In a past blogpost, I quoted from an article by two anthropologists who wrote about tradition and marriage:
Tradition and the bedrock social institution.
One of us is a man, the other a woman; one is Jewish, the other gentile; one is gay, the other straight; one specializes in Western civilization, the other in Eastern civilizations; and so on. As a result of our collaboration, we have been able to gather a great deal of evidence to support our responses to the arguments made by advocates of gay marriage.
Given their backgrounds, cynics might think these two may seem unlikely defenders of the social institution of marriage's core meaning. But read their article and consider how tradition fits into their anthropological account of the universal features of marriage.
Not surprisingly, comparative research reveals a pattern: Marriage has universal or nearly universal features and variable ones.
Its universal features include the fact that marriage (a) encourages procreation under specific conditions; (b) recognizes the interdependence of men and women; (c) defines eligible partners; (d) is supported by authority and incentives; (e) has a public dimension; and (f) provides mutual support not only between men and women but also between them and children. Its nearly universal features are (a) an emphasis on durable relationships between biological parents; (b) mutual affection and companionship; (c) family (or political) alliances; and (d) an intergenerational cycle (reciprocity between young and old). These features assume the distinctive contributions of both sexes, transmit knowledge from one generation to another, and create not only “vertical” links between the generations but also “horizontal” ones between allied families or communities.
[...]
* * *
Marriage is a complex institution. Fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is only one of its functions—-and not the most important one from a cross-cultural or historical perspective.
[...]
It is true that (some) gay people are motivated by the current straight ideal of settling down to bourgeois domesticity. But that sentimental ideal, whether held by gay or straight people, is a very impoverished one compared to the ideals associated with marriage in many communities, including our own not so long ago (notwithstanding the occasional need for reform). Gay marriage, with its focus on “love,” might add support to this impoverished ideal of marriage, sure, but only at the cost of undermining support the its primary functions (along with its richer and deeper ideals).
[...]
It is true that one function of marriage is to bring men and women together in the interest of producing future generations, after all, but another function is to bring them together in the interest of social stability—-that is, to prevent social fragmentation (the two most obvious and symbolically important fragments being those of men and women). In this sense, even childless marriages (between men and women) contribute directly and significantly to the achievement of a fundamental requirement of every society. Gay childless marriages, on the other hand, would not. Consequently, they would dilute the symbolism of marriage. Advocates of gay marriage find it convenient to ignore all this, arguing as if marriage had no communal dimension.
[...]
Marriage and the family are always changing anyway, so why not allow this change? Well, yes, of course, institutions change. Whether they always change in beneficial ways is another matter entirely. Unless we adopt the mentality promoted by countless ads and commercials—-every product is “new and improved”—-we must at least imagine the possibility that some changes might be for the worse. There is no logical connection, in short, between either “new” and “improved” or “changed” and “better.” Marriage has changed for the worse in many (though not all) ways, over the past forty years. It has been so severely weakened, at any rate, that many straight people dismiss as “nothing more than a slip of paper.”
And whether institutions change in all ways is yet another matter. Some features of marriage have not changed, which means that they are universal and therefore, presumably, both necessary and beneficial. Marriage has always been supported by the highest authorities and always been publicly witnessed, making every marriage a matter of communal importance—-which is to say, one that serves more than individual needs. These cultural norms are so pervasive and so enduring that they might as well be due to nature itself. We play with them at our peril.
* * *
And here is my impromptu response to a series of questions about the distinction between the core and the parameters of marriage:
The parameters and the core of marriage.
Is equality between spouses vital?
Is there any age limit (upper or lower) that is vital?
Are children vital?
Are limits by consanguinity vital?
Are there limits to how many husbands or wives there can be that are vital?
The five items you listed are not vital to a marriage. But they have developed from the man-woman union which demonstrates the vitality of the two-sex requirement. Despite variations on the secondary aspects of marriage, this criterion, the combination of man and woman, has been reflected through-out recorded history as the basis for the formation of a family and the social status of marriage.
The rest of what I had to say there is very close to David Blankenhorn's view which he expressed in an exchange with Dale Carpenter shortly after the release of Blankenhorn's pro-marriage book, "The Future of Marriage".
Unfortunately, Blankenhorn's blogged remarks no longer appear at Family Scholars Blog because they've had problems with their server. But if you want to follow the topic, here are a links to discussions in which Blankenhorn's remarks were discussed at length:
Dale Carpenter:
Gay marriage can very clearly meet five of the six dimensions of marriage. ...
My response to Carpenter and to other SSMers in the discussion:
6. Why do you imagine that marriage turns biological strangers into next-of-kin? See the nature of marriage.
This item #6, as David Blankenhorn puts it, is like the light bulb at the center of the other 5 items and it lights up those related items and gives them both context and special meaning. It is #6 that distinguishes the marital relationship from all other relationship types that might share, in some secondary or tertiary way, aspects of the previous 5 items.
Mr. Carpenter, your blogpost demonstrates that you argue for the two-person relationship type without giving an account of the nature of such a relationship type. In short, what is the essence of the thing you would have society call "marriage" -- if it is not illuminated by item #6?
Let's turn off that light bulb [#6] and proceed from there, as your post proposes, by the light of this two person relationship ideal.
* * *
My comment under the blogpost, "Plausible basis for SSM?" --
Note that the core of marriage is not a tradition.
The phrase "traditional marriage" would normally refer to a culture's particular traditions surrounding the core of marriage.
However, since SSMers have pushed forward the oxymoron, "gay marriage", some people have responded with a rhetorical response -- adding "traditional" to differentiate marriage from "gay marriage".
* * *
The Upshot:
What SSMers mean by "traditional marriage" is perhaps better described as everything that came before SSM was pushed to the top of the agenda ... except when SSM has been imposed for a few years, then it has become "traditional", too.
And, naturally, this means that most of what came before is bad and all that follows the imposition of SSM will be good. Or they mean something very like that.
However, the core meaning of marriage is not "traditional". It is universal. Gutting marriage of its core is not merely adding a new tradition to marriage. It would be a radical hollowing-out of marriage itself.
* * *
I think that marriage defenders and SSMers alike often confuse 1) the significance of tradition in terms of constitutional jurisprudence and 2) the significance of tradition as demarcating the boundaries and the protocols of marriage.
Items 1 and 2 are not one and the same even if there is overlap.
More later.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment