Thoughts on Marriage Equality

Some comments on marriage equality. The following is cut and pasted from an on-line discussion between Tess Lawrence,contributing editor-at-large and and myself in response to an article by Tess regarding Malcolm Turnbull and the subject on 9th July 2012.

Ken Marsh        
       
If the origins of the marriage act are as I once heard related by a lawyer, then the marriage act is more about lust than love. Once upon a time there was no marriage act and young men and women, doing what came naturally, got married according to social custom.

However, there was a certain class of man, his Lordship, who had a habbit of visiting the village maidens in the evening and upon his death it was not uncommon for a young man from the village to knock upon the door of the manor to inform her ladyship that he was there to seek his share of the inheritance – a most distressing matter no doubt for her Ladyship and the rightful heirs of his Lordship. And so the good Lords and Ladies of the land thought it good that there be a legitimisation of marriage act to protect their property from the servant class.

And now there be moves in the land to amend the marriage act – an act that in its genesis was to do with property protection, not love – and there be heated debate. But the said debate simply seeks to legitimise a variant of the existing without recognising other forms of marriages that may exist in cultural groups within our land that members of those cultural groups may wish to have recognised.

For if we are to be a multicultural society should we not recognise these aspects of the society and provided culturally recognised marriages are entered into willingly and there are adequate protections for the rights of those within those marriages, then we still continue to discriminate. What currently do we say to a refugee family that may reflect a culturally acceptable form of marriage in their land of origin when they arrive – only one of your wives has legal protection/sanction?

As to the Hagar story – a socially acceptable form of surrogacy at the time, not condoned or commanded by the Almighty, a fact made clear by reading the story.

And as for ‘yuk’ terms, what about ‘illegitimate’ children? There may be illegitimate acts – rape, incest – but there is not such thing as an illegitimate child. And ‘love’ child? If a child is born from a loving relationship – two people that love and respect one another regardless of marriage status – yes. But from a one night stand, a relationship (married or not) where one is abused and used by the other,etc. no way. Sorry, but the idea of labelling kids because of the actions of the parents rubs me the wrong way – and no doubt has its origins in the ‘Legitimisation of Marriage’ Act.
       
               
           
TESS LAWRENCE    
    
Dear KEN MARSH, you should be on QANDA – what a fascinating comment.
I’ll go to the end first, because I so agree with you. There are NO illegitimate children!
I have always found the increasing number of annulments in the Catholic Church repugnant, because they bastardise any children of the marriage.

Re the Hagar story – and in some circles, perfectly acceptable today, as we well know.

For Catholics, the Virgin Mary is surely the ultimate Surrogate.

Re the aristocracy dipping their toffy wicks below stairs, etc, well one only has to look at the number of Fitzherberts, Fitzgibbons and Fitzroys ( children of the King ) to know that at least, some of those born ‘ out of wedlock ‘ were formerly acknowledged.

Ken Marsh


Tess, all those ‘Fitz’s’ – born of noble women or serving wenches? Perhaps there was a difference.

Courtesy of a show on the ABC (Australian Story?)some time back, it seems the position of Royal Mistress was (is) one highly desired by some. And if one holds that position when His Majesty comes visiting the Lord of the Manor will pursue the manly sport of hunting while the Lady of the Manor entertains His Majesty.

On the subject of cultural marriages I have a friend, a medical specialist, who comes from Africa and has a Muslim background. His father had four wifes and it was not until my friend was 6 or 7 that he knew which of the four was his biological mother. The way he tells it he had a happy childhood.

The Christian missionary came and convinced his father to become a Christian. There was a condition – divorce three of his wives. The father never became a Christian. He could not see how a God of love would require that, for in his country the divorced wives would, in all probability, be forced to prostitute themselves to feed themselves and their kids.
               

TESS LAWRENCE        
       
Dear KEN MARSH, thanks for your comment that raises so many wonderful discussion points.

Perhaps you could share some light on the subject of the notion of men having multiple wives.

How is it that there seem to be few societies where it is acceptable for women to formally acquire four husbands simultaneously?

               
TESS LAWRENCE        

Dear KEN MARSH, from today’s AGE online: –
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/concerns-over-mosque-leaders-polygamy-post-20120711-21uu8.html

Ken Marsh        
          
Dear Tess, the answer to your first question is simple. Same reason women in our culture still struggle for equality. I have no doubt that one reason is that of male status/dominant male. And in a society where there is no social security and women without a protector male have no support for them or their children the idea of being one of the four may be very attractive. The relationship with the dominant male may provide better security for the woman and her children than life with the poor man. And then there may simply in some cases be a shortage or men. All social factors.

Thanks for the link. I believe it supports my position. Women need to be able to enter the relationship freely and if there is a move away from polygamy in Islamic countries it may for some of the reasons given be seen unattractive here. Our social security system – not being one that I would want to be totally dependent on – at least gives some support that makes polygamy less of an economic necessity.

Violence? Happens in monogamous relationships and one has to question what impact on kids our socially accepted serial monogamy has. In some cases the whole relationship breakdown between parents, the intrusion of another etc sees kids treated as bargaining chips, unwanted encumbrances etc. It is not only polygamous relationships that have these problems.

If it were legalised it would help remove the stigma and might encourage more women from these cultures to come forward and for the matter, if need be, handled in the family court. If there was a will I am sure ways could be found to work with communities affected to work through the issues.

Then there is the legal reality. There is nothing in this country that prevents me living in what for all intents and purposes a polygamous relationship so long as I do not seek to formalise it. There is no law and no legal sanction against adultery – and that hurts people, including kids. So if allowing these relationships to be formalised and giving all parties the protections that exist in marriage, including the right to nominate beneficiaries to superannuation and make claims against an estate, we may actually end up with a fairer and more equal and decent society.

Do I live in this type of relationship myself or would I? No. I hold to what I see as the Christian ideal – one man, one woman, for life. But that is a personal belief I do not believe I have the right to impose on others through political sanction. Regarding Gay marriage, I have read stories of gay people that tell of their struggles to come to grips with their sexuality and to be treated as human beings that I have found quite moving. In a secular society we need to extend to them all the protections and rights of the law as other people.


TESS LAWRENCE        
       
Dear KEN MARSH, you are a man of reason and fascinating discourse.

And a great philosopher too and it saddens me that philosophy has been degraded in our education, daily life and work systems,let alone politics.

Reading your words about people already living in polygamous relationships, made me think of a case I am aware of, where the male has impregnated a number of women. At least five of those women and their children are on welfare benefits. This male is not married to any of these women. The community of course, is paying for those welfare benefits. Whilst this may be galling to some,the conduct of their parents is not the fault of the children, surely. In this sense,society has a duty of care for children. All children.