What is Marriage? And Does it Matter?

Maryland's Highest Court Hears Same-Sex Marriage Arguments Dec 4th - 10:03pm
By BEN NUCKOLS Associated Press Writer ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - The state has no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marriage, an attorney for plaintiffs in a gay-marriage case told Maryland's highest court Monday. (WTOP)

This topic has been generating a lot of traffic. Unfortunately I think we are all missing some key points here. The first and largest issue, what is marriage?

From our friends at Wikipedia who have summed it up nicely:

"Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Usually it is understood to join a man and woman (who in their marital roles are termed the "husband" and "wife" respectively; generically they may be referred to as "spouses") in a monogamous marriage."

"Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygamy (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare."

"Recently the word marriage has been used to describe unions between homosexual partners (same-sex marriage), and as a legal contract has been recognized by a few governments and religious institutions."

Interesting - so we are talking about an institution - primarily religious in origin? Or are we. Are we talking about something more rudimentary? I am sure someone with more history than I have will chime in and tell us that marriage, as portrayed over the last 2000 years is little more than a formal definition of ownership - whether that is of the other partner's property or the other partner - traditionally the woman.

I would argue that marriage today is a multiheaded term that is completely meaningless. Is marriage a committed relationship? If it is, why is the divorce rate in the United States over 60%? Is it a legal relationship? Not in Virginia, and several other states, not any more. Is it the definition of a family? Someone has already pointed out that Ozzie and Harriet style families are mostly a thing of the past.

What we are discussing is two-fold: First, the legal rights of the partners for and to each other as recognized by the state. This has little to do with biology and more to do with who can make decisions for the other person in the event of their incapacitation. How do you prove that the woman you brought to the emergency room is your wife? Do you carry a copy of your marriage LICENSE with you? I certainly don't. Until a couple of weeks ago, I did not even know where it was. I suspect most of you married people do not either. I would not (generally) have to prove familial relations if I brought in a "man" and said he was my brother, even if we had different names (and there are several reasons why that would be the case). But if I am in a same sex relationship, I am immediately not next of kin even though the only difference between the same sex relationship and the mixed sex relationship is a piece of paper. These are not trivial issues. Powers of attorney can be challenged (the Schivo case comes to mind immediately and there was a husband and a wife) and in Virginia, they will hold even less value unless the partners are in possession of a marriage license (and that is subject to interpretation still).

Second (and some would say more important) we are discussing what a loving relationship is. I would rather see children raised in a loving relationship than in any other environment, I think we can all agree on that? (If we cannot, then the entire foundation of "what is a family" collapses and the entire discussion is simply a religious one - ie: moot). Of my immediate circle of heterosexual friends, less than a quarter of us are still in our "starter" marriage. Of that 2/3rds, more than half had children in that first (or second) marriage. Of my homosexual friends, more than half are still in their "starter" marriage and the length of time they have been together far exceeds that of most of my heterosexual friends. We all have different experiences, but I can certainly say that from the standpoint of loving and caring, my homosexual friends are far and away more representative of that group.

Biologically, homosexuality is as much a part of the human make up as grey hair or brown eyes. Aristotle discusses it. It was part of Greek and Roman society (and probably further back that that). We continue to argue against it from a "moral" perspective, but it is a difficult argument to make. Further, man (as an animal) does not mate for life. It is not in our biological nature but an artifice of society. Someone pointed out that in Sweden there are more children born out of wedlock - so what? Are these children loved? Well cared for? Treated with respect? I would argue that they are. What we are clinging to is an outmoded model wrapped up in religious trappings that serve little purpose. The sooner we as a society recognize this, the better. This is an issue of civil rights and needs to be treated as such before the United States makes Taliban-run Afghanistan look like a free and open society.