Marriage
All of the crap being floated around about gay marriage sort of astounds me. I just had a discussion with a friend about this, and as we were talking via IM, I was unable to judge her reactions. I wonder, even now, if she was screaming at the screen in disgust, or just cleaning her gun. At any rate, as is often the case when she cannot “bring me over to the light”, she makes her apologies and leaves.
I don’t blame her, I’m a tenacious bastard, and when I’m right, frankly, I will brook no disagreement. It’s not about being flexible or inflexible, truth is binary, it’s on or it’s off. And when I’m on I’m on. I would imagine I am pretty insufferable under those circumstances.
Here’s the lowdown: From the beginning of time Marriage has been defined as and is defined by the act of procreation. To this day, the Catholic Church considers these things first when looking at the validity of marriage: Was there the intent, opportunity, ability, and consent to procreate? It’s more complex than that, of course, but these things are at the core; If you were unable to procreate, if you had no intentions of procreation, if you did not procreate, the church can consider the marriage to be null. I’m not judging this process, just relating it. Not being intimately familiar with the tenets of every religion, I won’t speak to them, but the concepts are similar, at least.
When the very first Og rolled over to the very first Ogweena and produced the very first Oglet, the act itself defined the marriage. Long before there existed a cerimony. Long before there was language.
Language grew up around the concept. In each language there are dozens of terms which relate to marriage, in greek and latin reference is made time after time. In each and every circumstance the concept involves a man and a woman. A boy and a girl. Sometimes even infants in arms. The marriage is the conjugal act, the act of joining a man and a woman to be related one to another through their offspring.
My friend asked me “don’t you feel those people deserve happiness?” Of course, my answer is yes. I feel everyone deserves happiness. But only men and women can marry. It is an issue of semantics. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, may have a domestic partnership. If the domestic partnership isn’t legally what it should be, then fix that. Using “marriage” to join people who will never be able to procreate misapplies the word. Frankly, in many religions, using “marriage” to identify what happens between a man and a woman in a courtroom, rather than a church, misapplies the word.
My friend, I think, heard me say “men and women alone can be married” and turned off all input from then on. A lot of people do this. She didn’t bother to hear me say “the mechanisim for people to have meaningful domestic partnerships should exist”. She assumed I was against this and that was that. Nothing, of course, is further from the truth. I suspect this because she came at me with “separate but equal didn’t work before” (paraphrasing). That also, is a misapplied concept. Being born black, you have no choice but to remain so. Blackness is not a behavior. Gayness may or may not be as genetic as blackness, but gayness manifests itself only in behavior. As far as I’m concerned the jury is out on that concept and I’ll make no statements either way. And no, I’m not suggesting gay people “stop acting gay”. Cripes, get with it.
If the concept of Domestic partnership is in question, get that legally straight. Make it so a person can sign a contract of domestic partnership and have all the legal rights of a spouse. This need not apply only to gays, either. The two 87 year old men living together with no relatives or other friends could sign a domestic partnership so they could take care of one another at the end of their lives, instead of having to mess around and fight legal and practical issues.
This comes down to a single issue, in my mind. The gay community wants to have the acceptance of society, and they feel marriage is a way to make the relationship they have with their partners be considered “normal”. I’m not here to judge anyone, and I don’t. I’m not here to say what is “normal” and what is not. I’m here, saying, calling a relationshp between a man and a man or a woman and a woman a marriage dilutes the term, lessens it. Is it possible that the term is being deliberately lessened? I have no idea. Are there alternatives that don’t have to cost anyone anything? Absolutely.
Do you believe as a Christian that gayness is inherently evil, and that gays will go to hell for their acts? That’s your right. You can believe anything you want. Do you believe as a gay that people who disaprove of you are evil? that’s your right too. Should you let those beliefs bring you to blows? Sure, if you’re an idiot. Take yourself out, do the world a favor. How about this: Judge not lest ye be judged. How about leave the fundamentalist Christian alone in his/her beliefs, because you’re not gonna change him/her no matter what you do. Move along, go about your business, be polite, and shut the fuck up.
“If you were unable to procreate, if you had no intentions of procreation, if you did not procreate, the church can consider the marriage to be null. I’m not judging this process, just relating it. Not being intimately familiar with the tenets of every religion, I won’t speak to them, but the concepts are similar, at least.”
Ummm… no.
Our host asked for clarification, so here’s my email to him:
What you said was, “If you were unable to procreate, if you had no intentions of procreation, if you did not procreate, the church can consider the marriage to be null.”
The Catholic Church, theoretically, will grant a petition of annulment if one of the partners “willfully” intended to deny the other’s right to sexual acts open to procreation. The essence here is the denial of the right of the other, and even then, it requires at least one of the parties to seek the annullment. The church doesn’t go around asking married couples if they’re able to have children, and annulling anyone who proves infertile. The Catholic church will readily marry couples who are obviously far too old to have kids. They’ll also, for example, marry women who’ve had historectomies, and men who are infertile due to injury or disease. They also don’t go around looking for couples who “did not procreate”, and start invalidating their marriages willy nilly.
And the Catholics are pretty much the farthest out there on these issues.
In short, I think you massively overstated Catholic doctrine on the connection between marriage and childbearing, and you asserted, without any basis that I can tell, that “but the concepts are similar, at least” in other religions.
I think you’ve got it wrong.
I continue to post my half of our discussion, since it may be interesting to others:
– – – – –
Based on your arguments via e-mail, I don’t think you can even claim that your quote holds true for the Catholic church…. Again, you said, “If you were unable to procreate, if you had no intentions of procreation, if you did not procreate, the church can consider the marriage to be null.”
In the first place, the way you wrote that strongly implies that the Church can consider a marriage to be null without any involvement of the parties. Your quote did not include the concept that people have to petition for an annullment in order to get one. There are no Catholic “marriage police” roaming the countryside and annulling noncomplying marriages. At the very least, your quote was misleading.
Second, even putting that aside, I think you’ve misstated annullment law. “If you were unable to procreate….” Which canonical ground is triggered by a spouse who turns out to be, or who becomes, infertile? “If you did not procreate….” Which ground is triggered by the fact that a marriage does not produce children? “If you had no intentions of procreation….” Even the ground that that alludes to requires willfulness, and the denial of another’s right to sexual acts OPEN to procreation. I’ll quote it directly:
“Willful exclusion of children (Canon 1101, sec. 2)
You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, to deny the other’s right to sexual acts open to procreation.”
So, if one party, against the wishes of the other, willfully refuses sexual acts open to procreation, then upon petition, they may be able to get an annullment.
Your description was about a mile wider than that. As for every other religion being “similar”, I think you’re simply factually wrong. I understand that you disclaimed expert-level knowledge about every other religion, but you did assert that “the concepts are similar” in order to support your argument that the creation of children was the universal sine qua non of marriage.
As stated above, I belive you have grossly mis-stated Catholic doctrine on the subject. Even if you were correct, however, you offer no support for your contention that every other religion has concepts that are “similar.”
I should not that I’m not saying that your position that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry is illegitimate. I don’t think it’s a bigoted position. Moreover, I think the burden is clearly on those who want to force a drastic change in the way we’ve defined marriage for thousands of years. All of that being said, I think the argument you made about the link between childbearing and marriage was factually and demonstrably incorrect.
i like to think my philosophy is mostly libertarian; so, my discomfort at the notion of same sex marriage has been bothering me. i am seeking a way to make sense of both impulses. one of the points you make here is one that is beginning to come to the fore in my mind as well. it is that the state cannot marry anyone. the state can make laws relating to a union of property, inheritance and legal rights, but to marry requires a moral authority that the state simply lacks. well that is not really satisfying either, but it is consistent, and it results in marriage meaning what the community that the marriage is within expects it to mean.
Rammer, it’s not a simple issue, as you know. And getting your head around it isn’t either. I believe that there is a specificity to the relationship between a man and woman when they come together to procreate; I believe that that is at the heart of marriage. I believe, further, that the folks in california are trying to hijack that for their own purpose, where what they really want is a fair and equitable domestic partnership. I believe it is possible to keep the concept, (the sacrament, if you’re Christian)of marriage inviolate, and give gays the rights they ask, adding to both and detracting from neither.
If you were unable to procreate, if you had no intentions of procreation, if you did not procreate, the church can consider the marriage to be null. I’m not judging this process, just relating it. Not being intimately familiar with the tenets of every religion, I won’t speak to them, but the concepts are similar, at least.”
Ummm… no.
From the canon law, 1983:(the current canon)
“Can. 1061 ยง1 A valid marriage between baptized persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.”
Ummmm, yes.
yes this is complex, but it needs discussion. a lot of people are very torqued up over this. i just have a couple of additional points.
the state, in the American context, cannot affect the sacrament of marriage. it simply has no authority over sacrament. after passing a constitutional amendment it might. i am not sure that is such a good idea either.
as for procreation, i am not so convinced that it is essential for marriage. envision the traditional married couple who are not just childless, but infertile. for this argument let both the man and woman be determined infertile by medical tests. does that mean that they could not have married? that their marriage is annulled? that result seems inconsistent with marriage in my context.
Maybe I can nutshell this and make it clearer: I believe marriage is a sacramental rite between a man and a woman. I belive one of its purposes (though not necesarily it’s sole purpose) is to provide a procreating male/female unit to bear and raise child(ren). I feel that in calling same sex unions “marriage” hijacks the term and lessens its value. I believe that a domestic partnership arrangement should be available for gay couples which allows them all the legal rights of marriage, but does not hijack and subvert the concept and bend it to the use of unions for which it was not originally intended. I also feel, by the way, that male/female couples whose intention is not sex or procreation should be able to engage in legal domestic partnerships.
Also, Rammer, as to the annullment, the Canon law I cite simply states that the act of “attempted” procreation is necesary to the fullness of the validity of the marriage. In NO WAY does it mean that a marriage is automatically null if procreation is impossible/never attempted. The canon goes on to describe other important marital issues; I just think it’s telling that this is the first one.
Marriage is about the future. There is no future in homosexuality, save for the encouragement society gives it. If homosexuality is genetic, it sure doesn’t seem like a survival trait to me.
There’s a difference between tolerance and a public stamp of approval. “The government has no business in the bedroom.” Then stay in your fucking bedroom. Quit demanding people legitimize your deviant behavior.
Great blog, Og.