In various conservative political speeches on the subject of same-sex marriage, politicians, pundits, and pastors talk about the “three-thousand” or “five-thousand” years of history during which the definition of marriage has universally been a union between men and women, and for the purposes of reproducing and raising a family.
This is . . . not true. And honestly, this is going to be a fairly short post, because I do not want to just regurgitate information from this Wikipedia entry. It is a very interesting read.
But, generally, marriage has included same-sex marriages and other legal unions for same-sex couples for millennia. We all knew that homosexuality is older than the human species, and certainly not a recent thing. It was only a few years ago that I learned that same-sex marriages were not just in keeping with the spirit of a number of ancient cultures, but things that took place in an official capacity in a few, including Ancient Rome.
And not without debate. But same-sex marriage has been controversial in a lot of cultures over a long period of time. So have things like women having rights and pushes to end slavery, so that is really not a good argument against same-sex marriage.
Efforts to criminalize same-sex relations and same-sex marriage are not new, either. In 342 CE, not long after Christianity had first come to power in the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans outlawed same-sex marriage. While the power to do so would be the envy of many conservative groups nowadays, no mainstream opponents of marriage equality in the modern world is pushing for the other provision that the Theodosian Code imposed—anyone who was married to a member of the same sex was to be executed. Kind of the opposite of “grandfathering” someone into a law. And, obviously, horrible.
Claims that the historical definition of marriage have universally been in support of it being a purely heterosexual institution are incorrect, but it is important to remember that it is also a deeply flawed argument. Historically, marriage was often an economic or political arrangement (dowries and royal marriages, anyone?), and it was not uncommon for the unreasonably young women involved to be treated like property. They were, after all, bought and traded like property in the process of “choosing the right husband for them” in many cultures and communities.
More importantly, the fact that something has or has not always been done in a certain way is not an argument for or against anything. Particularly when it comes to human rights. The world was always terrible; it is our job as humans to improve it. And that means recognizing the rights of ourselves and our fellow citizens.
