SDP and marriage.

It's been a long time since Ken or Jon at South Dakota Politics and I have gotten into it. So for old time's sake, I have to take issue with a couple of recent posts on gay marriage over there.

(Amazingly, SDP seems to allow comments these days - but I'll say what I have to say over here, instead.)

Both Ken and Jon (but mostly Jon) seem to entirely miss the point of the debate. Lots of Jon's comments, such as:

Why does same-sex marriage not fully demonstrate self-giving? ...First, same-sex marriage cannot create new life, a profound act of self-giving. Second, same-sex unions involve someone of the same sexual nature, another self. Traditional marriage involves the adventure of discovering someone who is profoundly different from you. Of course, this assumes that men and women have differences that go beyond how they pee, or put differently, that the differences in our bodies represent a difference in our natures. Surely there is a common human nature, but perhaps there is also a male nature and female nature in addition and the differences in these natures are socially and politically relevant in ways skin color is not. But perhaps I am all wet and male/female biological differences are meaningless and with the right social arrangements all male/female differences can be eliminated.

belie, at worst, a really ridiculous amount of unchecked heterosexual privilege and heterosexism, and, perhaps at best, an entirely ahistorical interpretation of "traditional marriage" and the "traditional family." Someone as smart as Jon is above this kind of sloppy analysis. Unsurprisingly, I seriously question the notion of a "male nature" or a "female nature" that are so different that heterosexual relationships deserve rights and privileges that homosexual relationships don't. Longtime readers of DW will recall, however, that Jon also thinks it's unwomanly for females to participate in sports, so I suppose we have to keep in mind who we're dealing with here.

In fact, both Ken and Jon throw around this phrase, traditional marriage, as though marriage hasn't changed drastically in the last century and a half or so - and as though "the family" that Jon is so worried about protecting - a nuclear family consisting of one husband, one wife, and their immediate offspring - isn't a product of the 1950s. Jon mentions same-sex marriage, no-fault divorce, single motherhood, and increasing acceptance of pre-marital sex as evidence of the threats to marriage, but he fails to see our modern notion of what a marriage should be as a drastic break from tradition.

I have major issues with the institution of marriage, as it is now and as it has been used in the past - but I'd be wary of throwing around "traditional marriage" and the "traditional family" too often in your arguments for and against gay marriage in the future. Traditionally, marriage has transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Anything beyond that is a relatively new development. Traditionally, family has been much different than a husband, a wife, and their children.

Just something to keep in mind.