Last week, I was having a great massage from my regular guy (who is treating me for a nasty case of whiplash from an accident in July) when we got to talking about family holidays. He’s the youngest of a really big Filipino Catholic family, which got together, seventy strong, in a small bungalow in Berkeley. Lucky for them, the weather was pretty good over Christmas.
I, on the other hand, headed to Fresno to visit my Puerto Rican aunt and uncle and their three sons, Frankie and Johnnie and Jimmy, their spouses and kids, plus a half dozen Russian speaking Kajikistanis, some Palestinian Muslims from Kuwait, me, the lone Japanese, and an assortment of Anglos and Hispanics. Our family party only had forty, though it was a boisterous forty after the Kajikis passed out vodka shots and the salsa singing and dancing started.
The star of the Puerto Rican clan gathering was the whole pig that roasted for six hours on a huge rotisserie in Frank’s back yard by the pool. The first time I ever saw this cultural tradition was 25 years ago on Epiphany (Jan. 6) in my grandparents back yard in San Juan, which was the first time I ever met my Puerto Rican relatives. Jimmy, a chef, did the honors of carving the lechon. Even the Muslims, who ate turkey, admired it. When I explained this to my massage therapist, he laughed and said, “Lechon is what the Filipinos call a roast pig! We cook it above ground too.” Thanks to the Spaniards who colonized both islands.
The lechon made me think about how practices that have become associated with old traditions of a culture are actually pretty new, as far as the long view of human history is concerned. The hot chilis of Szechuan and Indian cooking were native to the Americas, as were, of course, the tomato of Italian pasta and the potato of Ireland. But once something is done long enough, people start to think it was always that way.
Take marriage. This Monday, a trial starts in California that challenges Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage legislation that passed last fall. Because a wide swath of the public cares about the trial, anti-Prop 8 folks wanted media and cameras allowed into the trial. The pro-Prop 8 folks wanted no cameras. The judge compromised by saying the proceedings would be taped and posted at YouTube, so if you want to follow this battle, head there. It’s expected to last a few weeks.
The support for Prop 8, largely from conservative religious groups, was based on a definition of traditional marriage that isn’t particularly traditional, at least if the Bible is your guide. The marriages in the Bible are not the more recent monogamous, loving, nuclear, obedient-wife structures conservatives think of as “traditional.” The Bible has levirate marriage, in which a woman is required to marry her husband’s brother if her husband dies. The Bible has levirate marriage, in which a widow is required to marry her husband’s brother. It’s also got some cases of incest to guarantee progeny, lots of polygamy and concubinage—most notably Solomon, and a lot of adultery, including King David who arranged to have Bathsheba’s husband killed after she turned up pregnant—not by her husband Uriah, who is a lot better character than the conniving king.
It’s not that the Bible sanctions these arrangements, but that it hasn’t got much to offer to those looking for a good model of marriage. In fact, Genesis 3:16 views the two main roles of women in marriage, childbearing and her relationship to her husband of desire and subordination, as curses. This may be why St. Paul didn’t think much of marriage at all, except as way to dodge the sin of fornication. I’ve been to a lot of Christian weddings, even conducted a few myself, and I’ve never heard a biblical passage about marriage read at a wedding. The most commonly read passages are from the book of Ruth “My people shall be your people….” or I Corinthians 13 on spiritual gifts, “the greatest of these is love.” The Ruth passage is about two women pledging love to each other. Corinthians is a plea to a community about group behavior and spiritual practices. A third one that is used is Song of Solomon, “Set me as a seal upon your heart.” It, at least, is a pledge of love between one man and one woman who are enjoying each other sexually—the poetry is passionate and beautiful—but there’s not any mention that they are married or even betrothed. They don’t live in the same household, but seem to visit each other a lot.
Traditional marriage, if the Bible is a guide, sucks for women. Men own wives (the 10th commandment says don’t covet your neighbor’s property, including his wife), have license to beat or kill them (Hosea), and generally behave rather badly, with a few standout exceptions like Joseph, Jesus’ father. The household codes in the later epistles attributed to Paul, but probably not his authorship, reinforce patriarchal marriage.
In fact, Christianity regarded marriage as a civil matter—definitely NOT a sacrament. Priests did not officiate at weddings, and it was not turned into a religious ceremony for over a millennium. When the church finally started conducting marriages, they used, according to the great Yale church historian, John Boswell, the language of holy-union ceremonies earlier developed for same-sex couples in monasteries and convents. These were ceremonies, not of transfers of ownership of the woman to her husband, but of equals who pledged undying love, faithfulness, and life-long care and friendship for each other.
When the legal challenge to Prop 8 was raised, a number of religious groups signed an amicus brief saying it violated the civil rights of gays and lesbians and interfered with our freedom of religious practice. We conduct same-sex marriages, authorize them, and think they are ethical. Prop 8 denies state recognition of their legality. The Reform Jews, the Unitarian Universalists, the Episcopalians, the United Church of Christ, and the California Council of Churches which includes a bunch of mainline Protestants, all opposed Prop 8 during the election, and we support the challenge to it.
When conservatives say same-sex marriage threatens “traditional,” i.e. heterosexual marriage, they are right. Christian same-sex marriage, in its egalitarian, loving values, is actually far older than “opposite” marriage, which is what beauty queen Carrie Prejean called straight marriage. Medieval Christian marriage between a man and woman was based on the love that characterized same-sex relationships—no gender hierarchy. The ancient understandings of same-sex holy unions challenge gender inequality and male dominance because they are not based on marriage on the model of the pater familias and ownership of women, which is what makes traditional marriage unethical.
Maybe, if we can make same-sex marriage legally recognized, we can finally fix “traditional” marriage. The issue is not which is traditional and which is new, but which is morally defensible. If we have to have the institution of marriage at all, let’s at least try to make it ethical.
JComing from a fairly radical queer perspective, I have never understood the desire of GLBT folk to buy into the modern institution of marriage beyond the basic civil and economic advantages afforded by parity.
What you suggest, it seems, is that we create a truly ethical paradigm for marriage, one that would supplant the chattel-based model we have dragged into the 21st Century, which itself evolved from the marriage between our two most violent institutions–slavery and capitalism.
Six states have authorized some version of equal access to marriage in its present form. I wonder if any of these would have subscribed to the retooling of the institution suggested in your eloquent, well-reasoned and radically ethical (dare I say loving?) argument.
My personal position is that the state should have a category of domestic contract law called civil unions covering the responsibilities and benefits of marriage. Religions can do whatever they want, but these won’t be civil unions with legal benefits unless a separate application is made via a license, which does not require a ceremony, just a witnessed signing. Clergy should not be licensed as agents of the state, but they can act as witnesses to signatures.
This legal contract should be open to any two consenting adults without discrimination–and not necessarily who one has sex with (though I have been reminded that “traditional” marriage is often woefully lacking in sex). Why can’t two best friends or siblings, who have lived together all their lives and take care of each, other adopt a child together or otherwise gain the benefits of civil union? It is good for society and our communities when adults commit to love and care for children and/or each other.
Like other legal contracts, civil unions would have regulations about how they can be dissolved and what responsibilities each party has for the aftermath.
I’ve seen lifelong marriages that have lasted decades and are really satisfying, gay and straight, and I’ve also seen plenty of miserable ones I’d never want to be part of, also gay and straight. Human relationships are complicated, but we should all have equal rights to pursue happiness or be miserable. I’m all for letting people do their best, and supporting them in that effort where possible.
The separation of religious and state interests is essential. I also agree about extending the benefits of unions or partnerships to friends and siblings. State control of relationships, under threat of economic and other legal penalties, needs abandoning. At the very least, it needs loosening.
My question then is this: Access to “status quo marriage”–a stepping stone or stumbling block on the path to a broader civil union/licensure arrangement (given the decoupling described by Mr. Smith)? My idealism and cynicism are in a face-off here.