The Idea of Traditional Marriage is Dying – May it Rest in Peace!

 I have long been an observer of social change and long term social trends. As of late in the U.S., the question of who can marry has been hotly debated and in some cases reactionary legislation has been passed inserting unneeded amendments into state constitutions, unnecessarily restricting marriage recognition to one man and one woman.  The justification for passing restrictive social legislation is based in the mistaken belief that marriage has remained static throughout history and is sanctified in its current form by a Higher Power.

This has led me to make the decision to write a lengthy blog article addressing this notion. I know I will be summarily criticized for both the length and content, but marriage has not remained static or is it sanctified by a Higher Power. Marriage has been and will continue to be a functional institution based on the forces of the three key environments of the Physical, Technological and the Social.

The status of recognized marriage, as a social invention, has played a major role throughout recorded history. Our current views on marriage involves rather new concepts when compared to the historical narrative concerning recognized couplings and unions. Countless wars have been waged over violations of marriage contracts; empires created or lost; and the distribution of wealth and power has regularly occurred on the marriage bed.

Historically, formal unions have generally benefitted the male and not the female. Women have, for the most of recorded history, been chattel to be traded and owned by males. Therefore the value of a marriageable female had to be closely guarded and maintained. The emphasis on virginity at the time of marriage became a paramount consideration since the marriageable maiden was of higher value as a virgin and the bride’s family would gain greater benefit. The whole social system of morality, folkways, values and norms evolved in order to gain the greatest benefit the family and males in particular. This social structure is probably counter to the biological benefit that a female would gain from having multiple sexual partners. However, desire and genetic diversity has become secondary to the security and survivability of the male’s bloodline.

To understand the genesis of contemporary marriage, it is imperative to understand the environment that led to its evolvement. The basic unit of social organization was the extended family. In an agricultural society, productive land and assets were not necessarily personal wealth, but was considered shared for the benefit of the entire family. It may have been controlled by a leading family member or members, but it still belonged to the family. Families had a vested interest in couplings or unions, so that it didn’t jeopardize family security and sustainability. Many systems evolved to assure family holdings and to add healthy members to the extended family group. We have several narratives from the Hebrew Bible that illustrate this principle.

The marriages of the three patriarchs; Abraham to Sarah, Isaac to Rebecca, and Jacob to Leah and Rachael all illustrate the purpose of the formal marriage for keeping wealth and ownership in the hands of the family and control in the hands of the patriarch. Often families set up rules for who was marriageable to who, prohibiting too close of a blood relationship, such as brother and sister, but yet remained within the originating family. Such as in the case of Abraham where Sarah may have been either a half sister or a first cousin and in Mesopotamian culture of the time this was considered acceptable. In any case, the exchange of bride prices or dowries still remained within the greater extended family. There are views that the reason that Esau lost his birthright and was conspired against by his mother; was that he had married outside the family, marrying two Canaanite women. Esau’s actions placed his mother in jeopardy by making her subservient to the foreign wives.  This is another reason that adultery was seen as such a great violation of social rule and stability.

Adultery was not evenly enforced or applied to both men and women. Men were free to couple with women other than their wives as long as the woman was not another man’s wife, which was considered to be an act of theft. A married woman coupling with any man other than her recognized husband was always considered an act of adultery with the subsequent negative consequences. A married woman committing an act of adultery would bring into question parentage of offspring and the rights to inherited wealth, rights, privileges and power. Therefore, formal marriage benefited males and the family by assuring ownership of family assets through paternal blood lines.  Another characteristic of formalized and recognized unions was that the higher the social status, the more important marriage became. The low born, poor and those without power were less likely to formalize a union since there wasn’t any advantage to do such. However, as formal religion became more engrained in social structures, legitimate unions took on additional importance.

Formal religion, as the guardian of traditional social order, took on the role of not only sanctifying unions, but exercised control over such unions. This is clear with the development of Western Christianity. The Church became the ultimate authority, governing life and human behavior from birth to death. As the repository of tradition, it fully supported the traditional extended family unit along with supporting functions such as marriage; thus, maintaining social stability. This remained until the basic social structures began to change.

In most western countries, the extended family has diminished in importance; thus, giving way to the dominance of the nuclear family. Other variables impacting long term traditional marriage has been the emergence of the supremacy of the individual, legally guaranteed with liberty and freedoms and coupled with the emergence of the Romantic Movement; the rise of free market  capitalistic societies and greater mobility; and the emergence of secularism and science replacing much of the role of religion. The impact on marriage has been monumental, to say the least.

Science has removed much of any doubt surrounding paternity. Law has fortunately kept pace with science acknowledging the new reality of proven paternity and removed the stigma of illegitimacy. All children born to a certain male are now granted equal standing under the law. Therefore, the institution of marriage has lost an important function in determining who has legitimate standing. This has become apparent, since 40% of all women in the United States now give birth to children without the benefit of marriage and no stigma of illegitimacy.

Currently, marriage is secularly viewed and defined as legal, when two consenting adults enter into a duly registered legal contractual agreement, officiated by a public official or someone granted authority such as clergy and in front of witnesses. Marriage is a legally recognized union subject to all rights and privileges along with certain legal responsibilities. Not only can people freely enter into such agreements, but they can also freely dissolve the agreements. The definition of marriage is now being extended to non traditional individuals and groups.

Using the secular definition where marriage is agreement between two consenting adults, it has opened the door to granting legal and official recognition to legal contractual agreements to same sex unions. This has met with vigorous resistance, primarily from various religious groups. The problem with such resistance is that it is not based on any functional reason, but based on a religious belief that prohibits such unions.

When challenged, the traditionalists rely primarily on biblical authority and arguments that result in “slippery slope” outcomes. The “slippery slope” argument relies on changing the basic definition of marriage from two consenting adults to something else. I have heard proponents of such arguments claim that there is nothing to stop multiple partner marriages, marriages between species, etc. However, as long as the definition remains between two consenting adults, then there is no possibility of unwarranted worry.

Given that same sex couples can fulfill the requirements of marriage functions, such as successfully raise children in loving and nurturing environment, provide for mutual support and benefit and to provide social stability, then there is no apparent reason not to permit such marriages.

For those jurisdictions that constitutionally defined marriage between a man and woman only, have created an unnecessary distinction regarding marriage and forcing a legal form of discrimination. There is no apparent harm done to society by same sex relationships or marriages and there is harm done to people by unwarranted discrimination; therefore, society is enhanced by removal of such discrimination and social justice served.

I think, a majority of women fully understand that they have benefitted the most from the changes to marriage laws that had for so long kept them in a state of chattel under their husband’s control. The attempt to reverse many laws to reinstate former prohibitions or restrictions are not in women’s best interest. It is imperative that women consider throwing their support to the removal of marriage and marital rights prohibitions. It has not been that long ago that women were fighting for their own freedoms and self-determination.

It is time that we revisit the recently passed constitutional amendments that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, removing them from state constitutions, thus making the constitutions consistent with contemporary understanding and true function.