Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Who can define "marriage"? (a debate)
Can any government define "marriage"?
Read these two views, then add your own comments.
Read these two views, then add your own comments.
WHAT DOES "MARRIAGE" MEAN? WHO DEFINES THIS TERM?
Here's a debate from SaveFreedom Yahoogroup.
RobGood writes that "marriage" arose thru "custom, as reflected in common law"; NOT thru government or religion; and so no government can rightly alter its definition, neither judicially nor legislatively.
Liberty argues that the definition of "marriage" varies from one culture to another; but that "valid civil marriage" (as contrasted with "religious marriage", or other concepts) is indeed defined by governments.
......
--- In SaveFreedom [at] yahoogroups.com,
"robgood3" ... wrote:
[....] Briefly put, I'm against
legalizing same-sex marriage, though I'm also against the
Constitutional amendments I've seen proposed on the subject.
Marriage is an institution which did not come about thru gov't or
religion, although both gov'ts & religions have recognized it.
Marriage arose indpendently thru custom, as reflected in common law.
Therefore whether someone is "married" or a "spouse" or words to
that effect is a question of fact, to be decided by the customary,
dictionary definition of the terms.
Standard dictionary definitions specify that the spouses are of opposite sexes, therefore "same-sex marriage" does not exist, period.
If thru the operation of custom it eventually (maybe over millenia) becomes customary for persons of the same sex to marry, the dictionary will reflect that, as it reflects customary usage.
What no gov't made (marriage), no state edict, either judicial or
legislative, can rightly alter. The terms of marriage are not a
creature of gov't.
Why does this matter? It's not because of anything that goes on
between the members of the couple (or larger grouping). Rather,
it's because the words "married", "spouse", etc. exist in legal
documents (or documents having legal force) expressed by 3rd
parties. Example: "Free Parking for Members & Spouses". Trying to
alter the meaning of the word thru judicial or legislative fiat
would change the terms of existing contracts without the consent of
all parties.
Because marriage is not a creature of gov't, I don't want to see its
terms specified in a Constitutional amendment. However, what I
would go for would be something like the following
amendment: "Neither Congress nor any jurisdiction within the United
States shall impose a new meaning on a word in existing legal
documents, other than terms of art in their own legislation."
It is also true that while recognizing marriage, gov'ts have regulated or limited it, and attached all sorts of legal baggage in the form of divorce law. People would be much better off starting from scratch and forming custom partnerships based on their own terms and not bound by domestic relations laws.
robgood
..................
[REPLY BY LIBERTY:]
Dear freedom-savers, [ SaveFreedom [at] yahoogroups.com ]
(1) At the risk of over-simplifying Robgood's argument, he seems to be saying that the meaning of the word "marriage" is customary and historic; and that the word's meaning is best revealed by dictionaries, rather than by courts, legislatures, etc. [...]
[2] "Morality", the saying goes, "varies with geography".
Likewise, the dictionary definition of "marriage" will vary by country, by religion, by historical time, etc.
[3] Yes, Rob, in conservative Mississippi, "marriage" still means "one man with one woman".
(4) But in conservative Utah, there is on-going controversy -- from the 19th century and into the 21st -- over whether "marriage" might or should or does ALSO include "one man with two or more women".
(5) And in conservative Saudi Arabia, "marriage" (or the equivalent Arabic word) clearly means "one man plus one woman, OR plus two women, OR plus three women, OR plus four women".
[...]
(6) Defining "marriage" gets even more difficult when you look in a dictionary of sociology or anthropology.
You'll soon realize that defining "marriage", to the saisfaction of all literate persons, anywhere in the world, isn't possible....
(7) "Marriage" is an overly broad term, anyway. It includes many narrower terms, such as
"legal marriage",
"illegal marriage",
"civil marriage",
"religious marriage" (AKA "holy matrimony"),
"common-law marriage",
"licensed marriage",
"valid marriage",
"invalid marriage",
"customary marriage" (usually among tribal folks),
etc, etc.....
(8) Each religious denomination decides, for itself, what sorts of "religious marriage" it will recognize as valid. And denominations can and do change their views, sometimes abruptly. The main Mormon denomination changed its official view in a big hurry, in order to get Utah admitted to the union of states.
(9) For the current discussion, the relevant term isn't "marriage" in general.
The relevant terms are "LEGAL marriage", and "CIVIL marriage".
And these, in 21st-century USA, are defined by laws.
(9A) (Yes, even "common law marriage" NOW is defined by the laws of each state. That's why some states allow a marriage to be formed by this process, while others don't. You cannot form such a marriage while living inside California; but if you formed sich a marriage in some other state, then you move to California, you can get a divorce in a California court. Tricky, isn't it? And it's probably even more complicated than that!)
(10) No US state can re-define the anthropological meaning of "marriage"; and none can tell Muslims or Catholics or Quakers how to define that term.
But each state is entltled to define "valid civil marriage". (And they don't agree. Marriage between first cousins is legally valid in some states, but not in others -- today. ) [....]
Tortuga Bi LIBERTY
12 March 2004
............
AND NOW IT'S YOUR TURN....
Express your views on IndyBay.org, as comments on this article!!
Here's a debate from SaveFreedom Yahoogroup.
RobGood writes that "marriage" arose thru "custom, as reflected in common law"; NOT thru government or religion; and so no government can rightly alter its definition, neither judicially nor legislatively.
Liberty argues that the definition of "marriage" varies from one culture to another; but that "valid civil marriage" (as contrasted with "religious marriage", or other concepts) is indeed defined by governments.
......
--- In SaveFreedom [at] yahoogroups.com,
"robgood3" ... wrote:
[....] Briefly put, I'm against
legalizing same-sex marriage, though I'm also against the
Constitutional amendments I've seen proposed on the subject.
Marriage is an institution which did not come about thru gov't or
religion, although both gov'ts & religions have recognized it.
Marriage arose indpendently thru custom, as reflected in common law.
Therefore whether someone is "married" or a "spouse" or words to
that effect is a question of fact, to be decided by the customary,
dictionary definition of the terms.
Standard dictionary definitions specify that the spouses are of opposite sexes, therefore "same-sex marriage" does not exist, period.
If thru the operation of custom it eventually (maybe over millenia) becomes customary for persons of the same sex to marry, the dictionary will reflect that, as it reflects customary usage.
What no gov't made (marriage), no state edict, either judicial or
legislative, can rightly alter. The terms of marriage are not a
creature of gov't.
Why does this matter? It's not because of anything that goes on
between the members of the couple (or larger grouping). Rather,
it's because the words "married", "spouse", etc. exist in legal
documents (or documents having legal force) expressed by 3rd
parties. Example: "Free Parking for Members & Spouses". Trying to
alter the meaning of the word thru judicial or legislative fiat
would change the terms of existing contracts without the consent of
all parties.
Because marriage is not a creature of gov't, I don't want to see its
terms specified in a Constitutional amendment. However, what I
would go for would be something like the following
amendment: "Neither Congress nor any jurisdiction within the United
States shall impose a new meaning on a word in existing legal
documents, other than terms of art in their own legislation."
It is also true that while recognizing marriage, gov'ts have regulated or limited it, and attached all sorts of legal baggage in the form of divorce law. People would be much better off starting from scratch and forming custom partnerships based on their own terms and not bound by domestic relations laws.
robgood
..................
[REPLY BY LIBERTY:]
Dear freedom-savers, [ SaveFreedom [at] yahoogroups.com ]
(1) At the risk of over-simplifying Robgood's argument, he seems to be saying that the meaning of the word "marriage" is customary and historic; and that the word's meaning is best revealed by dictionaries, rather than by courts, legislatures, etc. [...]
[2] "Morality", the saying goes, "varies with geography".
Likewise, the dictionary definition of "marriage" will vary by country, by religion, by historical time, etc.
[3] Yes, Rob, in conservative Mississippi, "marriage" still means "one man with one woman".
(4) But in conservative Utah, there is on-going controversy -- from the 19th century and into the 21st -- over whether "marriage" might or should or does ALSO include "one man with two or more women".
(5) And in conservative Saudi Arabia, "marriage" (or the equivalent Arabic word) clearly means "one man plus one woman, OR plus two women, OR plus three women, OR plus four women".
[...]
(6) Defining "marriage" gets even more difficult when you look in a dictionary of sociology or anthropology.
You'll soon realize that defining "marriage", to the saisfaction of all literate persons, anywhere in the world, isn't possible....
(7) "Marriage" is an overly broad term, anyway. It includes many narrower terms, such as
"legal marriage",
"illegal marriage",
"civil marriage",
"religious marriage" (AKA "holy matrimony"),
"common-law marriage",
"licensed marriage",
"valid marriage",
"invalid marriage",
"customary marriage" (usually among tribal folks),
etc, etc.....
(8) Each religious denomination decides, for itself, what sorts of "religious marriage" it will recognize as valid. And denominations can and do change their views, sometimes abruptly. The main Mormon denomination changed its official view in a big hurry, in order to get Utah admitted to the union of states.
(9) For the current discussion, the relevant term isn't "marriage" in general.
The relevant terms are "LEGAL marriage", and "CIVIL marriage".
And these, in 21st-century USA, are defined by laws.
(9A) (Yes, even "common law marriage" NOW is defined by the laws of each state. That's why some states allow a marriage to be formed by this process, while others don't. You cannot form such a marriage while living inside California; but if you formed sich a marriage in some other state, then you move to California, you can get a divorce in a California court. Tricky, isn't it? And it's probably even more complicated than that!)
(10) No US state can re-define the anthropological meaning of "marriage"; and none can tell Muslims or Catholics or Quakers how to define that term.
But each state is entltled to define "valid civil marriage". (And they don't agree. Marriage between first cousins is legally valid in some states, but not in others -- today. ) [....]
Tortuga Bi LIBERTY
12 March 2004
............
AND NOW IT'S YOUR TURN....
Express your views on IndyBay.org, as comments on this article!!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Marriage and love have nothing in common; they are as far apart as the poles; are, in fact, antagonistic to each other. No doubt some marriages have been the result of love. Not, however, because love could assert itself only in marriage; much rather is it because few people can completely outgrow a convention. There are today large numbers of men and women to whom marriage is naught but a farce, but who submit to it for the sake of public opinion. At any rate, while it is true that some marriages are based on love, and while it is equally true that in some cases love continues in married life, I maintain that it does so regardless of marriage, and not because of it. "
full essay at:
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_eg_anb_marriage_love.htm
The social function of the institution of marriage is threefold: economic, political and social. It is identical with that of the authoritarian family.
Economic: Just as marriage, in human history, began to develop with the private ownership of the social means of production, so it continues to have its reason for existence in this economic basis. [...] The objection that classes without such an economic interest live in the same form of sex life is erroneous, for the ruling ideologies are those of the ruling class; the form of marriage is not only based on economic factors, but also on the ideological moral atmosphere and on human structure. This is why most people are unconscious of the real basis of marriage; they always think about it in terms of ideological rationalizations. [...]
Political: Monogamous lifelong marriage is the nucleus of the compulsive family; this in turn, as we have shown, is the ideological training ground for every member of authoritarian society. In this lies the political significance and importance of marriage.
Social: The economic dependance of the woman and the children is a chief characteristic of patriarchal society. Secondarily, marriage thus becomes an economic and moral (in the sense of patriarchal interests) protection for women and children. __Consequently, patriarchal and authoritarian society must of necessity uphold compulsive marriage.__ [emphasis in original.] It is not a question here of whether marriage is good or bad, whether it is socially justified and necessary. One cannot want to abolish marriage in a society in which marriage is economically rooted. One can only introduce minor "reforms," such as substituting the principle of incompatability for that of guilt as a reason for divorce; no such reforms change the fundamentals in the least."
from "The Sexual Revolution" by Wilhelm Reich, pages 131-132. New York; Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 4th edition introduction by Reich dated 1949. Translated from the German by Theodore P. Wolfe.
Or perhaps reforms like gay marriage?