To the Editor:
In considering the November ballot initiative there seems to be confusion regarding “traditional marriage” and its meaning.
Throughout millennia “traditional marriage” was between one man and as many women as he could persuade, bargain for, or take by force. Marriage has traditionally been a business deal, or part of a peace treaty between clans or counties, with women as the bargaining chip. Vast numbers of marriages still today are “arranged.”
In ancient royal families, to maintain “pure blood,” males married siblings and/or close cousins; the later would include the royal families of Europe. Also, polygamy in many forms has been much more prevalent in world tradition than the nuclear family. There were/are even a few cultures that permit women to take several husbands.
Old Testament patriarchs were replete with several wives and what the Bible gently calls “concubines.” (Other men were made eunuchs to guard the harems.) In ancient Hebrew tradition a man was required to marry his sister-in-law, even if he was married already, if her husband died. Islamic tradition allows four wives to a man if he can support them. (Muslims, like Christians and Jews, are “People of the Book.”)
As for books, there’s an interesting one “traditionalists” might want to look into, by the late Yale historian John Boswell, which explores circumstances under which the Church did not always oppose “non-traditional” marriage, “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe” (Vintage Books, 1995), which is heavily footnoted and sourced.
As for “civil unions,” the once-Soviet countries and China abolished churches for decades, so all marriages were, and usually still are, “civil unions,” performed by government officials. Couples in the U.S. commonly choose a courthouse wedding, or even (in Maine) one by a notary public, a sea captain, or a Las Vegas ceremony conducted by “Elvis.”
Throughout the world many cultures affirm marriages simply by the agreement of the community. Ceremonies are as diverse as cultures, and most seem to require quantities of alcohol. Are these people less married than if by clergy? Do they have fewer rights?
Recent beliefs about “traditional marriage” represent a very narrow piece of historical time and a particular culture’s idea. Despite our official morals in the U.S., we are not surprised when high income, high profile married men are caught in liaisons with either women or men. Lower income transgressors end up on courtroom, “reality,” or tabloid TV shows for 15 minutes of fame. It’s the accepted norm in many societies, including ours apparently.
The end product of our culture’s traditional marriage has been the “nuclear family,” – a term that of itself seems to imply a destructive explosion. The number of two-parent, never-divorced families raising children has been in decline for many years, becoming a statistical minority.
Cultural change has quickly dismantled the older, “extended family.” Societal changes are inevitable. Societies that don’t change remain centuries behind while the rest move on, sometimes trying to create a world that never was.
We have seen women working (farm women and the poor always did) or in the military, children being removed from factories thereby necessitating the creation of public schools, civil rights legislation, Medicare/Society Security, job outsourcing, computers, the Internet. All of these had their share of ferocious opposition when first proposed. A much longer list of social changes could be made.
It takes a few generations’ passing to gain acceptance of change, or to realize that our perceptions of what was always done (tolerance of drunk driving or spouse abuse) were not necessarily correct.
There is no growth without change or risk; no strength without flexibility. Accepting change is much easier when operating from a position of historical fact and present reality. Only time can tell us if we made the right decision.
Lynne Norris, Newcastle
