Institution of marriage evolves with society

By: Jamie Thomson

Posted: 7/11/08

In his June 27 letter to the editor, Lux Gurusamy wrote: "Marriage is not just a religious symbol or social status or even a spiritual status. It is an identity. It is an identity that has been present ever since time began. … Our ancestors, who were relatively smarter than us, never fooled with that identity."
Marriage has certainly been around for thousands of years, but to claim that it has remained a static, pure institution for all of that time is not to see its true nature. Throughout history, every society has had a slightly different take on marriage, and every religion's definition has been tweaked as society has evolved.
Christian theologian Saint Augustine, in his treatise "On The Good of Marriage," recognized that the rules of marriage changed with the times; he observed that polygamy and other practices that were falling out of favor by the fifth century had previously been appropriate when there was a need to grow the human race, and religious and civil authorities had adapted as such. In Islam, while polygamy is not generally encouraged, it has been practiced in certain situations, especially following times of war when widows and orphans would otherwise be left helpless. More than anything, marriage is a mechanism of society. It has, and continues to have, countless facets: obtaining financial security, seizing power, legitimizing sexual relations, expressing love, procreation, maintaining the royal line or the family name and much more. None of these are wrong, and none defile "marriage" as an ideal; the meaning and execution of the institution of marriage springs from whatever motives society currently endorses.
The United States has seen marriage evolve with our national values. Prior to 1967, the divisive force of racism kept interracial marriage bans in place in many states until the Supreme Court finally ruled such laws unconstitutional.
Before the women's rights movement, wives were largely seen as subordinate to their husbands; but as women gained legal and financial independence, the face of American marriage changed to include an ethic of equality, as well as the possibility for a woman to live a successful life without marrying.
The concept of marrying for "love" or "romance" is fairly modern, having not been particularly prevalent until medieval times, and has become one of the primary motives for marriage in American culture, likely stemming from the value we place on freedom of choice. Arranged marriages are far less prevalent in modern America than in any other country or time in the past.
Society continues to change,
and the institution of marriage must change with it. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are no less human than any heterosexual, and society is finally beginning to accept them as such. They are no less entitled to those "certain unalienable rights" than any other citizen, American or otherwise. They think, feel and love no less than anyone else, and they contribute just as much to society. Why should they be forced to settle for less when it comes to marriage?
History has shown us that "separate is not equal," and the laws of today reflect this. Civil unions, if they are even offered in a given state, are not always recognized outside the originating state. They do not permit couples to file jointly their federal income taxes like a married couple, and they are plagued with inequalities when it comes to health care decisions, hospital visitation, social security and veteran death benefits, rights to divorce and rights to inheritance. Civil unions are by definition not marriage, and nothing less than marriage is acceptable for true equality.
Claims that allowing gays to marry will "corrupt" marriage are simply ridiculous. The civil meaning of marriage does not impact the meaning of Christian marriage any more than the meaning of Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or any other form of marriage; likewise, the values of religion certainly feed into society's definition, but in America they do not dictate the law.
Allowing people of the same sex to marry no more devalues the "institution of marriage" than couples who choose not to have children, couples who have arranged marriages, or families with healthy polygamist relationships.
It in no way means that we will have to allow polygamy or bestiality or any number of things, unless they, too, become socially acceptable lifestyles. The only thing legalization of homosexual marriage will destroy is an outdated, discriminatory social standard.
When I first became aware of this issue back in 2004, Stephen Medvic, at that time an assistant professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College, put it best in a letter to the Lancaster Sunday News: "We've decided that liberty trumps order unless freedom gives rise to great potential harm. But no such harm exists in allowing two people of the same sex to marry."
Four years later, California and Massachusetts are making progress towards equal marriage rights for all. When will the rest of America follow suit?