ElijahStanfield.com
  • Politics

One Marriage To Rule Them All

1/30/2014

12 Comments

 
Picture
In response to the idea of "gay marriage", many have stood up in defense of "traditional marriage". But what is meant by traditional marriage? I found that I really didn't know and most people who say they stand for it, haven't thought it out enough to make a sound argument to protect it. So over the last couple of years I have put a lot of thought and study into this, trying to grasp what marriage was and what it means to me now.

When most think about marriage they think about two lovers making vows of lifelong fidelity. But love hasn't always been the motivation for this union and behind the wedding and vow is a purpose to it all that reveals the  traditional definition of the word marriage.

Weddings
Most cultures today accept a wedding as the socially exceptable way to officially kick off a marriage but throughout history there have been many ways to "take to wife". A man could konk a woman on the head and drag her to his cave or an army of men could raid a village and steal the virgin daughters. A more socially acceptable method of "taking a wife" among the Anglos might included a romantic encounter under the stars (or a barn, where ever). The act of sex was ceremony enough to be accepted by the community as a wedded couple. 

Socially acceptable "weddings" in the Hebrew tradition include taking your slave into a tent, as with Abraham and Hagar, but the most common, preferable and peaceful practice was for the man to approach the patriarch of the home and pay him something in trade for his daughter, maybe 8 cows or so. Sometimes the father even asked the daughter if she was okay with the deal. The process was a legal contract between two men. The daughter now belonged to the husband. Note that a priest had nothing to do with any of this. This religious element came waaay later and has NO doctrinal foundation. Although these different methods of weddings range from horrific rapes to highly unromantic legal arrangements to enchanted nights under the stars, the understanding remains universal that once a virgin woman was "taken" by a man, she was considered his wife. 

What Marriage Is Not
It's important to point out here what is NOT marriage. The original meaning of fornication was to have sex with a prostitute or harlot. In other words, sex without future commitment. The intent was only for sexual pleasure. The word "adultery" means to "take" an already married woman. "You stole my property, you thief! " ...Not to mention these women were NOT VIRGINS, so clearly not desirable for wives. 

Multiply and Replenish
Why all the hassle over obtaining wives? With harlots there is no commitment, so what's the benefit that motivates these men to take on such commitments? The only conclusion I can draw is that a committed relationship with a woman is needed to make and raise a family! (seed). The word matrimony comes from the word meaning "mother". Marriage was specifically for making babies.

So, this understanding of traditional marriage brings up some controversial questions; People who are infertile...can they have a traditional marriage if they can't make babies? Under this definition of marriage and paired with the religious command to not have sexual relationships outside of a commitment of marriage, should these infertile people be denied the physical and emotional desires for a sexual relationship because of their physical condition?

Bloodlines 
In the past, strategic breeding was more important to people. The earliest reasons might have included an "evolutionary" purpose, to make strong, healthy people (no inbreeding). Then somehow inbreeding became desired (Royal blood, Jews, KKK, etc.). The desire for keeping the family DNA in the mix seemed really important to them. Is that still important today? I still get a thrill seeing the mixed DNA of my wife and I run around the house, so I know the natural instinct is still there, but I also know that I could love an adopted child just as much, and would be just as happy, proud and honored to raise them to become great people. In this way infertile couples can participate in the joyful institutions of parenting and marriage. But from this perspective, one could understand why gay couples feel that they also can be married and raise children, even under the traditional definition of marriage. 

A Renovation
Since dismantling this topic down to its basic foundations, I now believe the definition of marriage DOES actually need some renovating, taking into consideration some modern understandings about individual rights, self worth, love, sexuality, emotional health, respect, freedom, race and family. These changes include restoring some of the traditional framework from the past, while completely removing the ridiculous and tacky ideas that we should be voting about private and personal relationships and the idea that we need a license for relationships! Read up on the history of the marriage license. It will sicken you. 

Here are my ideas:

Erase the government definition:
Over the last 100 or so years the legal system has really embedded itself into family affairs. So much so that I think expelling it may take a few steps. The first step would be to dissolve the racket of the state marriage license completely and immediately. Getting a license (state permission) to marry is really absurd. As a temporarily legal patch, the state could recognize a "union" status declared by consenting parties for tax purposes, survivor benefits, parental rights, etc. These unions should not be exclusive to marriages, but for any consenting adults in any number or combination. Example: A mother and daughter should have the same legal privileges and protections as anyone else. Eventually and ideally there should be no special government privileges or incentives that require any information about relationship status, making this union status irrelevant. All of these arrangements ( shared property, survivor benefits, parental rights, etc.) should be made through private contracts and enforced just like any other contracts would be. The word "marriage" should not have any government mandated definition. Everyone should be free to live the desires of their conscience and accept or reject any definitions of "marriage" without persecution. Our society deals with different definitions of god, health, happiness without causing major disruption to our lives...we can deal with different definitions of marriage. The only reason it is an issue today is because the law forces all of us to accept one marriage. Into the fires of mount doom, I say.

Picture
12 Comments
LDSDPer
2/19/2014 05:16:13 am

well-said.

Reply
LDSDPer
2/19/2014 05:18:13 am

Thank you for this well-thought out essay.

It's important to find out what is real and what is not.

Reply
LDSDPer
2/19/2014 05:17:30 am

my message got left out; this is impressive; thank you for getting rid of some of the 'fluff'.

I said: well-said.

Reply
jhaws
3/13/2014 09:37:24 am

Thanks for taking the time to articulate your thoughts. I totally agree with your conclusions, particularly about the difference between an LDS sealing and a "legal marriage".

Reply
bons
3/13/2014 10:16:05 am

Very well said. I have also found that most people who preach about "traditional marriage" don't have an accurate understanding of what "marriage" has been throughout history (world history, not just US history or European history). Thank you for summarizing this history so well. I agree that government should be involved in enforcing legal contracts for many of the things we've lumped in with marriage, but not in authorizing or limiting the relationships of consenting adults.

Reply
ldsliberal
3/13/2014 02:45:04 pm

I loved this. Thank you for taking the time to be so articulate. It was well thought out.

Reply
Ann
3/13/2014 09:37:49 pm

So many things going thru my mind, love the article, so much truth in there I want to say so much but can't articulate right now.just wanted to say LOVE THE COWS at the end cute!

Reply
Jerry
4/18/2014 02:43:29 am

what is are your thoughts on this article? Are these legitimate concerns?

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

Reply
Elijah
4/18/2014 08:46:56 am

Thanks for commenting. I read the article and pretty much disagree with the premise of the whole article. The author equates the end of civil marriage regulations with ending marriage altogether. Since civil marriage has only been around for 100 + years and real marriage has been around for thousands, I would argue that her stance is baseless.
She suggests that state marriage regulations create a special legal shield around each family, keeping the state from interfering in family matters. This idea is completely backward.
Almost everything I read is backward and baseless. The only conclusion I can draw is that she believes in order for anyone to have any rights, everything must be regulated and legislated. There would be no family without a law to create it.
If there are specific concerns you would like to me address, please ask.
Thanks!

Reply
Jerry
4/25/2014 05:08:57 am

Thanks for the response.

I hope you can try to humor me in the hypothetical posed by the article and not dismiss it based on the premise as you interpreted it. I didn't interpret it to mean marriage would disappear, but that all the rights now given to families and married couples would be afforded based on contractual agreements rather than a combination of civil laws and natural laws as currently instituted.

The way I see it there are 3 choices our government has for dealing with marriage: (1) define it as a man and woman and keep all currently protections in place, (2) expand the definition to include same-sex couples and possibly polygamous couples if the demand were there, and (3) get government out of the marriage business altogether and require contracts for relationships that involve property ownership, hospital visitation rights, child custody, tax benefits, etc.

Most social conservatives argue against choice number 2 because it would destroy the family and make their heterosexual marriages meaningless. This article is saying that # 3 is more dangerous because it does that, plus puts us in a stronger relationship with the government than it does our spouse and family.

I would dispute your 100 year timeline on civil marriages as Western culture has promoted civil marriage since at least the time of Calvin in the 1500s. I'm not a world historian, but I'm sure Islamic and Buddhist culture have had strong state-recognized family relationships for centuries. That, however, is only a side note on this discussion because the length of time something has existed does not define its worth.

What I think we can agree on is that the family unit has been a vital institution since the beginning of history and that individuals and civilizations that honor it have been blessed while those who degrade or undermine it have met trouble and demise.

Civilizations that promote life, liberty, and property as natural rights automatically place marriage and the family unit in a sacred place within those rights. I think that at times, this natural autonomy was strong enough to keep even heavy-handed governments at bay. America was founded with this independent spirit where a family can move out west, claim land, and raise their family house they see fit.

The family and education have long been, and still are too a large degree, legally left up to the states and localities to regulate. This gives us a federalism buffer on top of the natural rights buffer.

Just over the past few decades, I believe this buffer has eroded. Broken families lead to government involvement with child protective services, court orders, and welfare. The federal government has stepped in more and more frequently to public schools to try to fix the issues caused by the breakdown of the family.

Now the question is, if we by law abolish the family unit and require all relationships to be defined and agreed to in contract, (1.) doesn't that create more government intervention, not less? (2.) Wouldn’t this weaken, if not destroy the natural buffer of the family and only give it to those with government-stamped contractual agreements? (3.) Couldn’t this lead to an Orwellian centralized, community-run society where we have no privacy, no autonomy, and no life, liberty, or property?

I'm not sure. I still haven't made up my mind.

But I think it is just as plausible as the government over-reaching and destroying civil marriage as some claim it will. Perhaps we should tread lightly before rashly eliminating marriage and family from the government's dictionary.

Jerry
4/25/2014 06:12:57 am

these two articles (written by a libertarian) also deal with my concerns:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5069/

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5071/

elijah stanfield
4/25/2014 08:12:37 am

Jerry,
This idea is something I'm going to have to chew on for awhile because it's coming from a perspective that is very foreign to my way of thinking. I really appreciate your input.




Leave a Reply.

    About the Author

    Elijah Stanfield is a media producer in Washington State. He has received degrees from The Delaware College of Art and Design and the Rhode Island School of Design. 

    A longtime student of Austrian economics, history, and the classical liberal philosophy, Elijah has dedicated much of his time and energy to promoting the ideas of free markets and individual liberty. Some of his more notable works include producing eight videos in support of Ron Paul's 2012 presidential candidacy and providing Illustrations for The Tuttle Twins series of children's books. 

    He currently resides in Richland with his wife, April and their 6 children.


    Topics of interest:

    Mormonism
    Economics
    Freedom
    Ethics 
    History
    Family
    Media Production
    Food


    Recommended Websites:

    Political
    Connor's Conundrums
    Stefan Molyneux
    Tom Woods Radio

    Religious
    The Life of Jesus Christ
    The Rebel God
    Rock Waterman

    Media Production
    FreeSound.org
    Audio Jungle
    Lens Pro to Go
    Dafont
    What the Font?
    Identifont
    Video Copilot
    Video Hive
    Brands of the World
    Philip Bloom

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.