1. HOME ABOUT GIVEAWAYS MEDIA KIT CONTACT US STORE DEALS
BROWSE FROM EDITOR ARTICLES FASHION FOOD HOME FINANCE MOTORING MOVIES MUSIC REFLECTIONS TRAVEL FITNESS
← Previous Post Next Post →
NEVER MISS ANOTHER ARTICLE…
WHY MARRIAGE? 2
New City Magazine May 07, 2012 ARTICLES , MAY 2012 Edition
LIKE - FOLLOW - SUBSCRIBE
Connect on Facebook
914 Fans
Follow on Twitter
55 Followers
Subscribe to RSS Feed
The Marriage Equality Act currently sits before the Australian Parliament. Whilst I have to admit being a little bit
sick of hearing about this particular piece of policy as it has been hogging the public debate stage for what feels FIND US ON FACEBOOK
like an age, I am joining in to ask a different question: “Why marriage anyway? Why doesn’t the government just
wash their hands of the whole institution and hand the whole issue of marriage back to the church where it
came from? New City Magazine on Facebook
Like You like this.
The issue of Marriage Equality is such an emotive one for many if not all Australians. The ‘vote yes’ population is
915 people like New City Magazine.
shouting their message from the rooftops. The ‘vote no’ population are often branded ‘bigots’ by opposing this
form of societal evolution. Am I a ‘vote yes’ or ‘vote no’ person? It doesn’t matter. I am a citizen. I will raise my
yet unborn children in the great nation of Australia. I have friends of all persuasions. My children will have
friends of all persuasions. The life circumstances of these friends will inevitably impact on our lives. The H ow ard S tev e Zakari Kamerly V irosh
progress and evolution of our society matters to me, as indeed it should matter to all of us. If we are prudent, we
should be worrying about what is best for our nation not simply what floats our emotional boat.
M agz F endy N aomi Widy a Lidia
F acebook social plugin
ADVERTISING
I have to say that the history of the institution of marriage surprised me when I started to look into it. It hasn’t
always been the way it is today. But the strength of the institution and its locus of regulation has waxed and
waned over the years. Want a quick look? Read on.
- Gre e k and Rom an Civilisation: Marriage was an essential social institution. Solon (A law-giver guy)
even considered making it compulsory. Pericles made sure certain public positions included ‘Must be married.
No bachelors allowed’ on the qualification list. (Imagine seeing that on a job advertisement today!) Sparta
encouraged homosexual relationships but insisted men still marry and have kids. Single and childless people
were looked down upon. This being the case, marriage was an important thing and once married, monogamy
2. was an expectation. However marriage itself was driven by social/political advantages not romance. Contracts
were signed in front of witnesses. No ceremony. No fanfare. No government recognition beyond the contact
itself. Usually there was a big age difference between a man and his young bride and her main function was to
pop out babies. Women’s rights were low to non-existent. Men’s rights were paramount. Prostitution and various
forms of sex slavery ran rife as did legal inequality between the sexes.
Early in the Roman Era, the husband held the destiny of his wife and children firmly in his hands. It was his right
to punish, kill or sell them as he desired. You can imagine the abuse that occurred during this time. But as Rome
approached the Imperial era, the legal rights of women in marriage improved. Some experts believe this was
what contributed to their emancipation. Gradually, as marriage became more regulated, women and children
became more protected under the law. Abuse had legal recourse. Women and children had legal protection.
- Pre - 10 th ce ntury to 12 th ce ntury – Forget
romance! Marriage was mostly an economical affair.
However if we cast our eyes back to this period of ARCHIVES
time, women didn’t have much in the way of rights or
legal protection either, almost echoing the
Select Month
Greek/Roman era. Northern Europe and countries
under Germanic law treated their women only little
better than domestic slaves. Soon, Christianity was on
the rise and infiltrating Roman law. Laws penalising
the single and childless were repealed (Thank God!
Pardon the pun!). Marriage and divorce remained a
private matter rather than state controlled one. But
gradually, marriage began to make its way out of
private status and into a church/state issue. Consent by both parties was now necessary. A bride had to agree and
not simply be given. Divorce was made a lot harder; this creating a list of pro’s and con’s all of its own. But the
rights of women were slowly on the rise.
- 16 th Ce ntury. Society wasn’t doing so well under the conditions prefixing the Protestant Reformation.
Society had rejected many Catholic doctrines including those pertaining to marriage. Martin Luther declared
marriage a worldly thing that belongs to the realm of government. In the 17th century, Puritans passed an Act of
Parliament asserting that marriage didn’t belong to the Church but to the State. Still, marriage ceremonies were
mostly religious until 1792 when a compulsory civil marriage was required. This remained so in Europe and was
adopted by Germany. Eventually Bismarck diminished the influence of the Catholic Church. Marriage before a
magistrate or government official was now the only valid form of marriage. Religious weddings only happened
after the civil ceremony took place.
Few things have changed since then (apart from the fact that you can now marry your first cousin. I don’t advise
it! But you can). As government regulation of the institution of marriage has continued to develop, so did the
protection and legal status of the nation’s most vulnerable parties: women and children. Today the definition of
marriage still stands as this: “The voluntary union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all
others.”
The fact is that governments are concerned with law, order and the maintenance of a society that can support its
citizens. They are concerned with facts, data and decision making based on the evidence. So why on earth is
government so concerned with how people feel about each other? It never has been before. But if you look at
the data over the years, the strength of the marriage institution and the wellbeing of society, including its
women and children, correlate. Government regulation is not hampering equal rights. History shows us that
rather than quell the minorities, regulation of marriage has in fact given rise to the equal rights of men and
women.
Divorce rates are high in today’s day and age. While parents might be able to pick up and move on from a
dissolved marriage, the same cannot be said for the children. If marriage was about feelings, then picking up and
walking away wouldn’t be an issue.
Marriage isn’t about feelings. It never really has been. Though romantic love is undoubtedly the necessary
premise of marriage, it is not the purpose of marriage. Historically, marriage has been for the procreation and
protection of the generation that results from the union. It is about commitment and protection of the parties
involved. Why is the debate on changing the definition of marriage rather than finding new ways of supporting
the existing institution of marriage that seems to be flagging under the pressure of societal change? The big
flow on effect of family breakdown is on children. Both male and female role modelling is necessary for
healthy child and adolescent development. Whilst this can be provided outside the home, it springs from the
right of every child to have a mother and a father. Transience of key role models can do so much damage to the
child who is trying to figure out who they are, where they come from and what their place in the world is. The
family is now and forever the cornerstone of society. This is what we need to be protecting and advocating for.
Marriage is the vehicle that allows children to be raised in a secure environment.
Some would argue that the likes of Kim Kardashian and her 72 hour marital blitz and ensuing divorce have done
more to damage the institution of marriage than the quest for same sex marriage. But let me throw a spanner in
3. the works: In Islamic countries, men can marry multiple wives. They are denied this right in Australia. There are a
huge number of polygamists in the state of Utah but we wouldn’t allow it here. Why? Women don’t have the
same rights as men in these situations. Marriage equality cannot happen here.
If you thought that giving everyone the right to marry anybody would strengthen the institution, think again.
Since Norway legalised same sex marriage nearly two decades ago, illegitimacy has risen to nearly 80%. This
means that nearly 80% of children are born out of the security of wedlock. What about their rights? To have two
parents and to grow up in a secure environment.
Government cannot shackle two people together in ‘love’ for life. Sure. But nor is the law supposed to reflect
feelings. It is supposed to protect the vulnerable. Who are the vulnerable? Kids. Always kids. The debate needs
to move from us to them. How do we make Australia a better place for children and families? How do we give
our kids a place to grow up secure, safe and knowing where they belong? (CH)
tag1
About the Author
NEW CITY is a "Positive, Healthy & Successful Living" Magazine distributed for FREE in the St
George & Sutherland Shire and expanding into Sydney CBD.
Twitter - Facebook
Related Posts
2 Comments
Cis 08/05/2012 at 9:59 pm - Reply
Couples with a pre-nup agreement may as well not get married, because they already
have Plan B sorted out before they even get married! It just defeats the purpose and
encourages couples to throw in the towel when things get tough. Marriage is sacred and
couples need to honour their wedding vows. No marriage is perfect because we live in an
imperfect world. But it is when we accept each other’s weaknesses and admire each
other’s strengths, that is when we can appreciate and experience the joy of marriage.
Jake S al v atore 14/05/2012 at 2:22 pm - Reply
Oh my gosh. I don’t even know where to begin with this article.
- There is a mistake in the first paragraph, marriage never “came” from the church in fact it
wasn’t until around 500AD that the church even started looking into it!
- This article is also far too similar to one published and promoted by How Stuff Works just
a short while ago (however their article made sense, the fact that this article looks like it’s
been copied from that and that had some added to it.)
- Kim Kardashian was not married for 72 hours.
- Deductive reasoning (as used in the Norway example) is a most absurd way of backing up
a position – illegitimacy rates have been skyrocketing around the entire world, not just
countries legalising same sex marriage. And further to that, children born out of wedlock
into loving families are by no means any less forunate (what is this, the 1800′s?)
- There has never, EVER been any legitimate study showing that children raised with same
sex parents are any less well adjusted or less fortunate than those who are raised in
opposite sex relationships.
Leave A Response
Name (required) Comment
