Well, I see that one of our Michigan Republicans is at it again. He posted a very offensive post about gays based on outdated research on his Facebook page and now everyone is howling for his blood. Could it be that this guy is a secret Democrat out to undermine the party? Nope, the Reps don't need to be infiltrated, they're doing a pretty good job of shooting themselves in the feet. If they keep it up the GOP will be extinct within a few decades. Demographics, folks, demographics. As Dylan said 50 years ago the times they are a changing and you'd better get out of the road.
Meanwhile the US Supreme Court is looking at gay marriage. One of our Representatives (or is it Senator, I really don't keep up with these things as well as I ought), anyway, Justin Amash has raised some hackles because he is questioning the whole premise of whether the Federal Government ought to be involved in marriage in the first place. He says it is a States Rights issue. Well, States Rights is a term that doesn't sit too well with some folks who have long memories of how it was used against them because of their skin color. Still I think Amash does have a point.
The question is, what is marriage? Is it a private contract between two individuals? Or is it something more? It is true that some form of heterosexual marriage has been found in all human cultures through all ages from the least advanced to the most, whereas gay marriage is something quite new historically. It seems to me that marriage traditionally has been about two things--raising children and political/material advantages. Love entered into it quite late. In many cases marriages were arranged, often when the two were just children. And speaking as a woman, quite often women got the short end of the deal. They pretty much had to marry for economic reasons and when they did they legally ceased to exist. The legal term I believe is couverture and it means that for all public and legal purposes it was the MAN who counted. Another term I believe is called "legal death." Think of that the next time you hear someone say "the two become one." Yes, they did--at the expense of one half of the couple. It was not until the rise of the feminist movement in the 19th century that this began to change for women in the West. In many other areas of the world this hasn't changed at all.
Thank God we don't think of marriage here in the West like that at all anymore. But our marriage laws are somewhat obsolete in that they were written at a time when women stayed home and men were the breadwinners. At one time it made sense to give married couples additional benefits. But this discriminates against singles like myself. I cannot inherit my siblings' social security nor can I pass on my social security benefits to them. But if I were married I could inherit my husband's social security. There are also other benefits as well that are denied me because of my marital status. I get taxed at a much higher rate and I cannot take as many deductions. So it is not surprising that a good deal of the debate over gay marriage revolves around benefits.
Socially, married people have a much higher status than single people but it is a precarious status. For some reason they feel threatened that they could lose that status. I remember being repeatedly told as a teen that only low-class, white trash people (people of color weren't mentioned, but it was implied that they were lumped together with the W.T.) lived together outside of marriage and that the ultimate white trash act was to have a child out of wedlock. Premarital virginity (for girls) was a sign of class. The sexual revolution was just as threatening as the idea of gay marriage and for much the same reasons. Nobody stops to ask, why are married people so insecure about their institution?
I have heard that the government got into the marriage business primarily to prevent interracial marriages which were still illegal in many states when I was a child. I remember how shocking it was to see interracial couples. Now it's no big deal. The first time I saw a gay couple together that was shocking too. Now that I've gotten to know a few gay people I see that they are people just like anyone else and if Susie and Sally want to live together in a lifelong covenant, why shouldn't they?
What I think should happen is this: there should be several categories of civil marriage instead of the current one-size-fits-all definition. Let churches make up their own rules for their own members only. By the way, can anyone show me anywhere in the Bible where it is mandated that you MUST stand before a preacher or a priest and recite vows to be married? The Bible talks a lot about marriage but doesn't say anything about what makes a couple married--or not. I haven't even talked about annulment which is a whole 'nother can of worms--the idea that someone can say that a marriage never existed whether it was 30 minutes or 30 years.
This marriage debate is going to be interesting. I don't know how the Supreme Court is going to rule, but I have a feeling that both sides may not be very happy. Which is what Justin Amash is getting at, I think. Either you abolish marriage and its privileges or you open it up for all regardless of sexual orientation. And, if you are going to limit marriage to one man and one woman, then you open up another issue that nobody seems to have thought about either and that is the definition of man and woman. How do you determine who is who? Will prospective couples have to undergo chromosome tests to make sure one of them has a Y and the other doesn't? See, right now, they don't make people do that. A man who transgenders to a woman can legally marry a man even though biologically they are the same sex. Will those kinds of marriages become illegal?
Oh, yes, this could get very interesting indeed. I'm glad I'm single. At least my status isn't in doubt.
Meanwhile the US Supreme Court is looking at gay marriage. One of our Representatives (or is it Senator, I really don't keep up with these things as well as I ought), anyway, Justin Amash has raised some hackles because he is questioning the whole premise of whether the Federal Government ought to be involved in marriage in the first place. He says it is a States Rights issue. Well, States Rights is a term that doesn't sit too well with some folks who have long memories of how it was used against them because of their skin color. Still I think Amash does have a point.
The question is, what is marriage? Is it a private contract between two individuals? Or is it something more? It is true that some form of heterosexual marriage has been found in all human cultures through all ages from the least advanced to the most, whereas gay marriage is something quite new historically. It seems to me that marriage traditionally has been about two things--raising children and political/material advantages. Love entered into it quite late. In many cases marriages were arranged, often when the two were just children. And speaking as a woman, quite often women got the short end of the deal. They pretty much had to marry for economic reasons and when they did they legally ceased to exist. The legal term I believe is couverture and it means that for all public and legal purposes it was the MAN who counted. Another term I believe is called "legal death." Think of that the next time you hear someone say "the two become one." Yes, they did--at the expense of one half of the couple. It was not until the rise of the feminist movement in the 19th century that this began to change for women in the West. In many other areas of the world this hasn't changed at all.
Thank God we don't think of marriage here in the West like that at all anymore. But our marriage laws are somewhat obsolete in that they were written at a time when women stayed home and men were the breadwinners. At one time it made sense to give married couples additional benefits. But this discriminates against singles like myself. I cannot inherit my siblings' social security nor can I pass on my social security benefits to them. But if I were married I could inherit my husband's social security. There are also other benefits as well that are denied me because of my marital status. I get taxed at a much higher rate and I cannot take as many deductions. So it is not surprising that a good deal of the debate over gay marriage revolves around benefits.
Socially, married people have a much higher status than single people but it is a precarious status. For some reason they feel threatened that they could lose that status. I remember being repeatedly told as a teen that only low-class, white trash people (people of color weren't mentioned, but it was implied that they were lumped together with the W.T.) lived together outside of marriage and that the ultimate white trash act was to have a child out of wedlock. Premarital virginity (for girls) was a sign of class. The sexual revolution was just as threatening as the idea of gay marriage and for much the same reasons. Nobody stops to ask, why are married people so insecure about their institution?
I have heard that the government got into the marriage business primarily to prevent interracial marriages which were still illegal in many states when I was a child. I remember how shocking it was to see interracial couples. Now it's no big deal. The first time I saw a gay couple together that was shocking too. Now that I've gotten to know a few gay people I see that they are people just like anyone else and if Susie and Sally want to live together in a lifelong covenant, why shouldn't they?
What I think should happen is this: there should be several categories of civil marriage instead of the current one-size-fits-all definition. Let churches make up their own rules for their own members only. By the way, can anyone show me anywhere in the Bible where it is mandated that you MUST stand before a preacher or a priest and recite vows to be married? The Bible talks a lot about marriage but doesn't say anything about what makes a couple married--or not. I haven't even talked about annulment which is a whole 'nother can of worms--the idea that someone can say that a marriage never existed whether it was 30 minutes or 30 years.
This marriage debate is going to be interesting. I don't know how the Supreme Court is going to rule, but I have a feeling that both sides may not be very happy. Which is what Justin Amash is getting at, I think. Either you abolish marriage and its privileges or you open it up for all regardless of sexual orientation. And, if you are going to limit marriage to one man and one woman, then you open up another issue that nobody seems to have thought about either and that is the definition of man and woman. How do you determine who is who? Will prospective couples have to undergo chromosome tests to make sure one of them has a Y and the other doesn't? See, right now, they don't make people do that. A man who transgenders to a woman can legally marry a man even though biologically they are the same sex. Will those kinds of marriages become illegal?
Oh, yes, this could get very interesting indeed. I'm glad I'm single. At least my status isn't in doubt.
