MARRIAGE AS IT IS IN THE WORLD: THE PLACE OF HUMAN VALIDATION IN MARRIAGE COVENANTS

Commentators on The Diane Rehm Show  (National Public Radio WAMU) discussed on 11 July the subject of same-gender marriage and the states.   During the course of it, a caller asked a question that sounded rather like a set up, but it received the sort of response the proponents of same gender marriage might have wanted.    The question was what danger does same gender marriage pose to one-man/one-woman marriage vs the risks of childless marriages on traditional marriage.   Thomas Peters, opponent of same gender marriage, replied this way –

“Not every couple will choose or can  have a child.  Every child, however, has a biological mother and a father   What same sex marriage does is tell the culture that mothers and fathers are  interchangeable and disposable.   Every child comes from a mother and a father.   The reason why governments care about marriage in the first place is that it is the only institution that gives children a chance at a sustained relationship with their biological origins.   If you change the laws for any one, you change the laws for everyone.  This debate is about re-definitions.  If we say that marriage is no longer about what is in the best interests of children, no longer primarily about their needs and how they do best, and is primarily about the desires of adults to be validated, we change the public purpose of marriage.  This is why cultures need marriage, for  tying mothers and fathers to their children as we know all too well is a difficult task.  It’s amazing to me that President Obama, in his good advocacy for more good fathers can endorse redefining marriage and say that two mothers are just as good as one father.   Gay people can be great mothers and fathers . . .  Independently.  However, a man cannot be a good mother or a female cannot be a good father.  It’s a definition worth fighting for.”

THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION

To start with, let me restate a couple of points that I have written before on the official record.

Marriage is a four way covenant between

1the man

2 the woman

3   God and or the culture in which they live

4 children, who have a right to both a male and female parent. 

The family can best be defined as a legal covenant between

1 the woman

2 the man

3 God and or the culture in which they live

and their children who have a right to both a male and female parent. 

In other words definitions of both family and marriage basically are the same.   However, over the centuries people have written laws and definitions to carefully keep the two concepts in separate columns. 

That stipulated, this essay will discuss the disingenuousness of opponents of same sex marriage when they accuse those who practice and advocate same sex marriage of damaging the institution of marriage.   The damage is done.

Heterosexuals seriously and irrevocably damaged marriage as an institution a long time ago,    Peter’s observations illustrate some of the damage.

Peter’s observation: “Not every couple will choose or can  have a child.” 

My observation.    The couples who cannot conceive and use adoption as a method of creating a family have for ages illustrated that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.  Furthermore, for years courts have declared it is better for a child to have two male parents or two female parents instead of no parents.    In 1965, as an aside – the sitcom My Three Sons created an adoption for a new boy character in which the widower father figure (portrayed by Fred MacMurray) got listed as the new legal father and the brother of his late wife’s father (portrayed by William Demerest) got listed as the new legal mother figure.   The judge called this a “legal fiction.”  In practice there was nothing fictitious about this. 

Peter’s observation:  “What same sex marriage does is tell the culture that mothers and fathers are  interchangeable and disposable.”  

My observation:   The traditions of heterosexual divorce and remarriage only emphasize that parents and their partners are interchangeable and disposable in heterosexual marriage. 

Furthermore, when a spouse dies and the other spouse remarries, it tends to emphasize the interchangeable nature of parent parts. 

Peter’s accusation:   “If we say that marriage is no longer about what is in the best interests of children [and is] primarily about the desires of adults to be validated, we change the public purpose of marriage.”

My observation:   this point is so ludicrous that it is hard to even write about it with a straight face.   As far back as we can go into history, marriage has been and is about adult validation, particularly rich and or powerful men / king figures / ruler figures acquiring the prettiest or the smartest or the wealthiest women to marry them or live with them to prove everybody’s worth as humans.  For far too long, people used culture to deliberately separate the aspect of children and child raising from the aspects of power / validation / sexual fulfillment in the traditions of marriage.   It is way too late in human cultural devolution for the opponents of same sex marriage to use this point as a reason not to allow same gender marriage.  

   
THE CALL FOR ACTION

I make my call for action realizing well enough that we will have to overcome some cultural taboos biases and hypocrisies in American culture.   As an example of all three, look at the introduction to Official Declaration 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which says “The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30).”   The question implied in this statement are

 how often did God really and truly declare otherwise?

and why is it that so many cultures deliberately do otherwise?   

 Wikipedia’s summary article on polygamy, preserved on 20 August 2013, states the facts this way:

“Polygamy exists in three specific forms:

polygyny -- wherein a man has multiple simultaneous wives;[Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, s.v. 'polygyny']
polyandry -- wherein a woman has multiple simultaneous husbands;
or group marriage - wherein the family unit consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives.

“Ambiguity arises when the broad term "polygamy" is used when a specific form of polygamy is being referred to. Additionally, different countries may or may not include all forms in their laws on polygamy.

“In the global context, polygamy is by far the dominant form of marriage. According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[Ethnographic Atlas Codebook derived from George P. Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas recording the marital composition of 1231 societies from 1960 to 1980]”

Of those 186 monogamous cultures, many of them accept if not encourage powerful men to have both a wife, and male friendship and mistresses.   In other words, the cultures encourage the multiple loyalties, without the legal frameworks.


THEREFORE

If we want children to have the benefits of both male and female parents, and if we want adults to have the right of validation to marry a person or persons that they want from a power and sexual desire point of view, then it is time for us to accept the concept of group marriage, particularly among those with same gender sexual attraction or bisexual gender attraction.   Cultures do not want to encourage the collecting of multiple trophies spouses, which is what has given polygamy a bad reputation from the beginning.    However, if we allow two same gender couples to marry each other,, then we should be willing to allow two couples to marry each other for the sake of their children for the sake of children having both male and female parent role models.   It would require tolerance of double couples, of course, and that is easier written about than done.   It would also require the willingness of those couples not to allow jealousy to overcome the fact that both men and women have important things to contribute in the teaching and rearing of children.

The controversy over same-gender marriage demonstrates a collision of two good things -- advanced human rights and advanced children's rights.    The law will have to be creative to accommodate both