. In fact, as many same sex couples who desire marriage do so for these very reasons, same sex marriage would serve to further validate this definition of the purpose of marriage.

However, this notion of marriage for the sake of romance has not always been the case and is not universally held even in the United States. There is another definition of the purpose of marriage that predates the romantic view by thousands of years. That being that the purpose of marriage is primarily to successfully procreate and to ensure that property inheritance is tightly controlled by blood. This is all too often tied in with religious views indicating that this is how God ordained the institution of marriage, and deviating from this definition is a sinful thing to do.

For those who believe that all of the benefits of marriage are designed to help bring children into the world, raise them to adulthood, and be able to ensure that a man’s property is inherited only by his children, same sex marriage is, at the very least, illogical. At the worst, it is considered an abomination that serves to diminish the legitimacy of the very reason for getting married. Pope John Paul II, when referring to same-sex marriage, is quoted as saying, "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man." For many with this point of view the question becomes, “Why bother getting married if it is not about babies and property?”

The idea that the purpose of marriage is the fulfillment of romantic love is a relatively new one. Many cite the troubadours of 12th century France with the invention of what was called Courtly Love. In this early form, romantic love was not sexual because it rarely occurred between people who were married to one another. Marriages were arranged by the families involved to promote alliances which gave monetary or political advantages to both sides. There was no notion that the couple needed to have any affection for each other prior to the wedding – or even after it. It was a business arrangement that had the added benefit of promoting procreation and the religious ideology of the time and place. Courtly love, on the other hand, was an attachment between a man and a woman which was formed for personal gratification alone, and not for reasons of property, politics, or procreation.

It wasn’t until the institution of marriage was no longer the exclusive purview of the church that the religious mandate for marriage began to fade in Western culture. Although the Roman Catholic Church fought hard against it, the advent of the Protestant Reformation hustled in an era when marriage started to become considered less of a sacrament and more a civil contract. The Council of Trent declared in 1545 that a marriage between Roman Catholic persons would only be legitimate if a priest officiated the wedding and there were at least two witnesses. However, at the same time in regions of Europe which were affected by the Protestant Reformation, marriage required only the mutual consent of each spouse to be legitimate.

In the 17th century Protestant European countries began to see a shift from church to the state as the authority over matrimony. John Calvin (i.e. Calvinism) and his colleagues enacted the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva. This ordinance required “The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage.” Later the Marriage Act of 1836 in England and Wales stated that civil marriages were to be recognized as a legal and binding without the involvement of the church. Civil marriages were recognized in Germany in 1875. Here the law stated that when both parties declare their will to marry in front of an official clerk of the civil administration, this constituted a legally recognized, valid, and effective marriage. By the 19th century, therefore, the religious aspect or character of marriage had begun to wane significantly.

Meanwhile the case for romantic love grew stronger. William M. Reddy, an instructor at Duke University, is quoted as saying, “During the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, it was thought that, when people were freed to pursue their desires without hindrance or moral condemnation, romantic love would fade out. The illusions and idealizations of love would no longer be needed to assuage feelings of guilt or selfishness. But the opposite occurred. Since the 1980s, romantic love has regained its old salience. It may be more important now than it ever was.”

Here in the 21st century, the desire for romantic love is front and center where most marriages are concerned. Modern western society has come to value a loving marriage so highly that a marriage contracted for any reason other than love seems, well, un-American. For most of those living in the United States, ending a loveless marriage is now seen as almost more noble and courageous than sticking it out. It is seen as wrong and unnatural to remain married to someone whom you no longer love. And so divorce rates have continued to climb over the last fifty to seventy-five years. People are now practicing so called serial monogamy by marrying and divorcing and then marrying again. This is all in the quest for everlasting romantic love.

It seems clear to me that the greatest threat to the institution of marriage in western society is not same sex marriage. It is, instead, our belief that we have the unalienable right to marry for love alone and to remain married only where there is still love. This is now more important than property inheritance, monetary wealth, or even raising children. For those who are anxious and worried that the institution of marriage is under threat, I say that you can stop worrying. The horse is already out of the barn. Heck, the barn is on fire and the earth has opened up and is proceeding to swallow it whole. But if you are looking for someone to blame for the demise of old fashioned marital values, you can forget about that old demon “same sex marriage.” It’s this world full of romantic fools who are guilty of the offense.

Works Cited

Reddy, William M. "The History of Romantic Love." Duke University. 2008. Duke University. 20 May 2009 http://www.duke.edu/~wmr/romantic%20love.htm.

"Marriage." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2009. Wikipedia. Web.15 May 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Definitions.

Witte, John Jr. From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1997. Print.

Pullella, Philip. "Gay marriage, abortion new forms of evil: Pope." The Toronto Star 23 Feb 2005: A14. Print.

Brownback, Senator Sam. "Defining Marriage Down." National Review Online 09 Jul 2004 Web.15 May 2009. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/brownback200407090921.asp.

Robinson, B. A. "SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNIONS Why do many gays and lesbians seek marriages and unions." ReligiousTolerance.Org. 05 Mar 2003. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 20 May 2009 http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marwhy.htm.

Simpson, David L. "Chivalry and Courtly Love." The School for New Learning, DePaul University. 1998. DePaul University. 15 May 2009 http://condor.depaul.edu/~dsimpson/tlove/courtlylove.html.

Schwartz, Dr. Debora B. "Backgrounds to Romance: "Courtly Love"." Medieval Literature. March 2001. California Polytechnic State University. 15 May 2009 http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513/courtly/courtly.htm.

Photo found at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AI43M20091119

Direct your gaze inward...

There has been much media coverage leading up to the one year anniversary of the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan terrorist who was convicted of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 in December of 1988. A total of 270 passengers and crew were killed in the conflagration. Numerous groups and individuals have offered their opinions for and against the decision of the Scottish authorities to release this man on compassionate grounds due to his diagnosis of cancer and a reported prognosis of three month’s life expectancy.

This is an emotionally laden topic and it should not surprise anyone that parties on both sides find themselves quite wound up over it. The conflict touches on many issues not directly related to the actual bombing, but nonetheless brought to the foreground by the events surrounding his release and the furor which ensued because of it. What should, in a perfect world, be a simple disagreement over the disposition of a convicted terrorist has become enflamed by a culture clash of long standing which will not be unraveled anytime soon.

All that being said, I am writing in response to a particular set of statements made by Edinburgh’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien during an interview with BBC Scotland. I feel that some of the conclusions the Cardinal made about US culture were presented as if they were facts, instead of his personal opinions, and that he failed to correctly interpret some of the information he presented in his argument – thus rendering his conclusions specious.

Let me start by briefly stating that I have no objection to the Cardinal’s stated opinion that, “…the Scottish government was right to free Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi last year on compassionate grounds.” [All quotes attributed to Cardinal O’Brien are taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10905562] This was, I believe, the thrust of his purpose in giving the interview. He wanted to weigh in on the argument in favor of the decision made to free the man and the reasoning behind that decision.

His next statement did not surprise me. Cardinal O’Brien stated, “…US lawmakers want Scots politicians to explain their decision to a committee, but the cardinal said ministers should not go "crawling like lapdogs".” His is not the first voice to complain about the manner in which many US politicians and officials try to get their way in international conflicts. It is well established that the US government aggressively pursues its agenda throughout the world on a consistent basis, regardless of the particular culture with which it is dealing or the diplomatic history that is shared. I seek neither to deny nor to defend this tendency. I believe that every nation and/or culture has an innate sovereignty and its inhabitants will no doubt chafe when outside forces attempt to bend their governing bodies to their will. This is a natural reaction and Cardinal O’Brien’s sentiments in this regard are completely understandable to me.

The above referenced article continues with, “In an interview with BBC Scotland, Cardinal O'Brien said Americans were too focused on retribution.” My reaction to this was rooted in strong emotion. I’m not entirely sure that I agree or disagree with the Cardinal. Viewing it from the inside out, I would have phrased it differently. I will admit that I am afflicted with a wide spread attitude in the US that it is important to never take any assault “lying down”. It is not only “an eye for an eye” at work here (as the Cardinal alluded to later on in the article). It is, instead, the notion that a bully will continue to terrorize anyone who offers no resistance. However, if, at every turn, you confront anyone who injures you, other bullies will very likely think twice about messing with you. The Cardinal may feel this is not the best attitude and might very well adjure Americans to “turn the other cheek”. I don’t think he would find many converts to that position, however.

So far, I don’t seem to be in any significant disagreement with the Cardinal. However, I do actually have a couple of bones to pick with him. Cardinal O’Brien has every right to argue that American citizens and US officials who object to the early release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi are wrong in their thinking and/or actions. But I feel strongly that it is important for all parties to have a clear understanding of the difference between fact and opinion. Otherwise civil discourse is abandoned.

My first objection is that he stated that “Americans” were too focused on retribution. Not “some Americans” or “many Americans”. Without some word used as a qualifier, the reader or listener is left to assume that the Cardinal was referring to all Americans. It seems to me that the Cardinal has fallen victim to a failure of logic that many, many others have before him. That failure being the idea that America is a completely homogenous culture and that all Americans think and feel and act alike. There are more than 300 million people living in the United States. It is simply not logical, and frankly rather naïve, to assume that any group of people numbering more than 300 million would all agree on any single issue. Why is this important, you may ask? Isn’t it splitting hairs? Not really. By not recognizing the distinction between a very probably factual statement about the attitudes of some Americans, and an assumed attitude of all Americans, the Cardinal’s statement segues straight from verifiable fact to erroneous and ill-informed opinion – rendering his argument moot.

Secondly, what prompted me to write in response to Cardinal O’Brien’s statements was not actually his assessment of US culture, flawed as it may be, but the reasoning he offered to support it. The article immediately continues with the following which illustrates this reasoning to be defective: "In many states - more than half - they kill the perpetrators of horrible crimes, by lethal injection or even firing squad - I say that is a culture of vengeance…”

What the Cardinal failed to glean from this information is the fact that capital punishment is a deeply controversial issue in the United States and is hotly debated on an ongoing basis. America is profoundly divided over this issue. The very fact that we have come from a default state of capital punishment being universally applied throughout all US territory to that of just “more than half” implies a significant shift in philosophy over the past four hundred years. I submit that this lack of unanimity with regard to capital punishment is itself evidence that the US is not “too focused on retribution,” but is actually illustrative of a nation that continues to struggle mightily over the question of the best way to preserve the peace and ensure the safety of its citizens. A true “culture of vengeance” would not take the time to contemplate the justification of capital punishment. The question would simply not be entertained.

Some may argue that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is no longer a direct threat to anyone, due to his illness. The Cardinal may believe that this is the case. But many may not have considered the impact that this now seemingly harmless man has had since his [from http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100811/ts_dailybeast/9388_lockerbielovestorychildrenofvictimstomarry], “…abrupt departure from a Scottish prison, which abridged a life sentence for mass murder, [and] was garishly celebrated with a televised hero’s welcome in Tripoli orchestrated by Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.”

His deeds have been "celebrated" throughout radical fundamentalist circles around the world. This not only increases the likelihood that someone will seek to emulate him, but also serves to paint the picture that his actions were entirely justified and admirable. All of which results in quite understandable outrage and fear among the friends and families of the Pan Am flight 103 victims.

The article stated that the cardinal said, “…Americans should "direct their gaze inwards"…” -- I would like to ask the Cardinal to look into his own heart and see if he can’t find some small measure of empathy for those who have objected so vociferously to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi’s early release. I wonder if, when he gave this interview, the Cardinal considered the dread and pain and outrage these people have felt since that event almost a year ago. Or did he think only about his own feelings of affronted patriotism? Only he can answer that question. And, as it is doubtful he and I will ever discuss it, I will probably never know.

The bottom line is that most of the outcry against his release has not been based in inflated national pride or some sort of rabid imperialist desire to control the entire world, but in nothing more bizarre and unfathomable than plain old-fashioned fear. That this fear has apparently manifested itself in ways that many in Scotland find offensive is unfortunate, and it would have been better for all parties involved if it were not the case. But I think it is important to remember that fear is a human emotion, and even when US politicians are being completely obnoxious and offensive, they are still human, and are at least as entitled to the Cardinal’s forgiveness and compassion as was Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi – even if they aren’t allegedly about to drop dead in three month’s time.

Photo is from the BBC Scotland article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10905562.