Every single time same sex marriage is discussed in the media, the reporter will find a conservative who will say that we are redefining marriage away from its "historical" definition: one man and one woman. Here's a quote from an article on same-sex marriage becoming legal in Connecticut:
"The sad day was the state Supreme Court changing the thousands-of-years definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, across cultures, across times," said Carol Gignac, who wore a sticker on her lapel that read: "Religious Liberty: Our Freedom First."
This is what I'd like to say to Ms. Gignac and all her ilk:
Stop lying.
You're either willfully lying, which doesn't say much about your commitment to your religion, or you're woefully ignorant. Cultures around the world and across time have defined marriage differently and continue to do so.
Same-sex marriages existed in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, China, Japan, Africa and other places. Polygamy is mentioned in the Bible multiple times, and has been practiced for centuries in many tribal societies, Islamic countries, and lest you forget, the United States. In India, it is currently possible to be ritually married to an animal or a god. Native American tribes recognized various forms of marriage including polygamy and same-sex unions.
Marriage is currently defined as being between a man and *one or more women, usually up to four* in the following countries: (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy)
Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Benin
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
CAR
Comoros
Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Gabon
The Gambia
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Myanmar
Niger
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
UAE
Yemen
Zambia
In the Arabian peninsula, polygamy of both the polygyny and polyandry types was practiced before the time of Mohammed.
In rural Tibet, marriage is often defined as one woman and several brothers.
So please, all you conservatives, stop claiming marriage has been defined as monogamous and heterosexual since time began. You're just plain wrong.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Historical" Definition of Marriage: Not 1 Man, 1 Woman..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13285
Awesome! This is one of the most frustrating claims made by right-wing conservatives. I think what they mean is "re-defining marriage away from what I'm comfortable with," and they blindly claim historical precedent. This is a good resource, and I'll be borrowing it when I argue with my family! Thanks!
To be fair (and I only know this because of a really fun Japanese history class I took in Kyoto) in Japan, the relationships between men were tolerated, but weren't marriage. This gets to the thrust of the argument-tolerance (albeit grudging) of homosexual unions and formal state recognition are two very different things. For these people, that makes a world of difference. I'm down with your main point that marriage has taken many forms over the course of human history: if these people were actually _smart_ they'd note that what they're citing is the short history of the United States. Which is enough for some people, not long enough for others. Personally, I don't think the "it's traditional!" argument has much force: slavery was also traditional, segregation was traditional, coverture was traditional, blah blah blah. We get rid of bad traditions as we evolve. So I don't really care if there's a "tradition" of homosexuality, they just need to get over it.
But yeah, you're right-I hate that lie :)
Heck, even in the short history of the US, we had/have polygamist Mormons.
Heck, we still do. Which is why I think the Latter Day Saints were so very interested in prop 8...it's like they were trying to forcefully separate themselves from that shadiness. Slippery slope, anyone?
I'm in the epicenter of this debate right now. Yay Iowa! There are so many arguments against same-sex marriage. All of which are overly dramatic, all of which are religiously or procreative related. All of which are invalid under the Iowa Constitution. I've schooled many a person on this. And you just gave me more :)
Jon Stewart made an excellent quip about this on the Daily Show! I can't find it, but he basically said,
"Yeah, because HISTORICALLY you know, you had your marriage arranged for you by the King, who owned your land, and he picked the bride most suitable for you. He got to have sex with her first, of course."
I'm not really telling it right, but it was pretty funny!
he also talks about the historical definition of marriage in an interview:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/012655.html
Thanks, this was a really cool post!
I don't really have anything to add so I'm just going to say: great post.