Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: Always and everywhere?
Marriage-equality opponents frequently claim that marriage has been heterosexual since…well, since FOREVER, and that it is arrogant and foolish to tinker with such a pervasive human institution.
Whatever its logical shortcomings, the “always and everywhere” argument is rhetorically effective. Even gay-rights advocates concede that marriage equality seemed unthinkable just a decade or two ago. Imagine how novel it appears to those who, unlike us, have no direct stake in the issue.It’s tempting to respond that lots of things that seemed unthinkable a few decades ago – iPhones, Facebook, Sarah Palin–are, for better or worse, now familiar. But the reluctance to tinker with marriage is deep-seated. The “always and everywhere” argument demands a response that is not only logically sound but also rhetorically compelling.
Several responses are worth pondering. I’ve given them each names for convenience:
(1) False premise: The claim that marriage has always been exclusively heterosexual suffers from what should be a fatal flaw: it is simply not true. Same-sex marriages have been documented in a number of cultures, notably some African and Pacific Island cultures.
Marriage-equality opponents retort that these marriages are not quite the same as modern same-sex marriages, since they typically involve a kind of gender transformation of one of the partners. But this response is a red herring. Sure, homosexual marriages in these cultures look different from ours in various respects – but so do their heterosexual marriages.
More important, it is doubtful that opponents would abandon their objection to contemporary same-sex marriages as long as one partner agreed to be the “wife” and the other the “husband.”
The real problem with the “false premise” response is rhetorical: The response depends on anthropological data unfamiliar to most people, and it appeals to “exotic” cultures whose practices most Americans find irrelevant.
(2) Heteronormativity: Rhetorical considerations would also weigh against using words like “heteronormativity” when responding to people’s basic fears about marriage. But it’s nonetheless true that the “always and everywhere” argument begs the question against those who argue – quite rightly – that the heterosexual majority tends to oppress the homosexual minority always and everywhere.
Because of that oppression, recorded history often ignores or erases our lives and commitments.
Keep in mind that just a few decades ago, gays and lesbians were still considered mentally ill in much of the West; even today, gays are stoned to death in parts of the world. Against that backdrop, it’s not surprising that same-sex marriage seems newfangled.
The marriage-equality movement owes as much to an improved understanding of sexuality as it does to changing views about marriage.
(3) Not Mandatory: Even granting the (false) premise that marriage has been heterosexual “always and everywhere,” so what? No one is proposing that same-sex marriage be made mandatory. Heterosexual marriage will continue to exist “always and everywhere” for those who seek it, even while society recognizes that it’s not appropriate for everyone. The opponents’ argument seems to play on the irrational notion that giving marriage to gays somehow means taking it away from straights.
(4) Non-Sequitur: Let’s concede to marriage-equality opponents that history and tradition are important, and that we should be cautious about changes to major social institutions. Yet even if (contrary to fact) marriage were heterosexual “always and everywhere,” it does not follow that marriage cannot expand and evolve. One should never confuse a reasonable caution with a stubborn complacency.
Increasingly, that complacency is more than stubborn–it’s unconscionable. Marriage-equality opponents can no longer ignore the fact that we fall in love, just like they do; that our relationships have positive effects in our lives and the lives of those around us, and that we reasonably seek to protect and nurture these relationships. If not marriage for us, then what?
Ultimately, the problem with the “always and everywhere” argument is that each new same-sex marriage is a living counterexample to it. Whatever happened in the past, we have marriage equality now–in a small but growing number of places. These same-sex marriages are by and large bearing good fruit.
If ignoring tradition is “arrogant and foolish,” ignoring the evidence unfolding before us is exponentially so.
********************
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
An excellent inciteful and well researched piece John Corvino. It is unfortunate that so much of Gay history has been destroyed, hidden or not even recorded. Any of us that have grown up previous to the last couple of decades, well know the feelings of loneliness and shame that we were subjected to should we take the step and come out as being Gay. Without the resources we have nowadays, many of us did not know that there were others like us, we did not know that we could and were able to form lasting relationships, even marriage with a same-sex partner. Michael mentioned in an earlier comment that John Boswell’s “Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” sounds like it might be a very worthwhile read, one that I think I may purchase myself for my home library. Thanks for that Michael, and again thanks to John for your excellent piece.
John, just when we think that you’ve become as batty as Ruby-Sachs; you come up with this gem.
Very, very, very well written.
I would like to point out, as some substantiation for one of the poster’s secret library conspiracy theory that it wasn’t until the publication of “The Exorcist” in the late ’70’s that virtually every non-underground printed document (book, newspaper, magazine, etc. etc. etc. including radio and television) were censored by the Catholic Church through various boards of “decency”.
I often wonder how Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” made it past the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on the printed word–perhaps someone could enlighten me.
However, I digress.
Virtually EVERY document/book/whatever associated with the Olde Religion had been “christianized” for publication, creating the illusion that the Olde Religion had anything at all to do with christianity and/or the Catholic Church, when, in fact, it predated both by a few millenia–give or take.
So, just like twenty years ago, the idea of legal same-sex marriage would have seemed impossible, it was a bit over thirty years ago that REAL family traditions of REAL witchcraft, the Olde Religion, etc., were finally able to be printed for public consumption.
Previously, since the burning of the Library at Alexandria, and the near genocide of our people–known as the Burning Times, which has very little to do with the witch hunts of circa early colonial America. There goes that christianization of history again–trapped between the warring factions of the Crusades, Olde Religion Trads unpolluted by christianization were passed down verbally/direct instruction.
So, yes, Virginia, times do change.
It’s time for the breeder mundane judeo/christian wombats to wake up and smell the end of their lying, brutal DELUSIONAL era.
After all, it IS the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
May we shortly forget the dismal age of Pisces we leave behind.
One quibble with your first point. Marriage has not always been exclusively heterosexual, nor has same-sex marriage been particularly “exotic”.
As John Boswell documents so thoroughly in his book “Same-Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe”, the ancient Romans and Greeks had same-sex unions. The Roman Catholic church even had a liturgy for a few centuries for same-sex untions. Heck, they even have what can be considered patron saints for same-sex unions (Serge and Bacchus, I think). It’s an excellent book that I highly recommend, but it reads like a college text book.
Did they ever consider that a desire to be married is actually a desire to conform to traditional values? The only difference between us and them is conservatives don’t like our relationships.
For all the rhetoric that we have heard from the religious right (including Protestant fundamentalists, Roman Catholics and orthodox Muslims and Jews) about saving marriage, the truth is that they are not talking about saving marriage. They are talking about saving a definition of marriage.
The fact is that the definition of marriage has changed over history. Early Biblical marriage for example was one man and several wives. Only recently has equality of partners in marriage been generally accepted in society.
If we want to save marriage– and not just a definition of marriage– all of us need to work at building up support systems to help people prepare for marriage and get needed assistance when a marriage is in trouble.
THIS IS ALSO A KEY CHALLENGE TO OUR OWN LGBT COMMUNITY.
Corvino… this was an EXCELLENT piece!
The “always and forever” argument, no matter what one is applying it to, seems to fail because there always seems to be some historical anomaly somewhere.
The principle case I was aware of was the Native American “berdache” tradition, which is not so exotic. Not only did some Native Americans marry men to men, but they venerated these homosexuals as war charms, calling them “Three Spirited” (man, woman, and the Divine). Isn’t it so convenient that gay marriage opponents have just happened to overlook contradictions to their arguments?
This opinion article made me want to stand up and cheer, though. Finally someone eloquently wrote what so many of us amateur historians have been thinking!
Montrealbren, it’s not paranoid to suggest that the vatican has ample documentation of that which they seek to demonize. Hell, look at all the enabling that went on to avoid dealing with rampant pedophila.
Yeah, Jessica, you’re definitely right that there are millions of Americans who will never be OK with men marrying men. However, when you pin them with one simple question–”Why is somebody else’s marriage or bedroom any of your business?”–they do squirm. When forced to stay on point, and not go on tangents about goats on bridal registries, honeymoon sodomy connected to al-Qaeda recruiting, etc, they get beaten down to mush. Of course they still want to stay in denial, but they’re sufficiently traumatized by their trip to MYOB-land that they at least shut up and keep their muttering too low to hear. As it should be.
Much as the Vatican is intent on locking up the truth, it sucks for them that they don’t have exclusive control over all historical documents from pre-Renaissance Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. Whether Roman or Byzantine, there definitely were church-sanctioned same-sex bonds directly comparable to marriage. The biggest difference (aside from reproduction) is that no free man of the time who married anybody was going to be considered chattel.
Rachel Maddow last night reported that MA. the first state to have marriage for same sex couples, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. SO rather than the sky falling, the divorce rate has.
If always and forever applied, all men CHEAT, not just some. We can extrpolate and exaggerate just like the other side.
Fear isn’t a predictor of the future. it seems to be the only tactic the Right has to support their position.
Unless I’m very much mistaken, Martial records some Roman same-sex marriages. So no need to look to ‘exotic’ cultures to find historical anticedents to same-sex marriage. Further, in these descriptions both men are often described as being very manly (in other words there appears to be no male and female role in these marriages).
Mr. Corvino, I find your language and conclusions to be masterful and clear. And while I agree with you, I also think Jessika K has a point that logic doesn’t work for all our opponents. They makes rebuttals with hyperirrational language that routinely reaches for the visceral jugular of impression. And though unconscionable to a rational person, the saddest part is that many of the people who say such things actually believe it, and would rather die than give it up. That’s why sometimes important social changes take at least a generation to literally die off.
John, Excellent analysis of this issue. In addition, well thought out arguments for same sex marriage. Look at the facts and look at the data. Most of the arguments from the other side were established in the Bronze age.
Nice to see these falsehoods explicitated. It has dredged up my only conspiracy theory…
My response to the “always and everywhere” argument: SO wrong!
In the middle ages in France, the practice of “afrèrement” (embrotherment? siblingation?) was perfectly well accepted. Same-sex couples lived together, and were treated as “brothers” or “sisters” in socio-political terms. This practice was ended by – that’s right – the Roman Catholic Church.
Though a long time ago, France does not represent an exotic or lesser civilization. Spinsters have lived together since time immemorial – not an exotic concept in the least. It’s safe to assume that many such arrangements were made with society’s tacit blessing… until the Christians decided that they had to control every aspect of life, much as mullahs might in Islamic areas today (for ex., uneducated men advising women on what to do about menstruation).
There have been gays living together happily all over the world – always and everywhere. Of course the history has to be teased out of any documentation. It is true that centuries of religious dogma have kept our (defacto) marriages out of the various channels of cultural propagation and recognition… Sadly, the Church’s Library of Secrets (sadly, they have one) likely has most of the documentation, and they aren’t about to let modern science take a look at their records. The Catholics learned much about mankind while enjoying Crusades, Inquisitions and the like – and they documented EVERYTHING.
Frankly, though it makes me sound paranoid, I believe that the Church has oodles of historical info about homosexuality that would benefit today’s researchers. Of course, they don’t want us to see their dirty linen. Ego before compassion.
It is galling that the always and everywhere argument takes no account of pre-Christian history. It strikes me that this would be the period of great interest to humanity: what exactly were we up to before the church imposed itself on our daily lives? While the church has brought great wealth to the West, it has also appointed itself as our historical censor.
If any institution has the truth that contradicts the always and everywhere argument, it is the Vatican.
(I promise, that’s the only conspiracy theory I ascribe to. I invented it. But what – besides things that make you look fallible – would you put in a secret library?!)
John – once again you eloquently and succinctly spell out what it would take me forever to do, if I could even do it. I wish I could put you in my pocket and whenever I get confronted with these arguments just pull you out and let you explain it to everyone LOL! Thank you for doing what you do!
["Marriage-equality opponents can no longer ignore the fact that we fall in love, just like they do; that our relationships have positive effects in our lives and the lives of those around us, and that we reasonably seek to protect and nurture these relationships. If not marriage for us, then what? " ]
What bubble are you living in?
According to them we:
Destroy their marriages.
Rape children and damage them.
Try to convert the children to gaydom.
Doom society. etc, etc…
You’re trying to be rational with irrational people. That just wont work.