Same Sex Marriage





The Evolution of Marriage

  • The present debate about whether same sex marriage should be made legal, is just the latest step in a long process of change. Traditionalists have a picture of marriage as an unchanging institution which cannot be modified without threatening all of society. But in fact marriage is not fixed and unchanging; it has evolved as society has changed.

    In Biblical times there were strict laws about marriage and sex. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says a marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. This is no longer considered a good idea in polite society.


    Deuteronomy 22:22 also says that "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die ..." (This is not often enforced today.)

    For a long time, marriage-by-conquest was allowed (Deuteronomy 21).

    So if someone tells you they want society to retain "biblical marriage", they probably mean one of these:


    If you couldn't find a wife, then you could just go and kidnap one. Analysis of Icelandic genes shows that while the male Y chromosomes come from Scandinavian stock as you'd expect, 50% of the female genes are of Celtic origin. They come from Scotland and Ireland, a convenient spot to drop off on en route to a new life in Iceland. So quite obvious that the women were kidnapped by Vikings whose own womenfolk weren't particularly keen on the prospect of a gruelling sea voyage then a hard life on a volcanic outcrop in middle of the North Atlantic.

    In the recent past, marriage was mainly an economic decision. Rich people married to cement alliances, poor people married for an extra hand on the plough (or for the very poor, someone to pull the plough). The husband owned the wife in the same way as he owned the rest of his possessions.

    When women began to ask for equal rights, male dominance was justified by biblical passages such as Genesis 3 ('he shall rule over you') and Ephesians 5 (' wives submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord'). But today women are recognized as equals, both legally and socially.

    We are horrified by stories of Third World marriages where the bride is a minor, but in the 1800's the age of consent for English females was 10, and courts required girls alleging rape to provide impossible standards of proof. The law did nothing, either, to prevent the routine abuse of female servants and, in particular, slaves. Yet, at the same time, for a black man to have sex with a white woman was considered the most monstrous of crimes, punishable by castration, burning alive or decapitation followed by display of the severed head on a pole.

    Interracial marriages were once forbidden. The Bible saying that God angered by Israelites marrying into other tribes (Ezra 10, Numbers 36, Nehemiah 13), as well as the Curse on Ham (black people are bad), was used as justification for miscegeneation laws in the US, as well as Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa. The last miscegeneation law in America was only ruled unconstitutional in 1967.

    Divorce used to be very hard to obtain. In 1800 there were only 4 divorces in England, partly because each one required an Act of Parliament. Even into the twentieth century the rules favoured men so much that many women were discouraged from getting a divorce. Again there are Biblical commands against divorce (Malachi 2), or if adultery has occurred, allows remarriage after a divorce only for the innocent party (Matthew 5). But these instructions are widely ignored - the rates of divorce and remarriage are much the same for christians and non believers.

    So clearly there is no such thing as 'traditional marriage'. Society changes, and attitudes (eventually) catch up.


    Currently fundamentalist christians worried about same-sex marriage. Many base their objections on their reading of the OT, but there are obvious problems with that - the OT prohibits lots of things that were dangerous in the Stone Age when the OT was written, but which we ignore today ....


    ... and they can't get a lot of help from the New Testament either:




    They have a strong emotional opposition to the concept, so they tend to dial up the Crazy Meter a fair way...


    well no, the rest of us don't think so ...


    .... but it's not easy to come up with rational reasons to oppose.


    Even now, some are re-interpreting the Bible to include gays, rather than to wage war on them.



    The Rev Steve Chalke, a Baptist minister, says that the Bible paints a far more inclusive picture than many acknowledge. In my understanding, the principles of justice, reconciliation and inclusion sit at the heart of Jesus's message.

    "Rather than condemn and exclude, can we dare to create an environment for homosexual people where issues of self-esteem and wellbeing can be talked about; where the virtues of loyalty, respect, interdependence and faithfulness can be nurtured, and where exclusive and permanent same-sex relationships can be supported?"


    He questions why so many Christians who are prepared to dismiss biblical prohibitions regarding women in leadership or scriptural endorsements of the slave trade as "cultural" do not take the same tolerant attitude towards same-sex acts.


    "Here is my question. Shouldn't we take the same principle that we readily apply to the role of women, slavery, and numerous other issues, and apply it our understanding of permanent, faithful, homosexual relationships? Wouldn't it be inconsistent not to?"


    So what will happen in the future? 90% Americans think polygamy is morally wrong - more than those against human cloning, abortion or the death penalty. Yet it has been popular, and taken for granted, for most of human history. Polygamy gives women more options: they can marry above their station. "Which woman wouldn't rather be John F. Kennedy's third wife than Bozo the Clown's first?"

    Robots are increasingly being employed as nurse aids and companions for the elderly alone. The film Lars and The Real Girl showed a shy man using a blow up doll as a stepping stone toward a real relationship (and being accepted by his community).


    When (not if) robots become humanoid enough, will humans still prefer to deal with a partner with human problems and complaints?


    The lesson of history is that attitudes change, and in a predictable way.

    One generation has a strong emotional attachment to a traditional idea. The next generation stops and looks at the idea rationally, and sentiment begins to change. The third generation changes the rules and the fourth generation shrugs and wonders what all the fuss was about.

Liberal vs Conservative

    Many people are wondering what this means for the future of same-sex marriage in the United States. Why exactly is this such a contentious issue, and why do Americans’ opinions seem to differ so greatly? When it comes to marriage equality, why can’t we all just get along?

    Where Does a Same-Sex Marriage Attitude Come From?

    The reason why only nine states in the USA have legalized same-sex marriage most likely has something to do with the large number of senators (and, presumably, American citizens) who are against it. But other than the obvious factors (like religion and age), what else might make someone especially likely to reject the idea of same-sex marriage?

    We might find some answers by looking at empirical research on the psychological roots of political ideology. Conservative social attitudes (which typically include an opposition to same-sex marriage) are strongly related to preferences for stability, order, and certainty. In fact, research suggests that these attitudes may be part of a compensatory mental process motivated by anxiety; people who feel particularly threatened by uncertainty cope with it by placing great importance on norms, rules, and rigidity. As a result, people who are particularly intolerant of ambiguity, live in unstable circumstances, or simply have an innate need for order, structure, and closure are more likely to hold attitudes that promote rigidity and conventional social norms – meaning that they are most likely to be against same-sex marriage.

    What does it mean to be intolerant of ambiguity? Well, would you rather see the world around you as clear and straightforward, or would you rather see everything as complicated and multidimensional? People who fall into the first category are much more likely to want everything in life (including gender roles, interpersonal relationships, and conceptualizations of marriage) to be dichotomous, rigid, and clear-cut. “Ambiguity-intolerant” people are also, understandably, more likely to construe ambiguous situations as particularly threatening. After all, if you are inherently not comfortable with the idea of a complicated, shades-of-gray world, any situation that presents you with this type of uncertainty will be seen as potentially dangerous. This is likely what’s happening when a conservative sees an ambiguous situation (e.g. a same-sex couple’s potential marriage) as a source of threat (e.g. to the sanctity of marriage).

    Why Is Attitude Change So Hard?

    After reading the section above, it should be fairly clear that there’s a problem with how both pro- and anti-same-sex-marriage proponents are viewing the other side’s point of view. The issue is not really that there’s one way to see the issue, and the other side simply isn’t seeing it that way; the issue is that both sides are focusing on entirely different things.

    Overall, liberal ideology paints society as inherently improvable, and liberals are therefore motivated by a desire for eventual societal equality; conservative ideology paints society as inherently hierarchical, and conservatives are therefore motivated by a desire to make the world as stable and safe as possible. So while the liberals are banging their heads against the wall wondering why conservatives are against human rights, the conservatives are sitting on the other side wondering why on earth the liberals would want to create chaos, disorder, and dangerous instability. It boils down to a focus on equality versus a focus on order. Without understanding that, no one’s ever going to understand what the other side wants to know and hear, and all sides’ arguments will fall on deaf ears.*

    But there’s another mental process at play. When someone has a strong attitude about something (liberal or conservative), the mind works very hard to protect it. When faced with information about a given topic, people pay attention to (and remember) the arguments that strengthen their attitudes, and they ignore, forget, or misremember any arguments that go against them. Even if faced with evidence that proves how a given attitude is undeniably wrong, people will almost always react by simply becoming more polarized; they will leave the interaction even more sure that their attitude is correct than they were before. So even if each side understood how to frame their arguments – even if liberals pointed out the ways in which same-sex marriage rights would help stabilize the economy, or conservatives argued to liberals that they could provide equal rights through civil unions rather than through marriage – it’s still very unlikely that either side would successfully change anyone’s attitude about anything.

    If Attitudes Are So Stubborn, How Have They Changed In The Past?

    So how did it happen? As one specific example, how did New York end up legalizing same-sex marriage in June 2011 with a 33-29 vote?

    I’d wager a guess that part of it had to do with the five other states that had legalized same-sex marriage by that point and seen their heterosexual marriages remain just as sacred as they ever were before. As same-sex marriage becomes more commonplace (and heterosexual marriages remain unaffected), it will also become less threatening; as it becomes less threatening, it will evoke less of a threat response from people who don’t deal well with ambiguity.

    But I can offer another serious contender: Amendment S5857-2011.

    This amendment, which states that religious institutions opposed to same-sex marriage do not have to perform them, was passed shortly before the same-sex marriage legalization bill. There’s a very powerful social norm at work in our interactions, and it shapes how we respond to people’s attempts at persuasion: When we feel like someone has conceded something to us, we feel pressured to concede something back. This is called a reciprocal concession.

    Let’s say a Girl Scout comes to your door and asks if she can sell you ten boxes of cookies. You feel bad saying no, but your waistline doesn’t need the cookies and your wallet doesn’t need the expense. After you refuse the sale, she responds by asking if you’d like to purchase five boxes instead. You then change your mind and agree to buy five boxes; after all, if the girl scout was willing to concede those five boxes of cookies, you feel pressured to concede something in return – like some of your money. That’s the power of reciprocal concessions.

    This, in my opinion, is a good contender to explain what happened in the New York State Senate back in 2011. The vote was dead even: 31 for, 31 against. When the Senate passed the Amendment, this was a concession from the pro-same-sex-marriage side, which, according to the logic of reciprocal concessions, should have encouraged no-voting senators to reciprocate by conceding their votes. For two of them, it worked.

    So now, we’ve seen that personality, ideology, and attitudes can all play a role in our attitudes towards same-sex marriage, and that votes might even swing because of techniques that we could have learned from our local Girl Scouts. This means is that it’s absolutely essential for everyone involved in the debate this week to understand that we won’t all respond to the same types of arguments, reasoning, or pleas. Rather, it is imperative that we consider how a focus on equality or stability might shape what information we pay attention to, and what values we deem most important.

    1 I recognize that these are generalizations, and these descriptions do not accurately represent every liberal person and every conservative person. I also recognize that individual political attitudes are more complex than this distinction may make them out to be, and that religious ideology plays a very strong role as well. However, the focus on equality vs. stability is, at its core, the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative political ideology.

US

    Same-sex marriage might not seem like a big employment issue, but it is. In the absence of universal healthcare in the United States, businesses are expected to pay for the health insurance of employees and their families. Getting decent “benefits” (including health coverage) in America is a key part of finding a good job.

    Over recent decades, many big corporations have extended health benefits that married couples enjoy to the partners of gay employees to ensure fairness all round. However, now that same-sex marriage is legal in 37 states and in Washington DC, some companies are asking gay employees in those states to get married if they want to continue to receive health benefits for their partners.

    Delta Airlines has gone down this path already, phasing out same-sex domestic partner health benefits in states where same-sex marriage is legal. Verizon, the telecoms company, is taking similar action. Now, with the prospect that the Supreme Court may extend same-sex marriage nationwide, this trend may be copied more widely. Dana Rudolph, 48, an online marketing professional, knows exactly what it’s like to be told by an employer to get married. In 2006, Helen Maynard, 54, her partner, got a new job as a semi-conductor engineer with a company in Massachusetts, where samesex marriage was then legal. The new employer told the couple that it would not extend Ms Maynard’s company health insurance to cover them both, unless they got married.

    “We had two weeks for Helen to hand in her notice, to sell our house in New York, find a new one in Massachusetts and get married,” Ms Rudolph said. “I tell people that after 13 years together, and with a three-year-old son, we had a shotgun wedding.”

    Ms Rudolph describes herself as “as out as can be”, but she shares the concerns of some equality advocates that pressuring gay employees to get married could have the effect of inadvertently “outing” them because marriage certificates are public documents. “This matters because there are still states that do not legally provide LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] individuals with protections from discrimination.”

    Deena Fidass, director of the workplace equality programme at the Human Rights Campaign foundation in Washington, does not believe that all companies will ask unmarried same-sex couples to marry. Marriage does not suit all people, gay or straight, and companies will recognise this, she believes, because most will do what it takes to recruit and retain the best talent and to serve the biggest potential customer pool.

    Indeed, she shares the view that American companies are emerging as some of the most effective proponents of same-sex marriage. “Not all companies are holding their breath for the Supreme Court decision,” she said, adding that 66 per cent of Fortune 500 businesses already offered same-sex partner benefits. Of these, 62 per cent offer these benefits to both same and opposite-sex partners. She noted that it was the fight in the 1990s to get marital workplace benefits extended to gay couples that opened the door for many compani es to make the same provis ions for unmarried straight couples. This, in turn, has helped to reshape public attitudes to marriage. Indeed, popular support for gay marriage has increased dramatically over the past decade, according to Gallup, although a sizable minority still opposes it. Crucially, there are substantial differences in opinion across generations. Nearly 70 per cent of millennials, those people born between 1980 and the early 2000s, support same-sex marriage, compared with 54 per cent of the wider population.

    “Corporations look at millennials and see their future stakeholders and their future talent. If millennials are on board with same-sex marriage, it is not a tough choice for businesses to make,” Bob Witeck, an LGBT business strategist in Washington, said.

    He’s right. This year pressure from some of the biggest corporations in America, including Wal-Mart, Apple, General Electric and Marriott Hotels, effectively forced the state legislature in Indiana to amend a so-called religious freedom law that could have allowed discrimination against gay people. Asa Hutchinson, the governor of Arkansas, was also persuaded to reject a similarly restrictive bill. Last year, a similar corporate ballyhoo helped to persuade Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, to veto state legislation allowing businesses to refuse to serve gay people.

    If the Supreme Court does rule in favour of legalising gay marriage in all 50 states, it is unlikely to deter the conservative Christians who have led the charge against same-sex marriage and for whom it is an issue of faith. They may well urge their supporters to pray for the souls of whichever of the nine justices voted for it.

    However, the fact remains that the future of gay marriage no longer lies in their hands. As an issue, it has been fully embraced and owned by corporate America. This is not just because of a collective corporate moral certainty or even a desire to do the right thing (although both may be involved), but because corporations believe simply that it makes good business sense.

Other Resources

  • Books About Marriage
  • Anecdotes About Marriage
  • Quotations About Marriage

Go to Index page