Steve,
Thanks for the nuance. I did mention Boswell’s same sex unions and the practices of other peoples. There is, for example, the
berdache among the Native Americans. The film “Little Big Man” has an example of such a person.
I don’t discredit your examples and there are many more but these are peculiar cases. They are the exceptions that prove the rule. The majority paradigm throughout history has been, and is, one man/one woman, even though reality often counters that with adultery, divorce, and double-standards, usually to the suffering and detriment of women. Because women suffer the consequences more than men I can also say with confidence that throughout history and in many cultures women get the short end of the stick. Sexism like homophobia is also universal.
Roberts knows that exceptions to the one man/one woman paradigm are just that, not a baseline by which to redefine marriage.
As for polygamy and concubinage, as you note, they are expensive operations and most of humanity can’t afford it perhaps to the disappointment of many heterosexual men!
As for same-sex coupling and behavior among emperors and kings (e.g. James I of England), they had dispensation by virtue of their power, and hypocrisy is a common and permanent feature of human affairs: what is good for those in power is not always good for those who don't have it.
Where Roberts and those who agree with him go awry is to assume that marriage should only be about procreation. The arguments against this view have been rehearsed ad nauseam and I will not go into them here, but suffice it to say that Roberts’ view is not inherently incorrect but insufficient: in today’s world marriage can mean simple companionship without issue.
Procreation and stability for rearing children remain vital to, but not the sole reason for, marriage. This is already true of heterosexual couples. Extending the legitimacy of the non-procreative reality of heterosexual marriage to same-sex couples is not only logical but compelling. There is the added issue of adoption and artificial insemination for same sex couples, as for heterosexual couples.
The most convincing aspect of Roberts’ dissent is that some states are now forced to redefine marriage. I would have preferred that people change their own hearts at the voting booth. Though I find the redefinition of marriage compelling, and already set in place by changing attitudes among heterosexuals long before civil marriage for gays became an issue to fight for, that redefinition disturbs some very deep assumptions and beliefs among good people.
The number of gay couples who are and will be married in the U.S. and the rest of the West is something unprecedented. Something that I’m sure would be incomprehensible to most people throughout history.
And the fight is not over. Not by a long shot. We live in the eye of the storm.
Best, Don
Linear Mode
