"The Traditional Definition Of Marriage"

[thecrow]

This is a column by Silver Donald Cameron I found very interesting

******************POSTED WITH PERMISSION***************see below***

SUNDAY HERALD COLUMN - June 22, 2005 (HH0524)

THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
by
Silver Donald Cameron

If you are arrested for beating your wife, you have three defences.

First, the principle of “coverture” makes the husband responsible for his
wife’s behaviour – and if he’s to be responsible for her behaviour, he’d
better be able to shape it. Second, it is a well-established Biblical
principle that women are – and should be – subordinate to men. Third,
husband and wife are one person – flesh of one another’s flesh, and so on –
and you can’t commit assault against yourself.

Those quaint principles were current in Victorian times. I presume that
makes them part of “the traditional definition of marriage,” that risible
phrase which the righteous right likes to use as a weapon against gay
marriage.

Which tradition? Whose definition?

Not the tradition of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which
is clearly polygamous; Brigham Young had 55 wives and 56 children. And if
the state has no business defining marriage, then the US government had no
business forbidding Mormons to practice polygamy, which it did under
Lincoln in 1862.

Not the tradition of the Quran, which allows a Muslim to take up to four
wives – though all wives must be treated with scrupulous equality. That
provision, say the sages, makes the right to polygamy essentially hollow,
since no mere human can show such complete impartiality. King Fahd of
Saudi Arabia is evidently a superior being; he is currently being sued for
divorce by one of his wives, and nobody really knows how many he has. His
father, Ibn Saud, is said to have had 145 wives at one time or another.

Not, surely, the tradition of the US South, where interracial marriage was
illegal, and interracial sex was a crime – just as gay sex was a crime in
Canada when I was growing up.

Not the tradition of arranged marriages, still common in Asian countries
like India and Japan. And not, one assumes, the ancient Hebrew tradition
which required a man to marry his deceased brother’s widow. And not, one
further assumes, the tradition of child marriage, still practiced in many
parts of the world. Not even the Roman Catholic tradition, which forbids
divorce but annuls roughly 2800 marriages annually in Canada.

Most of these traditions – perhaps all of them – have adherents within the
exuberantly multicultural population of modern Canada.

Choleric conservatives not only want to deny gay people the right to marry;
some – like Real Women of Canada – want “the traditional definition of
marriage” enshrined in the constitution. The idea is absurd. The form of
marriage these folks believe to be natural and universal is simply a
creation of Victorian Protestant sentimentality.

Because – let’s get real – the most deeply traditional Western definition
of marriage is not about love and morality and personal commitment at all.
It’s about property and power. Marriage has customarily been a vehicle to
unite powerful families, and to make a secure disposition of property. A
“legitimate” oldest son – the first male born within a marriage – inherits
the title and the wealth that goes with it. A marriage between the children
of two warring nobles settles the rivalry for the crown. A married woman
has a right to a share of her husband’s property and income.

We have a memorable example of this historical definition of marriage right
in Halifax – Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, the British military commander
here from 1794 to 1800. Edward stars in one of the great love stories of
Canadian history, his relationship with a French woman, Madame de St.
Laurent, better known as “Julie.” The two were deeply devoted, and lived
together for 27 years while he served in France, Gibraltar, the West Indies
and Quebec. While they lived in Halifax, he built her the mansion known as
Prince’s Lodge, along with the heart-shaped pond and the circular music
room which still exist on the shores of Bedford Basin.

But Edward didn’t marry Julie. Instead, the British government required
that he marry Her Serene Highness, Mary Louisa Victoria, the German widow
of the Prince of Leiningen. His job was to produce a child who would
inherit the throne of Britain, which he did. His daughter became Queen
Victoria.

That’s perfectly in accord with a long-established traditional definition
of marriage which survives to this day. Ask Camilla Parker-Bowles-Windsor
and the ghost of Princess Diana. Duty, my dear. Reasons of state. A
legitimate heir.

A pox on all that.

The modern definition of marriage is still evolving, but its essence is a
free and consensual commitment by two loving adults to share equally in the
pleasures and responsibilities of a life together. Two loving adults,
period. Whether they’re royal or common, black or white, Holy Roller or
Zoroastrian, straight or gay or lesbian – that’s really nobody’s business
but their own.

******************POSTED WITH PERMISSION***************see below***

Great! I think this is one of the best pieces I've read on "the marriage crisis" (sic)
May I please pass this along, in its entireity to democraticunderground.com ?

Sure. I'm delighted that you're so pleased with it. But please ask them to add this author note:

Silver Donald Cameron is the author of 14 books, and writes a weekly column for the Sunday Herald in Halifax, Nova Scotia. To receive his column directly, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sdcns/join

[Warpy]

1. A Victorian woman's wedding day marked her legal death

since a marriage was treated as one person and the male was that person. She was not allowed to retain control of her own property (unlike her Muslim sisters, who had been able to retain theirs for over 1000 years) and had absolutely no right to her own children.

As far as the dreadful state of marriage goes, we've already come a long way, but it remains an imperfect institution, which is why there's a 50% divorce rate (higher in the pious south, lower godless in New England).

The worst abuse of marriage now is serial polygamy, wherein a male marries, fathers children, then divorces a wife made shabby by childbirth in favor of a young, childless, and attractive woman. He is likely to abandon his children physically, emotionally, and financially. He's also likely to keep discarding wives and children as long as he can get away with it. Any society that tolerates this behavior is nuts.

Opening marriage to "nontraditional" unions has been going on for many years, first as unions between people of different religions, then of different colors. Each step was fought tooth and nail by the church ladies of both sexes. Opening it to gays and lesbians is just the next step in an inevitable process.

Closing it to serial polygamists needs to be the next step in the process. This is the main reason for proscribed divorce in many religions.