Another Look at Gay Marriage

It has occurred to the Dowbrigade that yesterday’s
posting on Gay Marriage was rather too flippant for what may turn out to be the
pivotal issue in the upcoming knife fight for the white house. As the
Dowbrigade would be the first to testify, marriage is a serious business.

Along with Birth and Death, Marriage is one of the Big Three landmarks
of our passage through this plane, and as such has been enshrined in
custom, myth and ceremony since before the curtain came up on the recorded
stage of history.

Just as the Baptism ceremony marks Birth, and the Funeral marks Death,
so the Marriage Ceremony inaugurates and celebrates the institution of
marriage.  The main difference is that while birth and death pass
in moments, a marriage is an ongoing dynamic which goes on for years.
In most cases.

Biologically (and in terms of Physical Anthropology, of which the Dowbrigade
was a practitioner for a time) the Big Three are more properly thought
of as Birth, Fucking and Death. Anthropologically speaking, the institution
of marriage serves to sanction certain reproductive practices and to
prohibit others. The fascinating thing is that any geographically or
historically varied survey will produce a wild and varied collection
of sexual and marriage practices which were considered "normal" by some
group of humans.

In our own historical and cultural tradition the institution of marriage
has been used mainly to allow older socially powerful males to restrict
sexual access to younger fertile females. This can be frustrating to
younger sexually aggressive males, and the resultant sexual tension
is the motor of most of our politics, entertainment and financial mismanagement.

Meandering back to the question of Gay Marriage, we can say that in
our culture the institution of marriage is primarily important from three
points of view.  First, as a unique bond and commitment between
two individuals who love each other.  In this sense, every marriage
is distinct and can only be valued by careful weighing of the contents
of two human hearts, a task beyond mortals like us.  Second, within
the legal context, as we are a society of laws, the institution of marriage
affects such essential areas as living arrangements, finances, medical
care,
child
custody and
educational access. Third, Marriage is a sacrament in all cultures and
religions and a crucial part of the social and family networks that tie
us together as human beings.

Clearly, in the first two domains, the goal of a just and tolerant
society can only be furthered by recognizing gay marriages.  It
is only in the third domain, in some religious and cultural traditions,
that we run into legitimate objections. Yet surely there is room for plurality
of opinion on this issue.  We are a human mosaic already, as a people
perhaps more true today to the spirit and reality of our forefather’s
immigrant dreams
than ever before.

The Catholic Church does not recognize divorce, or marriages involving
divorced people.  That doesn’t stop divorced people from getting married,
nor does the church, as far as we can tell, feel threatened by such marriages.
Why then the gay uproar? Will this really be the red button issue in the
upcoming campaign? Stay tuned…