Marriage

For jogging nude at High
School track, Catholic Priest
must register as sex offender.

You know, I am sure, that we often just take things for granted when it comes to culture. That is, we participate in customs and behaviors that we have not really thought much about, just “going with the flow,” so to speak. It occurs to me that I have never thought much about marriage, more specifically, the purpose of marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? I suppose in the ideal American marriage we assume that two people (of the opposite sex) fall in love and marry, the marriage being a public affirmation of their newfound status in the community. We also assume that no one will be married to more than one person at a time (although serial monogamy is common). We also assume that the marriage will produce children. Also, until not so very long ago, we also assumed that those who married would be of the same race (miscegenation was commonly against the law). There were, and are, certain legal rights that go along with marriage, such as the rights of inheritance. And of course there were also certain obligations (spouses were responsible for each others care and etc.). Marriage also seems to function to legitimize fatherhood. That is, there is no way (until recently that is) to determine who the father of a child is, although the mother is always known. If a man’s wife has a child it is automatically assumed the husband is the father and he is legally obliged to care for the child. There were always exceptions to all these cultural beliefs, but we seldom thought about them. For example, many married couples never had children. Indeed, in rare cases, they never even engaged in sexual relations. Many people did not marry for love and marriages for convenience were not uncommon, marrying for money or to get citizenship for someone, and things like that. And, of course, the idea that people who married should stay married for life, has slowly over the years become less and less of an expectation and less and less common. And, because of advances in medical science, if a man could not father a child, he could attain one through artificial insemination if he wished. Although technically he was not the (biological) father, he was legally the father. In any case, we muddled along with our ideas about marriage, motherhood and fatherhood, and didn’t really worry too much about these exceptional cases (although at one time there was a lot of worry about divorce as people thought they should stay married no matter what if there were children involved (a rather old-fashioned view nowadays). It has also become fairly common for unmarried women to have children though artificial insemination (or more ordinary means, but without marriage).

Now, because gays and lesbians are demanding equal rights when it comes to marriage, we are having to think more carefully about our ideas of marriage. Obviously there is a great deal of resistance to Gay and Lesbian marriages. One common reaction to this is to pass laws specifying that marriage must be defined as a union between one man and one woman. Polygamy is against the law, Polyandry doesn’t exist (most people probably never heard of polyandry). It is the case, however, that there are fairly sizeable numbers of polygamists in the U.S., Canada and Mexico (estimated at 30,000). In some cases these polygamous marriages are tolerated, mostly because no one seems overly concerned about them unless some obvious criminal activity is uncovered. And, as polygamy is against the law, these people simply marry one person legally and then take more wives in a sort of common law arrangement. These polygamous groups have existed for a long time, they produce large numbers of children, and seemingly function without many more problems that traditional marriages. I should point out that polygamy is quite likely the preferred marriage form in much (perhaps even most) of the world but, practically, monogamy is more common.

It is probably safe to say that in most, if not all societies, the main purpose and expectation of marriage is to produce children. Fatherhood seems to be exceptionally important. Even in cases of divorce, where fathers are not living with their children, they are still legally considered fathers. And if a single woman has a child she usually knows and names the father, even though he is not expected to legally provide for the child. But it is the legality of fatherhood that is of great importance in most cultures. For this reason a woman, in at least one culture I know about, can marry a ghost. That is, if a man dies without having left a child, a woman, if she has sufficient cattle or resources, can marry his ghost, take in another man to father a child, which becomes legally the child of the ghost, and thus his name will continue on in the clan genealogy. It is the ceremony that determines the fatherhood, not the fact of biological fatherhood. Similarly, in the case of polyandry, where a woman has more than one husband (usually two or more brothers), the legal paternity is established by a ceremony so that no matter who the biological father is, all the brothers can legally have children. Adoptions are fairly common in most societies. As children, in all known societies, are highly valued, this is of great importance. Legal adoptions in the U.S. perform essentially the same function. Seen in this broader context, it is not at all surprising to know that Lesbians, who desire children, bring in a man (or sperm) to father a child of whom they are the parents (presumably without one being the father?). Or Gays who want to have children can adopt or find a woman willing to bear a child for them. I doubt that a woman could legally arrange a ghost marriage in the U.S. Our laws are not that advanced. It does seem to me that trying to legislate against Gay and Lesbian marriages is ultimately going to fail. The response to Proposition 8 indicates to me that most Americans are perfectly willing to allow same sex couples to enjoy the same privileges (and problems) of marriage that everyone else enjoys. And contrary to the worst fears of some extremists, I don’t believe people are inevitably going to be marrying their horses, dogs, sheep, or goats (and certainly not their chickens!). Let us now worry about more important things, like where our next meal may be coming from.

LKBIQ:

The most happy marriage I can imagine to myself would be the union of a deaf man to a blind woman.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
TILT:
In the earliest legends Robin Hood was a commoner. In later versions he presumably has noble blood.