Dear Jurisprudence . ..

I feel like such an old fuddy duddy (full disclosure, i'm 32).

Even though I'm no longer religious (lapsed jew), I'd always held the notion that marriage is a religious ceremony involving one man and one woman.

I'm not aware of any religions, before the last decade, getting in the business of sanctioning any other kind of marriage. In all of history there are no records of christian, islamic, jewish, buddhist, hindu, norse, or any other well followed religion cooking up a ceremony for when 2 guys (or girls) want to share a household together.

In fact, those religions, for the most part, condemned you to hell for that notion, and in some cases tried to send you there posthaste through stoning, hanging, burning at the stake, etc.

I'm not in favor of returning to those times, but the notion that gay marriages have a strong historical precedent appears unsubstantiated by actual history. Even the ancient romans, who enjoyed every kind of sexual union imagineable, seemed to sanction only the heterosexual kind of marriage.

Not so with plural marriages, however. Many religions (most) seem not only to accept, but actually endorse the notion of 1 man accumlating a herd of as many females as he can marriage, like a buck elk, mustang stallion, or beachmaster walrus.

(sidebar note . . . these were apparently all relgions where the rules were written by men, i believe)

so my question is . .. if there's scant historical support of Adam and Steve exchanging rings, but plenty of support for Adam and Eve/Eva/Yvette/Evalyn/Etc, why is our goverment so keen to press ahead and put the imprimateur on gay unions . . . ?

I believe any proposed legislation on gay marriages, just to be balanced, ought to include "rider" legislation (pun alert) which also grant legal status to polygamy and polyandry.

Since these plural marriages are "sanctioned by god", i honestly think it would be the best route. Let's make it (the new legislation) a constitutional amendment, and hold hearings in the various states for ratification - and let the public join in the debate. How do we, as a nation, feel about (re)legalizing plural marriages, in addition to newly legalizing gay marriages, in one gulp?

betcha the advocates of gay marriage aren't in favor of this sort of debate. They only want to legalize what THEY consider "fun", and appear pretty prudish about sexual unions which don't appeal to them.

Unless we start talking about plural marriages to include not only Adam and Steve but also Bruce and Calvin and Bruno and Lloyd . . . ?

or how about bob and carol and ted and alice?

Tell, me dear Jurisprudence . .. why these concepts should not get equal billing with the limited form of gay marriage which a few zealous advocates are touting now?

Please tell me . ..

Great question. Great question. I'll wait for the answer as well.

I'm not understanding your argument. You understand marriage to be religious; many do not. To many, marriage is a civil institution. In particular, it is rare to hear anyone who is in favor of gay marriage to use religion as their argument ammo. That is usually the tactic of those against gay marriage.

marriage originated as a religious rite.

for hundreds (thousands?) of years no government, king or other ruling entity would recognize a marriage unless it was a religious ceremony . .. i.e, you couldn't to a renaissance town hall and ask for a justice of the peace ceremony.

you could have a relationship with someone, or mistress or lover, without the ceremony . .. but you couldn't petition the government for a non-religious declaration of marriage

that began to change in the past hundred years, when people who never married began to have legal difficulties providing for their kids after separating, or inheriting/passing on worldly goods. "common law" marriages, without the benefit of church, were recognized, and civil marriages for those who eventually had the courage to declare themselves agnostics or atheists were performed as well, as much as a tactic to avoid tying up the courts with property/parentage litigation as anything else

i'm not aware of any religion where marriage is not a central artifact. nor am i aware of any government before the 19th century which performed civil, non religious marriages for those who lived outside the church.

...and religion originated as a form of government: a way to organize a particular society around particular traditions, laws, hierarchies, social norms, health norms, and economics.

Maybe I wasn't clear - I don't understand your argument because it doesn't make sense: "This is how it used to be. This is how it originated."

So? Who cares?

Why does religion matter? We're talking about a civil institution in this country which is based on secular laws and ideals. What people have done in the past, in other countries with other laws does not really matter.

The legality of multiple marriages is seperate from that of gay marriages because all the laws would have to be rewritten. I believe these should also be legal, not because some religions and some countries had them in the past, but because I do not think the government should be able to tell consenting adults whom they can and can't marry. But the current laws would have to be restructured in order for this to happen, and that will require some work on the part of our legislature. There is no reason why same sex couples should be excluded during this time.

It's a cleverly worded version of the "slippery slope" argument. Here is my main problem the argument:

Allowing same-sex couples would not grant new rights to homosexuals. This is a common misinterpretation. Instead, a realization would be made that the current marriage law, essentially outlining a partnership contract between two adults, unlawfully denies the rights of individuals to enter into this contract for illegitimate reasons. A contract between multiple people (as in polygamy or polyamory) or between an adult and a child (the inevitable NAMBLA argument) would be different stories altogether.

This is the reason why the argument has to be made that same-sex marriage hurts society. Whenever equal protection is denied to a group of people a reason needs to be presented for that denial. For instance, children cannot enter into marriage contracts because they would not be making that decision on their own fully informed volition.The author has adequately (imho) rejected the argument that same-sex marriages damage traditional marriage.

Perhaps you can make an argument that polygamous marriage contracts would have a negative effect on our society (maybe based on difficulty in resolving conflicts and custody rights; or based on the negative influence of patriarchal hierarchies). But that argument is independent of the argument that same-sex couples have the right to enter into an already established partnership contract.

Just caught the similarity in our posts. Didn't mean to step on your toes.

Ok, I'll bite.

I don't see anything wrong with legalizing polygamy and the like, on principle. As long as they're all consenting adults, that's fine by me - personally, the practice raises my eyebrow a bit, but I understand that it is acceptable in circles of a substantial size, and I could live with it being legal. Unlike (I imagine) many people, I don't see a problem with marriages between any humans who can enter willfully, as long as those marriages don't demonstrably harm anyone (the category of already legal marriages that do demonstrably harm people is probably a topic for another day).

Some problems arise, as PhysicsGirl pointed out, in the logistical arena. Laws created under the assumption of two-person marriage are a lot easier to adapt to two same-gendered people than to groups of three or more.

If one spouse divorces from the group, do all of the parents get to petition for custody, or just the biological ones? Does every spouse get an equal life insurance payout in the event one of them dies, or can the policy-holder designate different percentages for each (my life insurance provider requires a spouse to sign off if you opt to not designate them the primary beneficiary)? Legally, are all of the spouses married to each other or just to one person, who acts as a central "hub" or something? What about health coverage... is it fair for an employer to extend the same benefits to one employee's six wives as to another employee's one wife, or is that first guy unfairly draining six times the resources from the company?

These are all questions out of genuine curiosity, and I think we'd need to at least begin discussing the answers to them before we tack any more types of unions onto the legalization of gay marriage.

Although I do have an easier time personally identifying with the validity of a gay marriage than that of a group marriage, I think it's also true that the existing laws, social rules and customs at this moment are better suited to dealing with marriages between couples. That could certainly change.

Great post! The usual comeback I get, mainly from women, when I question this debate is, "Why not?" In Europe, one must ask that, as same-sex marriages or unions are in place in most of what Rumsfeld called Old Europe. The only noise one hears is out of the US or places like Poland.

Marriage law is hardly the piece of the picture that keeps the spark in most couples' beds. This whole debate has been about inclusion and affirmation. The affirmation is less about love and more about good-sex discoveries that people want others around them to know about. It must've been like this when meat-and-potatoe eaters were first confronted with Marco Polo's Italian lot's return with their newfound fervour for ginger and rice. No doubt the line of resistance was first the women over the pots, then the butchers, etc., and then the good Catholic Church that imposed fish-on-Friday rules to at least save the fishmongers.

Marriage law is about the transfer of property and responsibility for the upbringing and welfare of children and those who bear them. Most western marriage laws originate in Judaic traditions, and I would agree that these are a bit dated these days. The Catholic Church then built an institution around mother and wife (The Marian culture). Today's paranoiacs huddle around glossy-backed Bibles and boom boxes cursing those they believe are threatening the whole system. This threat is evidenced OUTSIDE the US office-tower environment by billions of women who fear they may be left to fend for themselves and their offspring.

There are many valid issues, concerns and dreams. Most of us are confounded today with the idea that sexual fulfillment (if one presumes the much-ballyhooed abstinence line that is, thankfully, strictly a Continental US fantasy!) is to be realised strictly between one man and one woman. Think. If the doctors and the FDA do their job, and preachers are convincing, then that means 80 years or more sleeping and taking pleasure with only one person. Fortunately, such a concept was not hammered into my childhood.

It is time for a broader cultural rethink. Otherwise, let's take a fresh look at fundamentalist Islam and put our women folk back in the kitchens and beds. Japan is having this debate, as marriage western-style was imposed upon them only 150 years ago. A French weekly this week calls for a broad reform of the social culture, including marriage, coupling and child raising.

As for gay marriage, it is time to challenge those (principally women from numbers I've seen) who they are entitled to bring children into this world on their own, depriving the child and the other biological partner of their natural right, responsibility and lifelong joy. Population growth is an enormous problem; societies must think this challenge through more thoughtfully and less selfishly.

Bear in mind the US' unique perspective on this matter: Manifest Destiny required birthing a lot of babies. Religious conservatives from pre-Dickens' Middle England together with pragmatists forged an exceptionally narrow family model on America. To make it work, churches heartily became sex police. Europe had a similar experience following the Dark Ages, which led to the world early immigrants were eager to flea. Do we ever learn?

While marriage has historically been a male-female thing, there is abundant evidence that many non-Judeo-Christian cultural histories and real human experience have been much more open wihen it comes to sexual fulfillment, including male same-sex activity, if not formalised relationships beyond the universally exalted context of friendship.

I'm just reading Prof. Joseph Massad's highly acclaimed new book entitled, Desiring Arabs. While I dislike the title, the book is enlightening. Many books exist on sexual practices in Edo Japan and Imperial China. I fear your comment on Romans suggests some fresh reading on the Classical world. Great literature and truth. Beware what the Church has done to certain manuscripts, however.

baltimore aureole:

marriage originated as a religious rite....

Are you sure of that? Certainly the marriage ceremonies we now commonly use are generally religious in origin, but the the practice of marriage? I suggest that it dates from very early in human prehistory.

By the way, your comments on the issues surrounding heterosexuals whose relationships were not recognized by the state due to the lack of a religious ceremony would seem to closely parallel the issues regarding homosexual relationships currently.

Religious communities predate modern states. Nonetheless, they were communities and the principal challenges were related more to proprty and progeny than to sexual practices. On your second point, the biases imposed by others against intimate relationships of all combinations throughout the human experience are endless, beginning with those of parents. It is only natural in the context of sustaining the species. While a writtent tenant of most civilisations, the happiness of the fertile biological specimens is frankly a secondary consideration.

Women are instinctively guided to ensure our continuation. Unfertilised eggs are biological realities they deal with every 28 days. They know better than us what those eggs represent. Thus, the true sexual watchdogs are women. Think. Why are women/girls so weirdly possessive sometimes? Why do they grab our arms firmly the moment another femal looks at us or even notices we are alive and male? Then feel the strong tug when a hormone-laden guy of ambiguous sexuality enters the scene. You don't have to be gay to realise what is going on. In early societies, and in many today, male friendships were on an emotional level of intimacy apart from the conjugal relationships with women. Women were not our best friends. They were our women. Every guy knows women are jealous of best friends. Biologically it has to do with potentially wasted sperm cells.

Sorry to be blount, and I'll expect a hard slap if some of the most loved people in my life read this.

I suppose I come at this subject from a completely different perspective. The question isn't, or shouldn't be "should the state issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?"

The question should be "Why is the state in the business of licensing marriage of any type?

Strictly speaking, the original poster has it right -- marriage isn't a governmental function, it is a cultural and religious function. The government's only interest should be at the point of dispersal of assets caused by taxation, divorce or death. Other than that, the state has no valid interest in marriages, per se, and they can be same sex, polygamist, polyandrist or any combination thereof. Marriage is about the love people have for each other and the forms in which they manifest such love -- basically, it shouldn't be any of the government's business. Adults should be able to marry as they see fit -- and also form contracts for the maintenance of joint property (but such contracts would be for legal purposes, and not a state sanction of the marriage itself).

Of course, we can't expect the governments to give up the revenue stream from marriage licensing, but we can dream.

I believe you answered your question in noting the "dispersal of assets" issue. I still would add that the state has an interest in ensuring that parents (male, female or "designated") assume their responsibilities for child rearing.

Step back and look at the long history of cases brought against Christian Scientists, wherein relgious rights of parents have been challenged when it comes to the state's definition of child welfare. In the case history, I think you'll find all sides of the second point (responsibility for offsprings) addressed and turned on their heads. I believe Christian Science parents have won every ruling, supporting your position in a way.

On the other hand, there is a sadly fast growing body of case histories relating to non-religious child abuse or neglect. You will likely find strong legal contradictions with those involving Christian Scientists. I support the Christian Scientists' position in the cases I've studied, but I also support the state's rights to intervene in a failed domestic situation. Subjective, yes?