Townhall
The
Myth of 'Traditional Marriage'
Steve
Chapman
Feb
09, 2014
In
the battle over same-sex marriage, opponents are strongly in favor of
deferring to the wisdom of our ancestors. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence
uses the prevailing formula when he says, "I support traditional
marriage." The Christian Coalition of America urges its friends
to "Say 'I Do' to Traditional Marriage."
They
have friends on the Supreme Court. In arguments over a California ban
on gay marriage, Justice Samuel Alito expressed reservations about
abandoning time-honored arrangements. "Traditional marriage has
been around for thousands of years," he said, while same-sex
marriage is "newer than cell phones or the Internet."
Invoking
age-old customs has not served to convince the American people, most
of whom now favor letting gays wed. But then Americans have rarely
rallied to the idea that we should do something just because that's
what was done in the time of Henry VII or even George Washington.
Ronald
Reagan was fond of quoting the 18th-century American pamphleteer
Thomas Paine's ringing declaration, "We have it in our power to
begin the world over again." Beginning the world over again does
not imply a slavish attachment to olden days and olden ways.
America
has always been trailblazer of the future, not custodian of the past.
So opposing same-sex marriage on grounds of tradition is a chancy
proposition.
But
this approach has another major flaw: What conservatives regard as
traditional marriage is not very traditional at all. It's radically
different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago. And if
you want to talk about "thousands of years," you'll find
that almost everything about marriage has changed.
The
biblical King Solomon, after all, was a dedicated polygamist, with
700 wives. Monogamy has always been the norm in Christianity, but not
as part of a marriage of equals.
The
18th-century English jurist William Blackstone explained, "By
marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law; that is,
the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at
least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under
whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything."
Women
generally couldn't enter into contracts without permission from their
husbands. In legal status, they were a notch above sheep and goats.
In America, it was not until well into the 19th century that states
began to grant married women something resembling full property
rights...
Read
the rest of the article at Townhall
|