'Marriage' has always been about property and entitlement.

(I buried this in another thread, but suspect it might deserve its own.)

---

Lost in the overly-emotionalized rhetoric is the historical perspective. We seem cognitively lost in our romanticism and religiosity. Going back to the 'god-given rights' of monarchs, there's been (literally) an unholy alliance between civil authority and supernaturalism (i.e. church and state). Consider the question of 'legitimacy' in ascendancy to a throne. Consider the rejection of Papal Authority when it ran contrary to Henry's libidinous (or progenistic?) proclivities. Monarchies relied for millenia on the notion that their authority was God-given and their (legitmate) progeny inherited such authority, along with their properties.

Indeed, marriage itself was a question of chattel ownership -- the (purported?) "father" ceding possession, along with other tangible considerations, of the female (human property) to another male. The burden of "husbandry" (a term still used to refer to the care of livestock) was often offset by dower rights. This is all about property. The female progeny were regarded as mere burdens, inferring some subsequent diminution of property as their breeding abilities were marketed to prospective "husbands".

In this regard, the 'church' is a mere AKC.

If it weren't for the considerations of property and inheritance of property and power, marriage probably wouldn't exist. The church's power to recognize marriage is a secular power, not a spiritual power. Even monogamy itself is about such secular considerations.

There's absolutely nothing inherently "religious" about marriage. It's an age-old political myth.

---

Comments? Discussion?

Yes, marriage is secular and has been based on property rights.

But,

Every major religion bases huge portions of their mythology and mysticism on the joining of souls, on the male and female aspects of the mystical, etc. Even Judeo Christian mysticism using khabalah is inherently based on the concept of marrying male and female aspects, with both sides said to be different but equally important.

So, I disagree that marriage has no religious element to it. Marriage and religion have been intertwined nearly forever.

"The idea of Catholic celibacy is especially foolish when you realize the reason behind it. Before the middle ages it was allowable for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses (concubines). But with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could inherit anyway in society)."
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html

If 'marriage' is a God-sanctioned relationship, why is it absent among other animals? Why does the RCC apply marriage only to the laity? When were Adam and Eve 'married'? How old were they? What minister performed the ceremony? When we're advised to "love one another" do we need a ceremony?

If 'marriage' is a God-sanctioned relationship, why is it absent among other animals?

Because humans have a special relationship with God. Only humans were created in God's image, while, according to the Bible's Adam & Eve story, animals were created for Adam's amusement.

Why does the RCC apply marriage only to the laity?

Whatever the RCC does neither confirms nor refutes the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religious belief.

When were Adam and Eve 'married'? How old were they? What minister performed the ceremony?

They weren't married, but remember, they were sinners who had been thrown out of the Garden of Eden for disobeying God's command.

When we're advised to "love one another" do we need a ceremony?

No, but the religious justification for marriage isn't about "loving one another".

of christianity is not 'nearly forever'

marriage was set up by the male church and males so men could tell who their sons were. A wife could be confined and watched so no other men could impregnate her.

also, pro-marriage men bullied congress into making laws that were advantageous to married men.

women/wives spoke up and managed to get some laws protecting them in marriage. like: getting the husbands SS, retirement; alimony, etc.

an aside - back in the 30's, 40', 50's the spin was that any woman that was not married had something wrong with her. Women who chose to not marry were bad mouthed and more. If a women reached the age of 20 and not be engaged or married was called An Old Maid. They even had a card game for kids called Old Maid. and the Old Maid card protrayed an ugly woman.

marriage is a scam

Marriage has always been about property and entitlement. Marriage has two definitions. It is the spiritual union of two people which the church capitalizes on and it is also the legal union of two people which is the only part with which the government should be concerned.

This is why it is such a problem for gays not to be able to get "legally" married. They have no rights to inheritance, they cannot, after years of supporting each other, benefit from each other's contributions to SS. There are all kinds of legal barriers to couples who are not married in the eyes of the law.

on edit: this is the one place where the blending of church and state has corrupted what was initially a spiritual event into a legal contract with certain state-sponsored rules and regulations. This is why I think that the government has no say on spiritual marriage but only on the contract portion. Thus it should be open to everyone, not just heterosexual couples.

Would you then deny it to agnostics and atheists? Remember, my thesis is that marriage is not a religious perquisite -- it's an (established) organized church's incursion into the secular.

that takes his/her vows seriously marriage is MORE then what you descirbe. It is a joining of souls and a promise to God.

Put it to you this way, if tomorrow the goverment stopped recognizing marriaged religious people would still get married.

... would people stop telling the truth? Is religion the exclusive arbiter of agreements? Can courtrooms function without Bibles? Who is to say that a "religious person" (Christians moreso than Jews? Moslems moreso than Buddhists?) takes any such "vows seriously" -- but atheists and agnostics do not or do "less" so? Is that "less" in terms of inches or pounds?

If the government stopped punishing perjury would people stop telling the truth?

In court rooms? Yes there would be a sudden shoft in honesty. People would be far more inclined to lie to defend their friends if they knew there was no punishment for doing so.

Can courtrooms function without Bibles?

Not only can they, they should.

Who is to say that a "religious person" (Christians moreso than Jews? Moslems moreso than Buddhists?) takes any such "vows seriously" -- but atheists and agnostics do not or do "less" so?

Different promises. In my religion (Catholic) we promise God. Are you telling me an atheist can take a promise to god seriously when he doesn't believe there is a God?

... what you promise to (your) God?

What business is it of a secular society that people make promises "to God" ... even in getting married?


I can say this: I recognize absolutely no other person's authority to either sanction or enforce anything in my spiritual relationship with my "Creator".

:eyes:

"Who giveth/gives this woman?".. That alone implies that she is "property" of her birth family, to be "given" to the new man, who will assume "ownership" of her :(

because it is a property exchange.

Her father walks her down the aisle to finish off the exchange.

guess who kept her name when she got married?

Fatherhood is a matter of faith.


Consider: Why is it important to legally define fatherhood?

Consider: Why is it important to legally define fatherhood?

Because fathers should have a right to see their children, and that right should be equal to that of the childrens mother. They are not more her children then his.

Fatherhood is a matter of faith.

Bullshit.

with the advent of DNA, it's more of a given now.. Back in the day, though, fatherhood was necessary to "prove" so that an illegitimate "heir" did not reap the family fortune.. Women were assumed to leave the family fold, so they did not inherit (unless there was no male heir)..

Realistically, I doubt that there are many mothers who are "hiding" their children's aprentage from the father.. Probably waaaaay more are trying desperately to have him aknowledge them :(

I have read that up to 15% of children are being raised by men who think they are the child's biological father, but in fact are not. A link? No, I don't have it - it was an article in Time or Newsweek about genetic testing and how it has broken some of our assumptions about the way men and women act. Just working from memory, don't take my word for it.

If it's true or close to true - 15% - it's rather shocking don't you think?

child support.. :)

But yes, I am sure that there are some "cheating women" out there who 'allow' their husbands to believe that he is the father.. That's a terrible thing to do..:(

AFAIK, any child of a married woman will have that woman's hsuband as its 'father' irrespective of the child's DNA. (IANAL, so the Esquires around here might wish to weigh in.)

I guess "believing will make it so"?? :shrug:

:evilgrin:

Religion doesn't go into DNA testing.

When we exchange goods and/on money with anybody, we have expectations of one another and are accustomed to getting them in writing in the form of a "receipt".

There's nothing mystical or threatening about people investing a good part of their lives in one another writing down some expectations of one another and even putting it in writing in the form of a "marriage contract". And when there are offspring involved who don't have the wherewithall to get any guarantees for their protection, it's incumbent on society to make sure that their parents recognize their responsibilities to such children.

And so, far from being "just a piece of paper", the marriage contract is one of the most important of contracts mankind has, for the protection of ALL of the parties involved.

And gays have just as much right to its protections as straights.
See http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/equality4gays.html

Where's the provenance of religion? Is not an agnostic or atheistic 'marriage' every bit as valid as one performed by and between 'the faithful'?

The point I'm making is that it's not inherently religious.

Liberalism has moved marriage into a domain where emotional investment and state of family members are primary legal considerations (in divorce court for instance); and they may be THE only factors, if the couple has a prenuptual agreement.

He has one of his characters calling the local version of Debrett's Peerage 'the stud book' :evilgrin:

(possibly with mentally ad hominem sidetracking) my own perspectives, I regard myself as "a spiritual being having a human experience." I regard faith and spirit akin to blood: something with which we are infused and not to be used as a weapon against others -- as a spiritual "food fight" in the presence of starvation. IMHO, there is almost nothing more humanly perverted than the forging handcuffs and shackles in the fires of faith.

but I see a point missing - tell me what you think Our Western habit of marriage as a civil and religious institution came out of the times when Europe was a theocracy - the government, while not quite being run by the established church, was certainly very much hand-in-glove with it.

... the political supernaturalists (whether they be shamans, witch doctors, or priests) balanced an otherwise one-sided autocracy. "Religious" organizations have always been partly political and partly spiritual, AFAIK. The notion that their civil role in "officiating" or "proclaiming" or "legitimizing" a marriage is, in any way, a spiritual matter, somehow sacred and inherently some part of a "proper" faith in a God, is nonsense that falls apart on any unbiased examination. (That's not to say that some may believe this, but I have no civil or social obligation to share that belief.) IMHO, we've become so habituated in merely (unthinkingly) accepting the conventional, we've lost sight of the enormous secular power that such a presumed civil authority has offered.

I do not believe that a promise I might make to a new spouse is any more or less "sacred" or based upon whatever spiritual counsel I might seek than any other oath or promise. I choose, as a matter of faith, to inform my integrity and my character through spiritual counsel with whatever I see as a "universal consciousness." Such faith is an individual thing, needing no intermediary nor arbiter. (Indeed, the presumption of any need for arbitration or arbitrages would seem to me to contradict the omnipotent and ubiquitous nature of God herself.) Any relationship (marital or otherwise) I might have with another is, by its very definition, social and political -- and both are secular. That another may also seek their own spiritual guidance cannot be known or judged by me. I do not pretend to "see into another's heart". I am not God. It is none of my business. I am very suspicious of the motives (or sanity?) of those who presume to make such things their business.

we consider human "civilization" to have occured when we left behind the hunter-gatherer way of life and became subsistence farmers (damn, i loved anthropology!)

once we were farmers, we needed more people to work the farms. more children=more people, more wives = more children.

so humans went from being egalitarian mostly vegetarian hunter-gatherers -- where women provided as much food as men (after all, everyone can gather, and everyone can chuck a rock at a rabbit when it scampers out from under the berry bush) to patriarchal mosly meat (high calorie) eating ranchers where men worked fields cuz their wives were always too pregnant.

men get concerned about legitimacy, men get jealous, men decide that women=property, men come to the conclusion that they need some way to "own" a woman. (like owning land, isn't it?)

this is how "marriage" came about.

i am a christian. the adam and eve story is a wonderful parable of the beginning of time. but that ain't quite how it happened in reality, folks.

not wanting to take care of the children.

commodity traders

:kick:

--and more concretely, the establishment of paternity. Females needed it (marriage) to force the males to provide food and sustenance. Males needed it to lay claim to the children as their own.

... didn't get the word? Poor Matilda. Poor Sybilla. They could been Princesses! Of course, there were about twenty or more such "illegitimate" children of Henry -- he was a randy fella, it seems, who didn't seem to understand the purpose of marriage.

Maybe Elizabeth Blount didn't get the word either? Henry VIII didn't seem to need marriage in order to "procreate" with her. But Henry Fitzroy at least got to be the Duke of Richmond.

Marriage isn't about copulation or procreation; it's about property and inheritance.

a non-property society....say, nomadic herders?

... jumping over the broomstick? ;-)

it' setting off vague clickings in my synapses, but that's about it......details?

How did slaves get "married"? Why? How does 'property' marry 'property'? Whose 'property' were the children?

you don't believe in "Romatic Love and Marriage" because your life has been soured by bad experiences. I have many friends who feel like you.....but you know what! I'm kind of sick of hearing this. I'm okay and have been in a "romantic and wonderful" relationship for 25 years and more......

yeah....we've had lots of trials and tribulations and arguments and disagreements.....but we are romantic and we believe in religious vows and and .......hey......yeah! to you cynics.......we "GOT LUCKY."

But, your's and others trashing of "Religious marriages" and people who manage to stay together because they love each other through "thick and thin" and even fighting "evil relatives" and "kid problems" is really wearing a little thin on me these days.

I think you are a very interesting and challenging "intellectual poster".....who brings wonderful "academic style" to DU.......but lately you sound like a bitter harpie......who is sitting in your "Ivory Tower" pronouncing on DU'ers who have really good relationships but are here "FIGHTING LIKE HELL to GET BUSH OUT!"

I'm sort of sick of this trashing of us "Traditionalists" by some DU'ers who think somehow if one has a great, stable, committed relationship with romance and love and commitment........that we don't belong on DU.

BTW: You wouldn't want to know the angst we've had in our own lives, my husband and I, because that might make you all think that your pain might be shared by others but that we chose a different way than the " Anger and Bitterness, and Spite" I see by DU'ers who don't have "committed relationships" or those "relationships have gone sour" and they now want to trash those of us who do.......no matter that we have had some really bad stuff "go down" in our own lives that you don't even want to know about.

Peace to you Tahiti.......but this has gone too far......

:-( koko

What you allege of me could not be further from the truth. It's somehow sad that you seem to need to believe that of me in order to adhere to your beliefs as though they were universal truths to which all must subscribe rather than your own choices.

Have I had "bad experiences"? Hasn't everyone? Haven't you? I prefer to see them as "learning experiences" which benefitted me greatly. I like to view myself as having grown and matured. Without those experiences and what I shose to learn from them, I would not be the person I've given my life so far to become ... and to continue becoming. I am not "soured" and still cry, get goosebumps, and have thrilling passions. For that I'm grateful. I find myself able to love others better and more fully the more I learn. While it may have taken me decades, I've learned what it feels like to love unconditionally, many years ago. At the same time, I have seen marriages falter along with their faith in some externality. The funny thing seems to be that when we adopt authoritarian dependencies, we fail to focus on our own (God-given?) strengths, convictions, and commitments ... especially in marriage.

So, KoKo, please play with your ad hominem strawmen without my help ... and without ascribing to me the creations of your own imagination. No matter how kindly couched, I regard such imaginings as personal attacks, founded on falsehoods.

this September. But I disagree with you. We're not being trashed by anyone for having long-term relationships. Face it. Marriage in the U.S. is in trouble. And it's not the fault of liberals, or gays, or even Hollywood. It's the nature of the "institution" which hasn't changed as our society has changed. We don't need more children. Our tribe is not in danger of dying out. Quite the opposite. We're not establishing a colony in a new land. We're here. We're established. Women don't need the protection of marriage. Men have access to DNA and legal recourse to determine paternity. We live longer. Maybe being married to someone when the life expentancy was only 30-some years was a little easier. Our young people have more choices. They're not growing up on the farm with only 1 or 2 possible marriage partners within a sixty-mile radius. People realize you can have "romance and love and commitment" without a government/religion sanctioned marriage. I'm glad for you. I'm glad for myself. But marriage, currently, is not a success. Half end in divorce. I believe we need to be more open to how people establish relationships.

... to "officially" recognize, institutionalize, and invest in hatred ... and fight so hard to keep from recognizing love? Go figure. :shrug:

You don't know how tired I am of the whole "gay marriage threatens hetero marriage" argument.

The bottom line is: We all have to take responsibility for the success or failure of our own relationships -- gay, straight, or something else.

If I destroy my relationship, it'll be because I was a jerk to my girlfriend, not because I'm a lesbian. Same goes for straight folks. But I guess it's easier for some to blame it on the gay bogeyman.

I sure was glad to read your post!

From more than one socio-historical (I decline to use "critical" here lest it devolve into poststructuralism) perspective, sure it is as you say. The problem with stopping where you have is twofold:
1. Many many institutions, not just marriage, suffer from origins of unequal power relationships and the desire to perpetuate them. It is intellectual mischief to imply that marriage must be frozen in the meaning of its historic roots. Social stuff, by definition, evolves. As we collectively become more enlightened, our social institutions do so as well.
2. If, by your admission, the meaning of marriage is occluded in romanticism and religiosity, then exactly because it is a social phenomenon, religiosity and romanticism are a part of it. To dismiss it altogether is to dismiss these particular socio-historical elements. Sorry, ya can't have it both ways.

And yes, you are correct to argue that there is nothing inherently religious about marriage. The religious variable, as all others, are overlaid.

Cheerio.

The process of marriage in America today is nothing...NOTHING...like it was years ago. Today, we emphasize all the touchy feely bonding of two souls warm fuzzy stuff. A dozen decades ago, even A DOZEN decades ago, marriage emphasized the joining of two families, their members, their properties, their progeneties. I think the reason that this post even exists is because the institute of marriage has changed so quickly that we haven't gotten everything sorted out yet. On one hand, we say marriage is about love, about two people who love each other so much that they feel they belong together for life/eternity. On the other hand, we also see marriage as a legal situation, where two people have their financial and legal situations intertwined in special ways. These two aspects have always existed, but have been emphasized differently througout history. Crimony! How easy it would be if we could just say that one is religious and one is civil. In fact, on the surface, it seems to be that way. But, for all the furor of seperate church and state, the water is muddied between the two. Do we let gays marry? Well, they love one another. But that dilutes heterosexual marriage. What has that to do with the state? Marriage is sanctified, so we cant give them the same benefits. But the state shouldnt care about sanctity of marriage. Well we need a constitutional ammendment to sanctify it. But that defies church-state separation. What a damned mess. I am gay, and as far as I am concerned, you can have the lot.

... "two people who love each other so much that they feel they belong together for life/eternity" of what business is it to strangers? Who pretends that anything government might say would change that mutual love?

Indeed, how great a truth can there be in any faith that requires civil laws, police, and courts to enforce it? I'm not talking about any laws that might punish or prohibit such tenets of faith, but the ethics would be equivalently corrupt.

It is my opinion that anyone who'd deny to others the civil benefits, powers, and perquisites that their own faith tradition has been afforded in secular matters does not morally deserve those benefits, powers, and perquisites themselves. The funny thing is, I think that's pretty consistent with the teachings in the New Testament. Go figure.

"Cognitively lost in our romanticism and religiousity?" Gimme a break.

There can be something inherently spiritual about marriage if the couple commits to mutual understanding and mutual growth and ignores the "property" aspect that you spoke of.

Sure, there is still the possibility of an imbalance and abuse of power in the relationship, as in any relationship. It ain't perfect but when it works it, it sure is nice!

:eyes: Just what business is it of mine and the rest of secular society that you see "something inherently spiritual about marriage if the couple commits to mutual understanding and mutual growth"??

The government should not recognize any marriages among consenting adults if it doesn't recognize all marriages among consenting adults (other than marriages involving close relatives).

Furthermore, society should not provide benefits to married couples that it does not provide to single people.

Our marriage is about the relationship between my wife and I- I don't view the government or society as part of that relationship. I don't feel that our relationship is superior to that of others. I feel our relationship is personal and spiritual in a non-religious sense.

I never trusted the idea of 'uncle Sam' officiating my bond to someone. A ceremony with family and friends can provide the same opportunity for a declaration of relationship without having to have it ordained by a spiritless buracracy, and worse (think, fundamentalist views on marriage and divorce) Personally I'd simply rather not have the government involved in that most sacred area of my life, thank you.

:shrug: