Off Tangent Comix
See our Annotated List of DSM-related news, research reports, analyses, and opinion pieces.
Visit the TS-Si Article Archive for reports on science, medicine, government, society, and other topics.
DNA Blueprints Guide The Construction Of Specific Human Structures
Chad Mirkin discusses using DNA to build a three-dimensional structure out of gold, likening the process to building a house. Starting with basic materials such as bricks, wood, siding, stone and shingles, a construction team can build many different types of houses out of the same building blocks.
The article includes an audio recording of the full interview. Photo courtesy of the UCSD School of Medicine.
| Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Marriage (Not to Mention Love) |
 |
 |
| Opinion - Global Warning | |||
| Lisa Jain Thompson | |||
| Saturday, 22 November 2008 21:00 | |||
 Fairfax, VA, USA. In the United States of America, the right of any two people to marry each other has been attacked repeatedly by conservative religions and cynical politicians who will sell themselves to any group who will promise them votes or money. Religious beliefs notwithstanding, the first clause of the First Ammendment to Constitution of the United States clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
The Constitution leaves us with a choice: either religious objections to same sex marriage must be ignored or we must ignore the Constitution.
The knee jerk Congressional rush to prove they were more orthodox than their neighbor (and their collective fear that they may not be re-elected) produced the rashly written Defense of Marriage Act known in government-speak as DOMA:
Many of you reading this are undoubtedly surprised that President Clinton signed the DOMA, not President George W. Bush — but it’s true, a liberal democrat discarded principles to suck up to congress and the religious right in an election year, Constitution be damned. Politicians are politians first and statesmen only when they think it won’t cost them votes. We have had very few heroes in the White House lately.
If you press a politician on why he supported DOMA, very few will give a specifically religious reason. Wanting to be above sectarian arguments, they will talk about the current restricted concept of marriage being anchored in History. Some of you, perhaps most of you believe that. One of my readers told me that marriage as we know it (man, woman, heterosexual procreation, and a religious ceremony) has existed for 6,000 years (thus supporting the argument that whatever a civil union might be it is not, and cannot be, a marriage). Wrong. Not even close. Not now, not ever, not never.
And that romantic love thing is only a relatively recent invention and, judging from the divorce statistics, not even a very good one.Let us do some history, shall we.
Most ancient societies (our extended families, our tribal bands, our initial groupings of people into what were basically mutual defense societies rather than nations) found their continued existence (and the safety of their children) was better served by instituting a system of rules to handle personal property rights and ensure their wealth and property was passed to members of their family. The instituion of marriage, under whatever name, was one of the mechanisms created to handle this transfer of property.
For the last several thousand years, a part of the personal property controlled by marriage was the woman. By right, she was the property of the man, having been transferred from her father to her husband. [N2]
Throughout history, because of the link between marriage and property, parents arranged marriages for couples. The people getting married had little say in the decision. Love was seldom a driving force behind marriages which were arranged for economic and political liasons. Although less frequent, arranged marriages still occur today.
The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples occurred during the Roman Empire.No specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage among the Greeks and Romans; only mutual agreement between the two people getting married. Marriage and divorce were always personal and civil agreements between the participants did not require the stamp of governmental or religious approval.
Although same-sex relationships were common, the term marriage does not frequently appear associated with those relationships in the surviving record. It was not until 342 CE that the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.
The idea of marriage as a sacrament of the church and not just a contract can be traced to Saint Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church. [N3]
Although Saint Paul may have set up the framework that would become key to the Christian Church, in the early Christian era, marriage remained a private matter, with little thought given to ceremony, religious or otherwise. Before 1545 Christian marriages in Europe were by consent, a declaration of intent to marry, and the subsequent physical union of the parties involved. Although neither priest nor witnesses were required, divorce was discouraged.
The First Council of Nicaea was convened and presided over by Constantine I (The Great) in the Eastertide of 325 CE. The synod led by Hosius of Cordoba produced the core statement of Christian belief known as the Nicene Creed.
There is no mention of marriage or sexual orientation in the earliest expression of the essential Christian doctrine. Both were additions, adopted long after the central Christian Beliefs were established.
After the Council of Trent in 1545 CE, the Roman Catholic Church, as part of the Counter-Reformation, declared that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566 CE, which defined marriage as
This was the first attempt to impose heterosexuality as an integral requirement for marriage — fifteen hundred years (a millennium and a half) AFTER the founding of the Christian religion. Prior to the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church had taken no public position on same sex marriage.
But they still made no changes to the property rights of men in marriage. Women remained the property of men for all intents and were expected to be subserviant to men.
The Catholic Encyclopedia provides the Church’s current view —
— extending the definition of “marriage” to include the ceremony before continuing
But I can’t find any mention of the United States Constitution in the Catholic Encyclopedia, only a restatement of the Church’s position that was promulgated in 1545 and the confusion of the legal civil contract with the theological sacrament.
Five hundred years since the Christian definition was created, our short attention spans think that whatever we do now has always been done (for 6000 years!), that marriage, as originally instituted, was always about love and not property rights, and that women, never property, were always an equal partner in marriage. [N7] Before the Nineteenth Century, marriage was still primarily an economic decision not one based on love.
Some memories are so short they don’t remember that black MEN got the vote in the United States (fifteenth amendment 1870) half a century before any woman did in 1926 with the nineteenth amendment.
This religious jihad against same sex marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon. Religion was used to argue FOR slavery in much the same way it is twisted to argue against same sex marriage, using book and verse carefully selected to suit its purposes. Religion became a tool to rail against women’s suffrage (wives should be subservient to their husbands, women are not as intelligent as men) as it is now used to attack same sex marriage.
There is no deep history. Historically, women were held prisoner to men’s property rights who enforced those rights through marriage. Historically same sex marriages were not a great issue and civil marriage was not confused with a Christian sacrament. Historically, the highest civil law in the United States was the Constitution, not the Christian Bible, not Islam’s Koran, not personal religious beliefs or homophobia.
The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are born with certain inalienable rights — Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If that happiness should include marriage, same sex couples should be at liberty to pursue it, just like everyone else.
Notes[N1] Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. codified as 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C.
[N2] When the opponents of same-sex marriage argue about the deep unchanging history of marriage, they never seem to mention that the woman was property. Picking and choosing the parts of religion/tradition you will follow has always been a very personal game that is defended until death. [N3] There is no record indicating Saint Paul every had a close relationship with a woman. There is some evidence that he disliked women and more than enough evidence to conclude that he deeply believed women are inferior to men (as God intended). [N4] Eph. v, 23-32 KJV [N5] Anonymous [N6] Nicene Creed as revised by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE. [N7] The last bit may not be entirely correct. Many religious people seem to believe that the man is the head of a marriage and that women should be subservient. Many of the people with these beliefs appear to be male.  Ms. Lisa Jain Thompson is the Co-Founder & President of TS-Si, Inc. She also serves as a Contributing Editor and columnist for the TS-Si website. Ms. Thompson's signed articles contain her own opinions and do not necessarily convey an official position of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. Lisa welcomes your comments. You can use the public form below or send private correspondence via her TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge any personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (2)
 Write comment
|
|||
| Last Updated on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 15:31 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
The TS-Si News Service is a collaboration of TS-Si staff, contributors, and corresponding institutions. Contents do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates.We welcome responsible comments. Use the public article forms throughout this site or send private correspondence via the TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.
Except where noted, all works on this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. Copyright © 2005-2009 TS-Si, Inc. Some rights reserved.