The Serpent's Wisdom

Yesterday I had a bit of an epiphany about the meaning of marriage and why same-sex marriage is so contentious. At the heart of this is that marriage means different things for the upper class and middle class.

If you're middle class you can go your whole life without getting married and still feel, on the whole, fulfilled and happy. You can accomplish your goals and live the way you want; and while most people seem happier to share those things with a partner, it's not a necessity. If you're middle class, your understanding of marriage mainly revolves around health insurance, taxes, and signing a mortgage together. It doesn't even really encompass having children, because the average marriage lasts four years, and the modern urban economy is structured so that children are somewhat discouraged.

But the upper class understands that the world is not ruled by individuals, it is ruled by dynasties. The proper role for someone born into a dynasty is to continue the family line. What is required of someone in this role is to marry someone from a family of at least equal prominence and have as many children as possible.

You're not required to love anyone else. You're not required to like anyone else. You're not required to believe in God, though you may have to sometimes make appearances at church. You can do pretty much whatever you want -- in fact that is the whole point of being rich -- up to and sometimes including murder, as long as you don't go against the family. Doing whatever you want includes having same-sex lovers, as long as you're relatively discreet. It will be whispered about, but no one really cares, as long as you do what you're required which is to marry and have children.

It turns out that upper class people, especially royalty, are exceptionally good at spreading and preserving their DNA. Most people alive today are at least distantly descended from someone of noble prominence. This is the true social darwinism. It has nothing to do with those genes being "better" and everything to do with the fact that having privilege makes it more likely that you will live to spread your genes.

The people who live inside this system are facing the sudden conundrum of how to deal with "pink sheep" of the family who are now able to marry people of the same sex. It *is*, after all, getting married. and still usually involves having children. It's just not the way these things were done in the past.

I think though this also says something about why the most prominent GLBT activists and their political allies are focused on same-sex marriage rather than on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA would help the rest of us, arguably far more people than marriage equality. As I said above, if you're middle class you can get by without getting married, but you do need to have income. Someone from the upper class rarely needs to worry about employment; marriage is a much higher concern. Obviously, the political agenda is not being set by middle-class activists.

In case any of you were inclined to think that i was being dramatic or alarmist when i said that the Chaliban's movement to ban same-sex marriage is part of a larger movement to promote mandatory heterosexual marriage for all, read this and consider again:

The organization that mounted the successful bid to amend Virginia's constitution to block same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partner benefits says it will now concentrate on making it more difficult for straight couples to break up.

Voters approved the gay marriage ban in November. Now the Family Foundation of Virginia has begun a drive to end no-fault divorce in the state.

No-fault allows either partner in a marriage to get a divorce without specific grounds. That person can then apply for full custody rights over the couple's children. It currently is available in most states.

The Family Foundation says it makes divorce too easy to get and disadvantages children. It is supporting a proposed bill that would require specific grounds - such adultery - for couples with minor children.

"Right now, one spouse can unilaterally end [a marriage], and not only is their spouse unable to stop the divorce, their abandonment does not preclude them from having custody of their child," Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation told a news conference this week.

She said that statistics have shown children suffer more from messy divorces than they do from unhappy parents.

from Group Behind Virginia Anti-Gay Amendment Now Targets Divorcing Straight Couples

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

... Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.

... The revised guidelines specify that states seeking grants are "to identify groups ... most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock, targeting adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range." Previous guidelines didn't mention targeting of an age group.

"We wanted to remind states they could use these funds not only to target adolescents," Horn said. "It's a reminder."

from Abstinence message goes beyond teens

Let that sink in for a moment. The government is paying people to tell adults they shouldn't have sex out of wedlock. Anyone want to guess who is going to be particularly targeted here? Here's a hint: have you ever been to a government assistance office?

The government does not exist to tell you how to live your life. The government exists to facilitate the decisions you, as a free person, make.

The government does not exist to tell you what language you may or may not speak, the government does not exist to tell you what religion you may or may not practice, the government does not exist to tell you what chemicals to put in your body or not put in your body, the government does not exist to tell you to have children or not have children, and the government sure as hell does not exist to tell you who to have sex with or who not to have sex with.

Some of these choices might not be as economically efficient as others, but economic efficiency is not the end-all-be-all of human existence, not even close.

This demonstrates the truth behind the old addage, "If anyone is not free, then no one is free." The War on Gay Marriage is, increasingly, causing heterosexual casualties -- in particular, unmarried heterosexuals. I posted two months ago when a judge ruled that a domestic violence law in Ohio does not cover unmarried couples. Now, today, we have this:

BLACK JACK, Mo. - The city council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

... The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

from Mo. Town Denies Unmarried Couple Permit

Now, the article doesn't say specifically that this is related to the war on gay marriage. But, put two and two together: gay marriage was outlawed in Missouri two years ago, and the nation is in the throes of a reactionary spasm to push "family values," though how family values will be preserved by making families lose their homes is beyond me...

The brewing mindset is that unmarried cohabiting straight people (traditionally referred to as "living in sin") are sinners who deserve to be punished. Not only is marriage to be made up of "one man and one woman," but marriage is to become the required norm. (At least the movement to promote the odious "covenant marriage" has turned out to be a non-starter.)

"Right before I came here I got an e-mail from someone urging me to protect marriage. And the thought I had was, 'From what?' In Massachusetts now for something approaching two years gay people have been allowed to get married. And what has happened? Are heterosexual couples not getting married as often, more often, getting married too quickly, too soon, too many kids, not enough kids? Too tall? What exactly is happening that I need to be protecting my constituents from?"

-- Rep. Daylin Leach of Montgomery County (PA), on HB 2381, the proposed state amendment to ban gay marriage
(thanks to pamscoffee for this)

First, the United Church of Christ has moved to endorse same-sex marriage (thanks to rhonan for the heads-up that this was coming):

The president of the United Church of Christ said his denomination "acted courageously to declare freedom" when it passed a resolution endorsing same-sex marriage on Independence Day.

The resolution calls on member churches of the liberal denomination's 1.3 million members to consider wedding policies "that do not discriminate against couples based on gender." It also asks churches to consider supporting legislation granting equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples and to work against laws banning gay marriage.

The endorsement by the church's rule-making body Monday makes it the largest Christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage. The vote is not binding on individual churches, but could cause some congregations to leave the fold.

from United Church of Christ Backs Gay Marriage

Second, this from torbellino: Procedings from a conference held at the Canadian Orthodox Monastery of All Saints of North America, to define the family in terms of Orthodox Christianity.

( a rather long quote )