I look forward to this series of essays, Dr. Thompson! I had several questions as I read, but it looks the three general areas you will examine should answer those questions. One question/thought I had was why does marriage need a political definition beyond the fact that it is a contract between consenting adults? Isn't marriage a matter of individual rights and leaving people alone to live their lives as they choose?
I would like someone to comment on the more distant past when marriage was used to unite powerful families across national borders - for political reasons. In some cases the betrothed barely knew each other when the union was anticipated by their families. In those cases it was hoped some level of affection would develop over time, at least until an appropriate successor was born. This strengthens the assumption that a marriage was assumed to be, until recently, a union between a man and a woman.
I also am not against same sex "marriage". It's just the Left has a penchant for contorting definitions to suit their present political ideology, and in this case being completely dismissive of what has been understood for centuries
"why does marriage need a political definition beyond the fact that it is a contract between consenting adults?"
Marriage is NOT essentially a contractual matter. Contracts are only binding upon the parties to it and certain parties specified in it in certain events, but marriage involves a special legal status, whose legal consequences are binding upon every other member of society--the legal priority of a spouse's decision about medical treatment for an unconscious person, for example, is much like that of a parent's for a child. The institutional requirements that result from that fact are certainly a matter for debate (legal status must probably be recorded officially, or at least be easily provable, for example, so there's a basis for arguing that the state should record marriages), but marriage, like citizenship and legal minority, is not something that can be regulated simply by contract law.
I have no particular objection to SSM nor interest in advocating for it but it never should have been imposed by judicial fiat. The court system is completely out of control on many more issues than this. You were much too kind to Chief Justice Taney. Had he stuck to the issues being litigated, the case would not be so infamous. Slavery is immoral but it was enshrined in the Constitution at the time and the Fugitive Slave Act was covered by the interstate commerce clause. However, he went beyond the substance, in ex parte conspiracy with the President, to declare that free blacks couldn't be citizens because then we would have to let them have guns. And then he declared the Nebraska Compromise to be unconstitutional. This was an accelerant to regional tension soon to lead to Civil War One. Or Two as some of your earlier writing argued.
I LOVE the painting illustrating your post. It's amazing in its intensity and stylistic clarity. Who is the artist, what is the title, and where can I find it?
Alas, it's AI generated. I gave Grok the following instruction--"Create a photorealistic image of a man and a woman standing face to face at a non-religious, ancient stone altar, dramatic lighting from above, deep shadows, surrounded by symbols of permanence and covenant; intertwined tree roots, broken wax seal, in the style of Caravaggio chiaroscuro, serious and solemn mood, color palette of burgundy, navy, and gold, highly detailed"--and then 10 seconds later, viola!
I’m so glad you are taking this on. Outside of certain religious circles the discussion about this institution that is so central to our lives, has been nil. Are you going to take on Kennedy’s opinion directly at some point as well?
Brad: As usual, I look forward to your essays on marriage. Finally, you are on MY turf. I was a BIG TICKET DIVORCE lawyer for 40 years, and had ample opportunity to think deeply about the very issues you plan to address.
Reading your essay, I was reminded of another social institution that developed "spontaneously" in support of social well-being: money. I suspect that marriage, like money, did not originate with the government but evolved organically in almost all cultures. As with money, the government has, over many years, effectively taken over the practice of marriage. Marriage now has strong ties to government laws, not all of which support marriage's beneficial social purposes. Like money, marriage has been corrupted by government overreach. Today we live with both fiat money and fiat marriage, and yet most of us are unaware that these institutions are products of a voluntary social order, not inventions of government. Still, even free market money cannot endure without the enforcement of contracts, which can only come from the government. Is it the same with marriage? I look forward to the answer! Thanks for tackling this important but neglected topic.
Do you think the societal changes that eventually resulted in the acceptance of same-sex marriage began much earlier, in the acceptance of women as legal equals to men? This idea would have been just as nonsensical in most cultures for thousands of years. If men and women are recognized as equal individuals under the law rather than being subordinated to the family unit, isn't it inevitable that the meaning of marriage and family will also change?
This is a great topic and I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the series.
My theory is that SSM came about because the government intruded into what was once a private religious ceremony. When the government interferes by introducing tax and legal implications, marriage becomes an equal protection issue. One reason often cited for same sex marriage rights was that gay people could be prevented from even visiting their partners in hospitals on the grounds that they weren't related by marriage.
The following is an example of the fallacy of adulthood.
“How did America’s young people, who seem to know so little about anything else, come to have such enlightenment? What is the source of this newfound wisdom? It would seem that the long arc of History has already declared as predestined tomorrow’s winner and losers. Who needs Xenophon, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, or Locke on marriage when you have “Will and Grace” and the “Modern Family” (aka the TV shows) on your side?”
They are enlightened because they may be from a family that is a same sex marriage or their friends are from a family with a same sex marriage.
In other words, their enlightenment is the result of their experiences growing up not from watching TV.
In fact, if you talk to these young individuals they may provide examples where the family with the same sex marriage is a better environment and more healthy than some traditional marriages.
Or these young people may have endured the upheaval of a parent who lived a series of chaotic marriages and relationships to come out the other end wanting stability that traditional marriage and family values offers. Enlightenment may be the result of seeking something that exists beyond a government sanctioned legal contract, or the roller coaster ride of inventing a new cultural concept of serial monogamy. Tried and trued?
"For several thousand years of human history, the idea of same-sex marriage had less reality than the idea of unicorns. It was simply beyond the pale of what wise men and women in every culture considered in accord with the nature and purposes of marriage."
My guess is that's because for thousands of years marriage was a religious ceremony, not a politico-legal institution. I don't care who marries who as long as they're not minors. Nearly half of all marriages don't end in divorce and I don't know why anyone, gay or straight, would take that risk. But in the US marriage comes with all kinds of political (tax code) and legal implications, and IIRC one reason gay people wanted the right to get married was because when one partner was hospitalized the other was excluded from medical decision-making on the grounds that they weren't married to each other.
It was a false narrative perpetuated during the AIDS epidemic that you couldn’t legally set up a person to make medical decisions for you, unless you married them. Government originally supported heterosexual marriage for the sake of providing a financial structure for any children that were born. Children born out of wedlock were seen as a burden to society. The reasoning behind government organizing tax structure around marriage, it is to determine financial responsibility as it relates to children.
I love reading and discussing the “new, left-taboo subjects”. Traditional marriage is the perfect starting point because whether you’re religious or not (and I’m NOT), our very existence is self-evidently rooted in the union and mating of a man and a woman.
This is not some provisional theory; this is our evolutionary history—full stop. The short version goes back to the last other tribe of men (or hominids): the Neanderthal.
About 130,000 years ago our ancestors stopped mating with that other tribe of men and our current tribe of men—Homo sapiens sapiens—was born. This is mankind’s story.
More importantly, it is built into our essential nature as humans to find a mate and reproduce. This is fundamental to human survival. This is not a subjective preference for or against heterosexuals or homosexuals. This is raw, preprogrammed, evolutionary biology.
Here I must explain that I have no objection to, or argument against, men or women who prefer (either by choice or by some inborn predisposition) to be in same-sex relationships. I likewise have no objection to those couples becoming parents (by any means they may choose).
Whether or not such unions are as secure as those of heterosexual couples is another matter (for another time).
But for now I am ready to state my view of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. This is not my opinion; This is rooted in our evolutionary history. The very fact that I am here (and this applies to all humans—past, present and future) is the evidence for my view. It is our reality.
PS—This year my wife and I will be celebrating 33 years of marriage. We have been blessed with three children (two sons and a daughter) who are now (soon to be) all college graduates and officially off the family welfare system.
How has gay marriage worked out? Only 10% of gays marry, and their marriages are twice as fragile as heterosexual marriage. Those in gay marriage are much more likely than heterosexual couples to experience drug and alcohol problems, as well as abuse and family disruptions. Recent studies by Young and Cumberworth find that the children involved are much more likely than children of heterosexual marriages to experience family disruptions, and the children are also at high risk for emotional and educational problems. All of this is very discouraging.
And yet….in study after study, in every country in the world, marriages in which the father and mother of the children remain together show huge benefits to the children. As the numbers of those children shrink, what will this mean for the future?
Looking forward to this series. When Obergefell was decided/imposed, I thought the next step would be a push for legalizing plural marriages. When it wasn't that but instead the push for "transitioning," I realized the wisdom in Dennis Prager's take on SSM. He warned that SSM fundamentally meant the denial of human biology: that the distinction between men (fathers) and women (mothers) was being erased.
These should be a good series of essays. However, I do disagree with you the differences between Obergefell and Dred Scott. They are effectively the same decision. As Dred Scott nationalized slavery, Obergefell transformed the institution of marriage into male slavery. The Obama administration amicus brief highlights this: "the government does not contend that there is a rational reason to support the raising of children by both of their biological parents." Which effectively says that: there is no rational reason for a man to raise his own children. Instead, marriage is now an indenture, with men forced to work to support the children of others.
I look forward to this series of essays, Dr. Thompson! I had several questions as I read, but it looks the three general areas you will examine should answer those questions. One question/thought I had was why does marriage need a political definition beyond the fact that it is a contract between consenting adults? Isn't marriage a matter of individual rights and leaving people alone to live their lives as they choose?
Great questions, Maryallene, and it is one that I shall try to answer near the end of the series.
I would like someone to comment on the more distant past when marriage was used to unite powerful families across national borders - for political reasons. In some cases the betrothed barely knew each other when the union was anticipated by their families. In those cases it was hoped some level of affection would develop over time, at least until an appropriate successor was born. This strengthens the assumption that a marriage was assumed to be, until recently, a union between a man and a woman.
I also am not against same sex "marriage". It's just the Left has a penchant for contorting definitions to suit their present political ideology, and in this case being completely dismissive of what has been understood for centuries
"why does marriage need a political definition beyond the fact that it is a contract between consenting adults?"
Marriage is NOT essentially a contractual matter. Contracts are only binding upon the parties to it and certain parties specified in it in certain events, but marriage involves a special legal status, whose legal consequences are binding upon every other member of society--the legal priority of a spouse's decision about medical treatment for an unconscious person, for example, is much like that of a parent's for a child. The institutional requirements that result from that fact are certainly a matter for debate (legal status must probably be recorded officially, or at least be easily provable, for example, so there's a basis for arguing that the state should record marriages), but marriage, like citizenship and legal minority, is not something that can be regulated simply by contract law.
I have no particular objection to SSM nor interest in advocating for it but it never should have been imposed by judicial fiat. The court system is completely out of control on many more issues than this. You were much too kind to Chief Justice Taney. Had he stuck to the issues being litigated, the case would not be so infamous. Slavery is immoral but it was enshrined in the Constitution at the time and the Fugitive Slave Act was covered by the interstate commerce clause. However, he went beyond the substance, in ex parte conspiracy with the President, to declare that free blacks couldn't be citizens because then we would have to let them have guns. And then he declared the Nebraska Compromise to be unconstitutional. This was an accelerant to regional tension soon to lead to Civil War One. Or Two as some of your earlier writing argued.
I LOVE the painting illustrating your post. It's amazing in its intensity and stylistic clarity. Who is the artist, what is the title, and where can I find it?
(I did an internet search and didn't find it.)
Alas, it's AI generated. I gave Grok the following instruction--"Create a photorealistic image of a man and a woman standing face to face at a non-religious, ancient stone altar, dramatic lighting from above, deep shadows, surrounded by symbols of permanence and covenant; intertwined tree roots, broken wax seal, in the style of Caravaggio chiaroscuro, serious and solemn mood, color palette of burgundy, navy, and gold, highly detailed"--and then 10 seconds later, viola!
I’m so glad you are taking this on. Outside of certain religious circles the discussion about this institution that is so central to our lives, has been nil. Are you going to take on Kennedy’s opinion directly at some point as well?
Thanks, Ben. Yes, I'll probably have something to say about Kennedy's opinion.
Brad: As usual, I look forward to your essays on marriage. Finally, you are on MY turf. I was a BIG TICKET DIVORCE lawyer for 40 years, and had ample opportunity to think deeply about the very issues you plan to address.
Reading your essay, I was reminded of another social institution that developed "spontaneously" in support of social well-being: money. I suspect that marriage, like money, did not originate with the government but evolved organically in almost all cultures. As with money, the government has, over many years, effectively taken over the practice of marriage. Marriage now has strong ties to government laws, not all of which support marriage's beneficial social purposes. Like money, marriage has been corrupted by government overreach. Today we live with both fiat money and fiat marriage, and yet most of us are unaware that these institutions are products of a voluntary social order, not inventions of government. Still, even free market money cannot endure without the enforcement of contracts, which can only come from the government. Is it the same with marriage? I look forward to the answer! Thanks for tackling this important but neglected topic.
Do you think the societal changes that eventually resulted in the acceptance of same-sex marriage began much earlier, in the acceptance of women as legal equals to men? This idea would have been just as nonsensical in most cultures for thousands of years. If men and women are recognized as equal individuals under the law rather than being subordinated to the family unit, isn't it inevitable that the meaning of marriage and family will also change?
This is a great topic and I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the series.
My theory is that SSM came about because the government intruded into what was once a private religious ceremony. When the government interferes by introducing tax and legal implications, marriage becomes an equal protection issue. One reason often cited for same sex marriage rights was that gay people could be prevented from even visiting their partners in hospitals on the grounds that they weren't related by marriage.
The following is an example of the fallacy of adulthood.
“How did America’s young people, who seem to know so little about anything else, come to have such enlightenment? What is the source of this newfound wisdom? It would seem that the long arc of History has already declared as predestined tomorrow’s winner and losers. Who needs Xenophon, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, or Locke on marriage when you have “Will and Grace” and the “Modern Family” (aka the TV shows) on your side?”
They are enlightened because they may be from a family that is a same sex marriage or their friends are from a family with a same sex marriage.
In other words, their enlightenment is the result of their experiences growing up not from watching TV.
In fact, if you talk to these young individuals they may provide examples where the family with the same sex marriage is a better environment and more healthy than some traditional marriages.
Or these young people may have endured the upheaval of a parent who lived a series of chaotic marriages and relationships to come out the other end wanting stability that traditional marriage and family values offers. Enlightenment may be the result of seeking something that exists beyond a government sanctioned legal contract, or the roller coaster ride of inventing a new cultural concept of serial monogamy. Tried and trued?
"For several thousand years of human history, the idea of same-sex marriage had less reality than the idea of unicorns. It was simply beyond the pale of what wise men and women in every culture considered in accord with the nature and purposes of marriage."
My guess is that's because for thousands of years marriage was a religious ceremony, not a politico-legal institution. I don't care who marries who as long as they're not minors. Nearly half of all marriages don't end in divorce and I don't know why anyone, gay or straight, would take that risk. But in the US marriage comes with all kinds of political (tax code) and legal implications, and IIRC one reason gay people wanted the right to get married was because when one partner was hospitalized the other was excluded from medical decision-making on the grounds that they weren't married to each other.
It was a false narrative perpetuated during the AIDS epidemic that you couldn’t legally set up a person to make medical decisions for you, unless you married them. Government originally supported heterosexual marriage for the sake of providing a financial structure for any children that were born. Children born out of wedlock were seen as a burden to society. The reasoning behind government organizing tax structure around marriage, it is to determine financial responsibility as it relates to children.
Traditional Marriage
By Melgar du Poseidon
Brad,
I love reading and discussing the “new, left-taboo subjects”. Traditional marriage is the perfect starting point because whether you’re religious or not (and I’m NOT), our very existence is self-evidently rooted in the union and mating of a man and a woman.
This is not some provisional theory; this is our evolutionary history—full stop. The short version goes back to the last other tribe of men (or hominids): the Neanderthal.
About 130,000 years ago our ancestors stopped mating with that other tribe of men and our current tribe of men—Homo sapiens sapiens—was born. This is mankind’s story.
More importantly, it is built into our essential nature as humans to find a mate and reproduce. This is fundamental to human survival. This is not a subjective preference for or against heterosexuals or homosexuals. This is raw, preprogrammed, evolutionary biology.
Here I must explain that I have no objection to, or argument against, men or women who prefer (either by choice or by some inborn predisposition) to be in same-sex relationships. I likewise have no objection to those couples becoming parents (by any means they may choose).
Whether or not such unions are as secure as those of heterosexual couples is another matter (for another time).
But for now I am ready to state my view of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. This is not my opinion; This is rooted in our evolutionary history. The very fact that I am here (and this applies to all humans—past, present and future) is the evidence for my view. It is our reality.
PS—This year my wife and I will be celebrating 33 years of marriage. We have been blessed with three children (two sons and a daughter) who are now (soon to be) all college graduates and officially off the family welfare system.
How has gay marriage worked out? Only 10% of gays marry, and their marriages are twice as fragile as heterosexual marriage. Those in gay marriage are much more likely than heterosexual couples to experience drug and alcohol problems, as well as abuse and family disruptions. Recent studies by Young and Cumberworth find that the children involved are much more likely than children of heterosexual marriages to experience family disruptions, and the children are also at high risk for emotional and educational problems. All of this is very discouraging.
And yet….in study after study, in every country in the world, marriages in which the father and mother of the children remain together show huge benefits to the children. As the numbers of those children shrink, what will this mean for the future?
Looking forward to this series. When Obergefell was decided/imposed, I thought the next step would be a push for legalizing plural marriages. When it wasn't that but instead the push for "transitioning," I realized the wisdom in Dennis Prager's take on SSM. He warned that SSM fundamentally meant the denial of human biology: that the distinction between men (fathers) and women (mothers) was being erased.
The government should not be in the business of marriage. Marriage is a religious union.
These should be a good series of essays. However, I do disagree with you the differences between Obergefell and Dred Scott. They are effectively the same decision. As Dred Scott nationalized slavery, Obergefell transformed the institution of marriage into male slavery. The Obama administration amicus brief highlights this: "the government does not contend that there is a rational reason to support the raising of children by both of their biological parents." Which effectively says that: there is no rational reason for a man to raise his own children. Instead, marriage is now an indenture, with men forced to work to support the children of others.