Today I posted on Facebook an item about miscegenation (marriage between black and white people) being outlawed by the Supreme Court. I compared it with gay marriage. You can read my thoughts about this, which are a change for me, on this blog. I received an interesting reply. It asked, in essence, whether being gay is a choice or a matter of birth, and whether marriage is a state or religious function. I want to consider this at greater length than FB readily permits, as the questions are ones of fundamental understanding, with attendant consequences in thoughts, action and law.
Homosexuality is universal among primates and almost all mammals. Homosexuality as a label, however, is relatively recent. Romans and Greeks slept with any partner they chose without being labeled. The issue of masculinity was not tied to choice of partner but to whether the man was receptive or insertive during anal intercourse. Being the insertive partner was a mark of substantial masculinity, the assumption being that any man who could achieve an erection when interacting with another man must be powerfully masculine. Our culture clearly sees homosexuality as unmasculine (or unfeminine for lesbians), and as a label applied to things defective, dishonorable and inappropriate.
But homosexuality is none of these things. I have known and know many gay men. They are honorable, decent people. They are not pederasts. Their sexuality is not threatening. One of the very most interesting discussions I have ever had was with a now-deceased gay man about the nature of masculinity. The recent open declaration by an NBA player of being gay forces society to understand homosexuality in sexual rather than sex stereotype ways.
There is very strong evidence that homosexuality is simply part of the person's psycho-sexual construction. I have interacted with some severely traumatized women who can only have sex with women, as they find men very threatening or upsetting. This fact, however, has nothing to do with the large majority of homosexuals, who can tell you they have been gay since they were children. Society's disapproval leads to much suppression, so that we have too many stories of gay men and women coming out within straight marriages, or after fathering or bearing children. These results are not a matter of 'choosing' to be gay, but of suppression of natural desire to conform to social norms. In this respect it is no different than left handed people being forced to write right handed. Homosexuality is innate, not learned, not chosen. This is easily understood if a straight person asks him/herself 'when did I first choose to be straight?'.
Marriage is a complex social phenomenon. Most fundamentally it is a structure within which to protect children and transfer property. A look at 'The Family, Sex and Marriage' gives an excellent picture of the evolution of marriage from a dynastic, property-based event to a personal union based in interest, affection and attraction. Once we allow that marriage is companionate, to use that book's word, it is immediately reasonable to ask why it should not occur between any two people. Marriage as a structure for raising children is important (essential, in my opinion, but that is another matter), but it certainly is no longer the only function of marriage. Marriage is unequivocally companionate in nature.
Marriage has long been recognized in religious ceremony and by the state. For many years these two were literally identical, the state-sponsored religion conforming to the government, and the government receiving the endorsement and blessing of its state-sponsored religion. With this incestuous and government and religion distorting relationship severed, the confluence of religion and society demands that society respect religion, and that religion reflect the needs and circumstances of the times. There is obvious disconnect here. Society does not respect religion any more, and religion does not address the needs of the times.
The resulting disconnect leads to a wide gap between religious and societal 'law'. Abortion law is one example of this. Homosexual marriage is another. Many churches continue to condemn homosexuality, based in Leviticus. But society is looking at homosexuality differently. and here the miscegenation analogy is apt. At one time the idea of a black and white person marrying was revolting and illegal. Now we think nothing of it. Two of my partners are in mixed race marriages, and none of the faculty, residents or staff think it is wrong or peculiar. They love each other.
The overturning of miscegenation was based in equal treatment under law, as guaranteed by our Constitution. That guarantee exists not to protect or enforce the values of the majority but to protect the values of minorities of all types. In our nation no one is treated differently because of race or religion. Or sex and gender role. There is thus no constitutional basis to restrict gay marriage. If the state recognizes straight marriage and inter-racial marriage, on what basis does it fail to allow marriage between any two persons? I can't find one, and thus I feel it should be legal.
To assert that homosexuality is immoral, or a sin, or punishable by death, is to assert personal values over legal ones, to assert personal religion over others. And that is patently illegal. The marriage of two homosexuals does nothing to our society and nothing to individuals who are straight. If we wanted to address social ills in the context of marriage law, we should look at the tidal wave of single motherhood and the horrible outcomes for their children, rather than attacking gay marriage.
Gay marriage cannot be opposed reasonably on sexual, developmental, moral or legal grounds.
Ted
Homosexuality is universal among primates and almost all mammals. Homosexuality as a label, however, is relatively recent. Romans and Greeks slept with any partner they chose without being labeled. The issue of masculinity was not tied to choice of partner but to whether the man was receptive or insertive during anal intercourse. Being the insertive partner was a mark of substantial masculinity, the assumption being that any man who could achieve an erection when interacting with another man must be powerfully masculine. Our culture clearly sees homosexuality as unmasculine (or unfeminine for lesbians), and as a label applied to things defective, dishonorable and inappropriate.
But homosexuality is none of these things. I have known and know many gay men. They are honorable, decent people. They are not pederasts. Their sexuality is not threatening. One of the very most interesting discussions I have ever had was with a now-deceased gay man about the nature of masculinity. The recent open declaration by an NBA player of being gay forces society to understand homosexuality in sexual rather than sex stereotype ways.
There is very strong evidence that homosexuality is simply part of the person's psycho-sexual construction. I have interacted with some severely traumatized women who can only have sex with women, as they find men very threatening or upsetting. This fact, however, has nothing to do with the large majority of homosexuals, who can tell you they have been gay since they were children. Society's disapproval leads to much suppression, so that we have too many stories of gay men and women coming out within straight marriages, or after fathering or bearing children. These results are not a matter of 'choosing' to be gay, but of suppression of natural desire to conform to social norms. In this respect it is no different than left handed people being forced to write right handed. Homosexuality is innate, not learned, not chosen. This is easily understood if a straight person asks him/herself 'when did I first choose to be straight?'.
Marriage is a complex social phenomenon. Most fundamentally it is a structure within which to protect children and transfer property. A look at 'The Family, Sex and Marriage' gives an excellent picture of the evolution of marriage from a dynastic, property-based event to a personal union based in interest, affection and attraction. Once we allow that marriage is companionate, to use that book's word, it is immediately reasonable to ask why it should not occur between any two people. Marriage as a structure for raising children is important (essential, in my opinion, but that is another matter), but it certainly is no longer the only function of marriage. Marriage is unequivocally companionate in nature.
Marriage has long been recognized in religious ceremony and by the state. For many years these two were literally identical, the state-sponsored religion conforming to the government, and the government receiving the endorsement and blessing of its state-sponsored religion. With this incestuous and government and religion distorting relationship severed, the confluence of religion and society demands that society respect religion, and that religion reflect the needs and circumstances of the times. There is obvious disconnect here. Society does not respect religion any more, and religion does not address the needs of the times.
The resulting disconnect leads to a wide gap between religious and societal 'law'. Abortion law is one example of this. Homosexual marriage is another. Many churches continue to condemn homosexuality, based in Leviticus. But society is looking at homosexuality differently. and here the miscegenation analogy is apt. At one time the idea of a black and white person marrying was revolting and illegal. Now we think nothing of it. Two of my partners are in mixed race marriages, and none of the faculty, residents or staff think it is wrong or peculiar. They love each other.
The overturning of miscegenation was based in equal treatment under law, as guaranteed by our Constitution. That guarantee exists not to protect or enforce the values of the majority but to protect the values of minorities of all types. In our nation no one is treated differently because of race or religion. Or sex and gender role. There is thus no constitutional basis to restrict gay marriage. If the state recognizes straight marriage and inter-racial marriage, on what basis does it fail to allow marriage between any two persons? I can't find one, and thus I feel it should be legal.
To assert that homosexuality is immoral, or a sin, or punishable by death, is to assert personal values over legal ones, to assert personal religion over others. And that is patently illegal. The marriage of two homosexuals does nothing to our society and nothing to individuals who are straight. If we wanted to address social ills in the context of marriage law, we should look at the tidal wave of single motherhood and the horrible outcomes for their children, rather than attacking gay marriage.
Gay marriage cannot be opposed reasonably on sexual, developmental, moral or legal grounds.
Ted
"Marriage has long been recognized in religious ceremony and by the state. For many years these two were literally identical, the state-sponsored religion conforming to the government, and the government receiving the endorsement and blessing of its state-sponsored religion."
ReplyDeleteIn general, this is true, though historically this has been quite variable. Pages 30ff in "The Family, Sex, and Marriage" points out some of the many examples of disconnection between church and state on marriage. For example, "Up to the eleventh century, casual polygamy seems to have been general, with easy divorce and much concubinage. The result was many bastards and many half-siblings, who acted as a reserve for inheritance if the official male heir failed. As late as 1020, the Northumbrian Priests' Law still found it necessary to insist that 'we forbid that any man should have more wives than one; and she is to be lawfully betrothed and wedded'. Pagan Anglo-Saxon society was clearly very casual about the solemn contract of marriage."
Even into the Renaissance, British church courts and civil courts had differences of opinion with respect to the legitimacy of marriages. Civil courts - which controlled property - only recognized church weddings as valid. Paradoxically, church courts had been obliged in the twelfth century to recognize a binding contract as legitimate, even without a church wedding. Thus a couple with a binding per verba de praesenti contract, for example, would be married in the eyes of the church...but not in the eyes of the law.
In other cases, such as marriages performed at night, in secular places like inns or private houses, or in towns remote from place of residence, the marriage would be declared illegal, yet at the same time valid and binding for life. As Lawrence Stone puts it, "This was a paradox the laity found hard to understand."
The disconnect between state and religion therefore appears to have been something that happened off-and-on throughout history (or at least British history).
-D-