Our enemies love to use the term “traditional marriage,” as though LGBTs aren’t as traditional as anyone else. But when the Scalias, Huckabees and Santorums go on about the “traditional definition of marriage,” constitutional or otherwise, what are they really talking about?
They probably don’t intend to refer to what marriage was 4,000 years ago — something similar to slavery. Or what it was in the Old Testament — largely polygamous? (Queerty readers, on that point, are apparently highly traditional.) And they probably don’t mean what it was under Emperor Justinian, when girls were betrothed at the age of 7.
Of course, it’s the men who claim to be defending “traditional marriage” who know the least about it.
In ancient Rome, it was considered gross for husbands and wives to be in love. According to the Stoic Seneca: “nothing is more impure than to love one’s wife as if she were a mistress.” And Plutarch called it “disgraceful” when a senator was caught kissing his wife in public.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
In the 15th century, Bernard of Siena told parishioners to cool it with the wife-beating, and that they should treat their wives with as much mercy as they would a chicken or a pig. And Martin Luther wrote that he gave his wife a box on the ear whenever she was “saucy.”
Former slaves were finally able to marry after the Civil War, and in the late 1800s South Carolina became the first state to rule that men were no longer allowed to beat their wives. It wasn’t until 1920 — less than a hundred years ago — that wife beating was outlawed nationwide. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court overturned bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia. At the time, states defended their interracial marriage bans by claiming that they were — you guessed it — traditional.
In 1971, the Supreme Court overturned laws dictating that when a husband and wife have a legal dispute, “males must be preferred to females.” The young attorney who argued that case, by the way, was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who may understand better than anyone else on the Supreme Court why it’s OK and sometimes necessary for marriage to change.
Don't forget to share:
Dominic Mancuso
James Hart
I think gay married couples are going to have to at least pretend to your straight friends and family that you and your spouse are truly monogamous, or your straight friends and family will think gay marriage is nothing but a fraud. I have a friend in a “monogamish” marriage and his mother found out and said that she would have never supported gay marriage if this is what gays believed about marriage. I think a lot of other supporters of gay marriage are also going to feel as though they’ve been tricked into thinking gay marriage is EXACTLY like straight marriage, just like Justice Kennedy also believes. GOOD LUCK, BOYS AND GIRLS. You’ve got lots of explaining to do!
Ditamo
@James Hart: Go fuck yourself! Not everyone wants to have an open relationship in a marriage. You are pretty vile. And for those who do, they shouldn’t need to explain shit!
Glücklich
What’s wrong with the word “traditional”? It’s an accurate description. Traditions change. I’m not offended by Justice Scalia’s terminology. Is “historical” better? Not trying to be a smartass but this is on the same level as “Happy Holidays” vs “Merry Christmas.”
Shiva
@James Hart: Unlike your friend’s mother, I don’t see this judgement as a way of foisting the str8 template of marriage upon gays. I see it as a way for gays to get equality in terms of the choices available to them, for legal status and spousal benefits etc.
If two adults, str8 0r gay, want to define their marriage in ways that suit them, then who has the right to interfere? It’s not as if wife swapping, open marriages are rarities in the hetero world.
Why your ‘friend’s’ mother would imagine that marriages are stereotypical, monogamous bliss is beyond me.
Shiva
Really enjoyed the article. Thanks.
Avery Alvarez
@James Hart: Oh, do shut up.
Our lives are NOT, NOT, NOT NNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT centered around impressing heterosexuals, and looking to please them as our masters, as you and others seem to think. So many concern trolls this week, spouting off about we what “how we gays should act in public or other places”
NO 1 Currr, son!
Marty Maguire
http://i.giphy.com/xTiTnixL8kBDCxp0SA.gif
Avery Alvarez
“Traditional” is just a buzz word that conservatives added to marriage to give it more “perceived” value than it’s actually worth.
It’s like the word, “Natural”. It’s not regulated. You can put that label on anything to make even unhealthy ish seem good for you. “Natural cheese in a can”. “Natural bread, juice, packaged products” only with a whole lot of unpronounceable chemical names on in the ingredients.
Which reminds me, it’s hilarious that christians cons are now trying to rebrand het marriage as “natural marriage”. About as natural as chees in a can…
tdx3fan
It was not even until 1993 that it finally became illegal nation wide for husbands to rape their wives.
1EqualityUSA
Avery Alvarez, So completely right on, naturally.