Untraditional Traditionalists

Today's Washington Post cover story on the proposed gay marriage amendments in Virginia and Maryland quotes VA Del. John A. Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake):

The family is the foundation of our society, and it's been based on a union of a man and a woman since the inception of marriage.

That is, of course, ludicrously false: Since "the inception of marriage," polygyny has been a good deal more common than the "union of a man and a woman." Of course, the family structures of many of those societies were unattractive in various ways, but to even get to that point would be to admit the possibility of one of those thorny "arguments on the merits." Appeals to tradition, even false ones, are so much more pleasantly uncomplicated.

Comments

[CodeMonkeySteve]

I blame the Decay of our Moral Fiber on the trend toward Godless Monogyny. Only through a return to Traditional Family Values can we save our society.

Of course, my wife may have other opinions ... 😉

[norbizness]

And they've been speaking English ever since the Bible was first written.

BTW, if Cosgrove did research into the ages of consent in the 19th century, it could POSSIBLY BLOW HIS MIND:

"Social and legal attitudes towards the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times; while ages from ten through to thirteen were typically acceptable in the mid 19th century."

[Jeff P.]

We invented the wheel and captured fire without the benefit of marriage. In fact, the entire human race would not exist without thousands of years of sex-out-of-wedlock.
(and for you biblical scholars out there, Adam and Eve were never married.)

[SPD]

Adam and Eve were never married

So that means we really do live in a world full of bastards!

[hot stuff]

Marriage has also always been based on love. Yes indeed it has. Love between one man and one woman. And sometimes a horse.

[SPD]

And two women. Let's not forget my favorite. 🙂

[Pirate Jo]

From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

It completely baffles me why conservatives are so threatened by gay people. What is the danger that gay people present, that society needs to "protect" itself against them?

I would make the conservative argument that it is GOOD for society for two people to enter into a marriage contract. They are a better economic force by consolidating their wealth. There is also a greater social stability of a marriage commitment.

But I guess this has absolutely nothing to do with logic. It has everything to do with shrill emotionalism, which "conservatives" are so quick to accuse the modern liberals. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

SPD:

I couldn't agree more. Lesbos rock. Particularly the fake ones.

[Kip]

The "sanctity" of marriage is long gone anyway. When well over half of marriages end in divorce i don't see how marriage helps keep society stable in any way.
Another argument i've heard tossed around is that marriage is primarily about reproduction and having a stable environment for the kids. Since gay people can't procreate, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. The first thing that allways comes to my mind is that we should then ban all sterile people from getting married as well.

[Jeff P.]

If I recall my anthropology correctly, tribal law pre-dated the concept of exclusive mating, so it would seem to be a better candidate for the foundation of society. The modern trope of marriage as a legal contract pre-supposes the existance of law (duh).
Giving marriage the credit for society is like saying the moving picture is a direct result of the reign of Queen Victoria.

[Jeff P.]

And just think of the awful clothes and frightening hair those Christian women would wear if it wasn't for gays...

Oh...sorry...never mind.

[Stretch]

I would make the conservative argument that it is GOOD for society for two people to enter into a marriage contract. They are a better economic force by consolidating their wealth. There is also a greater social stability of a marriage commitment.

Which may be why many against gay marriage will accept the concept of a civil union. It's truly amazing that, despite the underlying prejudice, much of this argument really boils down to the definition of a single word. Unable to stop the inexorable trend towards a socially liberal attitude about homosexuality, their last bulwark is a simple definition. The fact that the word hasn't always meant what they think it should is irrelevant.

[Larry A]

You guys just don't get it. "The way things have always been" = "The way I remember my parents doing it." 😛

[Pirate Jo]

Hey Kip, I completely agree with you. But if heterosexuals want to do something crazy, that makes no sense whatsoever, why shouldn't gays be able to do it, too? 😉

[Phil]

When well over half of marriages end in divorce i don't see how marriage helps keep society stable in any way.

Grrrrrrr. Pet peeve alert: THIS IS NOT TRUE. See here and here for starters.

PS to Rep. Jerkass in the original post: The fundamental unit of society is the individual. Everything else is a compromise.

[N. Gree Whiteman]

Doggonit, you liberal fags, if we let gay people get married, the terrorists will have won and reverse our progress in Iraq! Plus they'll probably... uh... raise our taxes! Yes, that's it. And take away my guns.

Follow me to freep-dom! Or if you're the type who likes pretty pictures with your words, click here:

http://www.thefrown.com/player.php?/frowners/becomerepublican

[Kip]

Phil - Sorry, i didn't do any research i just thought that was true because i've heard it so many times. Although, your links lead to data that shows it's not much less than 50%.
"43% of all first marriages end in divorce within 15 years"
My point still stands though, marriage is not as holy a contract as conservatives act like. Pirate joe is right though, that doesn't mean gays shouldn't be allowed to participate.

[N. Gree Whiteman]

Damn liberal HTML crap...

Here.

[Dave W.]

Maybe we should use legalized polygyny as a sort of stepping stone to legalized gay marriage, then.

[TheReincarnationOfPaulRevere's]

For some reason I am reminded of something Warren Beatty once said.

"My notion of a wife at forty is that a man should be able to change her, like a bank note, for two twenties."

[Larry A]

"My notion of a wife at forty is that a man should be able to change her, like a bank note, for two twenties."

Actually the Bible speaks out very clearly against a man having two wives, and most reasonably so. "For no man can serve two masters..."

[John]

Most gay men don't want to actually get married, they just want a wedding. As long as it is done through the democratic process and not through some court dreamed up "right" that immediately morphs into the right of Mormons and Muslims to marry three or four twelve year olds they purchased from their cousin, let them have it.

[ChicagoTom]

Most gay men don't want to actually get married, they just want a wedding

Way to assert your prejudiced opinions as fact.

As long as it is done through the democratic process and not through some..

Didn't the legislature of California pass a gay marriage bill and Arnold vetoed it saying it needs to go to a popular vote? It's tough to take people who hold these positions seriously when the rationales shift. When it was courts ruling a particular way, opponents claimed that it has to come through the democratic process, when it came through the democratic process, opponents claimed it needs to happen by popular vote. The opposition's side doesn't really have much credibility.

[ChicagoTom]

It completely baffles me why conservatives are so threatened by gay people. What is the danger that gay people present, that society needs to "protect" itself against them?

I once had a conversation about this with a good friend of mine. He's a Catholic who grew up involved in the Church, but by no means would he be an extremist or a fundamentalist. In fact as he got older he eventually moved out of his house because he didn't want to be forced to go to church on Sundays against his wishes and was tired of arguing with his parents about it. He also tends to be generally uncomfortable around gay men.

While discussing gay marriage, he was strongly against it. When pressed to explain the reasoning of this position it basically boiled down to "I don't want to see it" and "They can live together -- why do they need to get married?".

When I would explain that there were certain restrictions like not being able to make medical decisions or being able to inherit benefits unless they were married, he seemed to become a bit more sympathetic but still felt uneasy about allowing them to marry.

I believe that his beliefs are fairly common amongst many people who oppose gay marriage. It seems to me that it is 2 main things:

1. The ick factor. It's something that they find generally gross and they feel that the more legitamicy you give it, the more it will be "in their face". They also tend to feel that they shouldn't be forced to tolerate/be exposed to things they personally find repulsive.

2. They seem to think that if you allow gays to marry and do the things that "normal" people do, then its harder to contrast yourself against people who you find generally repulsive. Since gays aren't "normal" why do they need to do what normal people do? By letting them be like "normal" people, it's harder to set yourself apart from them.

I may be wrong, but those were the impressions I got from my discussion with him. At the end he basically agreed that civil unions for homosexuals would be acceptable, but it still didn't sit right with him.

[Jennifer]

Chicago Tom, I think you're right. But it's pretty damned pathetic that people will deny rights to others just because they're "icky."

[ChicagoTom]

Chicago Tom, I think you're right. But it's pretty damned pathetic that people will deny rights to others just because they're "icky."

Jennifer, I agree. Luckily my friend was at least reasonable about it and the discussion wasn't a waste of time. Once he finally empathized with the plight of a gay couple who had all these things that they couldn't do that straight couples could (make life and death decisions, be considered a family member, claim inheritance/property rights) is when he finally conceded that maybe it would be more fair if they had the option of secular civil unions.

[John]

Last I heard, Arnold was elected and had the power to veto gay marriage, whether he was right or not is up to people of California in the next election. Whether marriage is recognized ought to be up the society at large and their elected officials. If gay marriage is a civil right, then so is Muslim and Mormon polygomy. Don't think for a moment that is what is coming next. I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I do have a big problem with polygomy. If the government does not have a right to define marriage then it has no way to stop polygomy. Eventually people will come around on gay marriage and it will happen on its own. To enforce it through judicial fiat and open the door to polygomy would be a disaster.

[wayne]

How is marriage a "trope"? I looked it up and it does not seem to fit. It's because You H&R posters are so much smarter than me that keeps me coming back though. The last couple weeks I have seen this "trope" word floating around and it has me intrigued.

[Julian Sanchez]

I don't think he was calling marriage a trope; he was calling "marriage-as-a-legal-contact" a trope, which does make sense.

[wayne]

Julian,

Thanks. Next time I will try to actually read the post. I just got sidelined by this "trope" thing and wound up nose deep in a dictionary.

[wayne]

My favorite "trope" (an anthimera) so far, and wouldn't you know it, Shakespeare wrote it:

"I'll unhair thy head."

[wayne]

My favorite "trope" (an anthimera) so far, and wouldn't you know it, Shakespeare wrote it:

"I'll unhair thy head."

[ChicagoTom]

If gay marriage is a civil right, then so is Muslim and Mormon polygomy

And why shouldn't it be? If marriage in the eyes of the state is merely legal contract, why should that contract be limited to just 2 people.

But even if we were to accept the polygomy is bad, I don't see how adopting the position that any two people should be allowed to enter this contract regardless of the sex of the people, somehow implies that polygamy is automatically a civil right as well.

If the laws surrounding marriage simply were written in a way that restricted it to 2 humans, whatever the sex, then your issue is really a non-issue. As long as any 2 actors can agree to the contract, there would be no civil rights violations. But as it stands only people who want to get into the contract with members of the opposite sex are allowed to do that. And that to me is what makes it discriminatory. That doesn't seem very relevant to the issue of polygamy despite your alarmist rhetoric.

[johnl]

Chicago

We had a statewide ballot "defense of marriage" or somesuch nonsense a few years ago. I voted against it for sure, but, like everyhing else, the rest of the state voted the other way. Now the legistature can't just wish that away. It pains me to say it, but Arnold was right.

[fyodor]

The difference with the poly stuff is that it vastly complicates the nature of a contract that is much simpler when it only includes two people. Not that such an obstacle could not be overcome, but it does make for a real difference between the marriage contract as we currently know it and the kind of contract that would be needed for a multitudinous arrangement.

Of course my feeling is, if you can come up with a mutually workable and satisfactory arrangement and contract, GO FOR IT!! This distinction only explains why court orders to allow gay marriage would not necessarily automatically extend to multiple-partner arrangements.

[Bonar Law]

The "extreme right-wing" position on this thread is represented by a guy who would be fine with government-approved gay marriage, so long as it doesn't lead to polygamy/polyandry!

[mediageek]

"Maybe we should use legalized polygyny as a sort of stepping stone to legalized gay marriage, then."

Dave, no sarcasm here.

That's seriously funny. Well done.

[kmw]

John,

I fail to see why you trot out polygamy as an example of horrible consequence. The bible is full of examples of multi-wife marriages. To my knowledge, God never condemned them for it.

In a previous example you stated a dislike for "the right of Mormons and Muslims to marry three or four twelve year olds they purchased from their cousin..." which I agree with you on. But it's already illegal to marry or "purchase" a 12 year old.

Monogamy isn't really as widely practiced as you think. The only difference between a hooker and a second wife is the latter has rights.

I think the thing that needs to be remembered though, is that marriage was once seen as permission from the state to have sex. Most states don't have adultery or fornication laws anymore, so there's little support for marital polygamy. Women don't want another female around, and men don't want yet another person to split his money with.

[Akira MacKenzie]

And why shouldn't it be? If marriage in the eyes of the state is merely legal contract, why should that contract be limited to just 2 people.

Because polyamory makes baby Jesus cry. Therefore, it's the state's duty to make sure we fuck the same person for the rest of our lives, no matter what.

[Akira MacKenzie]

The "extreme right-wing" position on this thread is represented by a guy who would be fine with government-approved gay marriage, so long as it doesn't lead to polygamy/polyandry!

I'm sure that some of John's "best friends are gay," too.

[Eric the .5b]

Because polyamory makes baby Jesus cry.

Dammit, put the baby down, you two.

[Kip]

No need to worry about mormons pushing for the legalization of polygamy. Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore, and not because of the law, it's because God changed his mind in 1890.

[Bonar Law]

"I'm sure that some of John's 'best friends are gay,' too."

Wow, what would you say to someone (like myself) who is *opposed* to the govt. recognizing same-sex unions?

John would be fine with the government recognizing such unions, so long as the people or their elected representatives did the recognizing, as opposed to some court acting on the basis of "civil rights." He's right; if the courts proclaim govt-recognized same-sex unions a civil right it would be hard to deny recognition to plural marriages on similar grounds. Letting the people and/or their representatives pass marriage laws would provide for all sorts of compromises, such as gay marriage yes/polygamy no.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Wow, what would you say to someone (like myself) who is *opposed* to the govt. recognizing same-sex unions?

You really don't want to know, Bonar.

[Carter]

Forbidding polygyny is inconsistent with libertarianism. But libertarianism is incompatible with polygyny. It?s quite a conundrum, but after giving it much thought libertarians have devised a solution to the paradox: legalizing pot.

[Akira MacKenzie]

But libertarianism is incompatible with polygyny.

Errrr... how?

[David Friedman]

"Since "the inception of marriage," polygyny has been a good deal more common than the "union of a man and a woman." "

I don't think that is correct. So far as I can tell, monogamy is far and away the most common pattern--even in societies where polygyny also existed.

_Manners and Customs of The Modern Egyptions_ by E.W. Lane describes life in Cairo in the 19th century. He reports that among the families he knew, not one in a hundred was polygynous.

[Rhywun]

1. The ick factor.

That does seem to be the biggest factor against gays. I wonder what the root of it is - nature, nurture...?

I don't see how adopting the position that any two people should be allowed to enter this contract regardless of the sex of the people, somehow implies that polygamy is automatically a civil right as well.

Me neither. The salient characteristic of marriage is that it's *two* people. That's what most people want. Otherwise, you're *equating* homosexuality with polygamy (and bestiality, if you're really a wingnut) which is just stupid. I don't have much against polygamy, although I would never practice it myself. But it ain't marriage.

[DB]

Since "the inception of marriage," polygyny has been a good deal more common than the "union of a man and a woman."

That's not correct. It would be true to say that societies which allowed polygyny have been a good deal more common that ones which didn't, but even within those societies the overwhelming majority of marriages were monogamous.

In any case, it is pretty clear that what the speaker meant that marriage has always been heterosexual -- which is true. That doesn't make appeals to tradition any more valid, of course.

[fortson]

in the first place,

[BG]

If gay marriage is a civil right, then so is Muslim and Mormon polygomy. Don't think for a moment that is what is coming next. I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I do have a big problem with polygomy. If the government does not have a right to define marriage then it has no way to stop polygomy.

Well one issue is that it is not clear how the legal benefits would be divided up.

If someone has a health insurance policy that provides coverage to spouses, would they have to cover all the spouses? Is it first come first serve? (suppose for the sake of argument its insurance through a government job so we can't merely "let the market decice how many are covered and which ones")

Same issue with pensions.

What about naturalization of a foreign person through marrige? Gay marrige does not lend itself to "abuses" of this benefit any more than straight marrige. Polygamy does.

There are also potential complications with child custody. Suppose a guy with 5 wives dies and one widow wants to hook up with another guy. Do widows who are not biological parents have standing to contest custody by the biological mother? This is a non-issue in gay marriges where any the same rules of normal divorce can apply.

I have no strong feeling either way on polygamy but I would point out that it raises issues gay marrige doesn't. I don't see any substantial reason to deny gay couples access to equal legal benefits with straight married couples.

[kmw]

In thinking through these arguments, I've come to the realization that gay marriage can't lead to polygamy, insofar as a direct consequense.

The reasons aren't moral, just practical. A 50/50 split of assets is nice and tidy. Add more people to the mix, and it becomes very muddy. Also, there's just no incentive for either gender in the situation. Mormons like/liked polygamy because they believe that sex outside of marriage is sin.

I don't know if most Americans would support legalized polygamy or not, but so few would take advantage of it anyway, it's mostly moot.

Lastly, I ask the question: Since gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts, has it resulted in anything other than gay marriage? Despite all the defense of marriage voting, there's one state that does indeed have legal gay marriage. We can use this to study the consequences, if there are any.

[TheDumbFish]

But it ain't marriage.

Rhywun,

You seem to be saying: Polygamy isn't marriage because marriage can only be between two people.

How is that any different than the gay marriage opponents argument that: Homosexuals can't get married because marriage must be between a man and a woman?

You seem to be cherry-picking your definition of marriage to suit your biases as much as them.

It seems that for a long time in many cultures and still in some today that Polygamy is practiced and I they consider it to be marriage.

[Robert]

Whether by judicial or legislative decree, ill comes from the redefinition of customary words that exist in current legal documents, specifically to abrogate the understanding that some parties had of those words when the document was drawn. Marriage is a matter of fact, not law. It's like when established meanings for weights of money like "dollar" were abrogated.