Marriage rites vary around the world, and yet here in a country hailed as the melting pot, unfair restrictions prevent possible unions for same-sex couples.
In a California courthouse, the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger is defending the marital rights for these same sex couples, arguing the unconstitutional value of the Proposition 8 vote last November. Although still in the District Courts, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger promises to make new waves in how we can legally cite marriage. It’s practically on its way to the Supreme Court.
But there is opposition from both sides of the same-sex marriage line. Those in favor of same-sex marriage fear that a loss in this case will hurt the cause dramatically, while those against it see the Proposition 8 as democratically viable.
An entire group of people has been excluded from a right all Americans should have. Democracy certainly isn’t in action.
Some of those against same-sex marriage delude themselves to believe that these same-sex couples pose a threat to the sanctity of marriage. These people set a standard that marriages should follow, but in reality marriage itself has always been malleable and without a true definition.
In early history, marriages basically began as legal tender, with daughters traded off as property in exchange for some sort of good or stock. These marriages weren’t of two equal individuals, as they are today. The norm was to have women subservient to their husbands. Marriages were one-sided and benefitted only one person in the relationship.
From there, marriage grew to be politically and socially driven. Marriage became a bare union, connecting two families’ lands or titles, and royal families made a business of betrothing heirs across territories in order to settle agreements or pacify neighbors. These marriages upheld high society, keeping the wealthy and privileged together to disinherit the lower classes.
Basically, when it comes down to it, marriage began as a business transaction that dealt with property exchange and dowries. Love between two individuals was not a priority in those days, as it is now.
The institution of marriage is in a constant flux, reflecting a group’s values or a generation’s culture. It’s a true testament to our times that love and marriage go together instead of business deals and marriage. Yet there are still people who maintain that marriage does have established standards.
The only constant about marriage is its lack of constancy. Our society continues to claim that there are set principles couples need to follow: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriages create families. Marriages are monogamous.
There is no explicit definition, and there are married people who abuse those standards everyday. Sometimes couples can’t or choose not to have children, and people sometimes cheat on one another. Since Henry VIII introduced the concept of divorce in the Anglican Church, marriages developed an escape hatch. Today, approximately 50 percent of American marriages end in divorce.
With hardly any deference towards these supposed standards by many heterosexual couples, their definition of marriage is really only a flimsy excuse to exclude same-sex couples. Yet these anti-same-sex marriages continue to claim that in allowing same-sex unions, we’re placing the sanctity of marriage at risk.
The sanctity of marriage isn’t dead. It just never existed in the first place.
To say that the sanctity of marriage is at risk implies that marriage always had a concrete meaning. If we are going by those standards today, then it’s fair to say that all respectable meanings of marriage are basically kaput.
True, marriage does hold some importance in society as a whole, but so does equality. Withholding someone’s right to marry not only reflects negatively on the society as a whole, but also shows that intolerance still resides in a country that is looked up to by its neighbors.
The ongoing Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case is one of those landmark cases in American history. It could redefine what our country legally defines as marriage and finally give same-sex couples in all states the right to marry.
Marriage can evolve again because that’s naturally what it does. It was never meant to be static. It’s evolved ten times over from where it has started, and with the promise of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, it’ll continue changing.
Why choose “sanctity” over equality?
Published: Monday, February 8, 2010
Updated: Monday, February 8, 2010 17:02
Be the first to comment on this article!