The post is prompted by a raging debate happening on facebook, of all places, started by a friend of mine, Sam Purtill. It’s notable mostly for the number of comments it has (83 as of this writing). It also was enlightening to me just how polarizing an issue this is. It’s easy to ignore the people in the world that disagree with you. I think it’s important to have these arguments; even if no one’s mind is changed, it helps us to understand one another.


Before beginning any argument, it’s important to read the primary documents. I bet most of you, even the ones that feel strongly, haven’t done that. Shame on you. The proposal is available here. For you bums that are too lazy to read all 14 words of the constitutional amendment, here they are:

SECTION I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act. “
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read :
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California .

First things first: The History of Marriage.

Often heard in discussions of this issue is the buzzphrase “the institution of marriage.” Like most buzzwords, this one makes little sense if we take a look at its origins.

Marriage in the “traditional” sense of a man, a woman, and 2.2 children (actually, historically it was waaay more) predates recorded history. Of course, so do marriages in other less traditional senses. There are also an extraordinary number of polyandrous and polygynous “marriage” arrangements throughout history, many even in the Judao-Christian world, some even sanctioned by the church. In the days of the Roman empire, couples got married after mutual consent was established—that was all it took. There was little reason for any couples, be they male-female, male-male, or any other combination, to make the arrangement official. The reason nobility started making written contracts was financial—they needed to legally alter the flow of inheritance. Looking at this history, marriage isn’t much of an institution in any sense. The “official” marriage ceremony was first developed by the Egyptians and perpetuated by the Greeks around 500 b.c.e., but there was no required pomp or ceremony for the masses. At least, not until the 1500s.

That said, the Catholic church declared marriage a sacrament in 1215 and encouraged people to get married. Apparently it prevented sins… The church also began tracking births, deaths, and marriages. In 1525 Zurich was the first nation-state to mandate that “two pious, honourable, and incontestable witnesses” (<— A lot of this is paraphrased from here) be present at a marriage ceremony. In 1563, because people were still getting married in private, they mandated a priest in addition to the two witnesses and started jailing or fining perpetrators of pre-nuptial sex. Things standardized pretty quickly after that. Matrimony was declared a sacrament by the Catholic church at the Council of Trent, and they said it always has been sacred, as any good religious leaders would’ve. I put many of the justifying quotes from the bible below, taken from newadvent.

“”Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life; that He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church: because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.”
…
After this exhortation the Apostle alludes to the Divine institution of marriage in the prophetical words proclaimed by God through Adam: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.” He then concludes with the significant words in which he characterizes Christian marriage: “This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.” “

The ideas described in Paul’s first quote are admirable (great, now I’ve pissed off the feminists), don’t freak out, I meant the parts about loving your wife. Unfortunately, that was a luxury many people couldn’t afford. Marriages were often arranged by families long in advance, and the partners had little choice in the matter. I would argue that if a marriage requires love to be sacred, then many of them never quite reached the grace of god.

With divorce rates as high as 50% in today’s world, it seems like most people don’t take the sanctity of marriage very seriously.


Religion and the backing of Prop 8

The motivations behind the proposition aren’t obvious. “ Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” That sounds pretty mundane on the surface of it. Let’s explore the implications.

In today’s world, marriage means a lot of things. It means love. It means faithfully sharing your life with someone. Marriage has legal benefits, like joint legal actions, immigration rights, visitation rights, and medical power of attorney. It also makes a truckload of difference financially: Taxation status, inheritance, creating certain estate trusts, shared government benefit programs (social security, medicare, veteran’s care, etc), insurance benefits, and “family” rate programs are all benefits of being legally “married.”

The one thing that is obvious about the amendment is that it is exclusive. “Only…” Why would we want to exclude same-sex couples from marriage? The only point I’ve been able to find is that same-sex marriage is wrong, and this point usually comes from Christians backed up by the bible.

Lev 18:22-23 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Lev 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”

Leviticus is a particularly fun chapter of the bible. Ever mouthed off to your parents? According to this, you should be dead.
Lev 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

I have an idea, instead of arguing over this why don’t we turn some of this energy toward something constructive? Like…enslaving our neighbors. I could use a new butler.
Lev 25:44-45 “Both your slaves, and your bondmaids, which you shall have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall you buy slaves and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall you buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.”

With passages like these, it’s hard to take the rest of Leviticus seriously.

Good thing there’s more:

1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals”
1 Tim 1:9-10 “realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers”

For these particular passages, I recommend you read up on your Greek: here and here.

Rom 1:26-27 “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

This one is a dousy, Paul really seems to be getting right to the point here. There’s some speculation that he was condemning the pagan ceremonies that were often orgiastic and (homo)sexual in nature. Whether or not that’s the case, shortly after this passage Paul warns:

Romans 2:1: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” (King James Version)

Hypocrisy, my friends, is one of my biggest pet peeves.

Now that we’ve got the motivations covered, lets talk solutions.

One might offer up civil unions as a compromise. Civil unions a) aren’t offered everywhere, and b) don’t offer the same benefits and may not be recognized in other states. Even if civil-unions were closer to legal marriages, I wouldn’t want one. I am not a man of faith, but when I find the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with, I have no intention of kneeling and asking her to civil union me. The thought is ridiculous. Marriage may be a sacrament, but it isn’t to me. To me, it’s a lifelong commitment of my love—which is way more meaningful. I’m going to get married because that’s what it’s been called for as long as it has had a name. Admittedly the 800 years of tradition its had with the church is respectable, and I might even get married in a church for that reason, but marriage is not (only) a religious institution. My point is this: if someone tried to deprive me of my right to marry, I would be livid. Wouldn’t you?

The founders of our nation put it best.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The quest for a partner to love, comfort, honor and keep, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health (Anglican Book of Common Prayer, 1662) is something that binds every human, Christian or not. There is no greater quest for happiness. I daresay that its pursuit is a God given right. I know it, our country’s founders know it, God knows it. What gives you the right to take that away from anyone?

Equal marriages for everyone is the only right thing to do. Christian or not.

Vote no on Prop 8.