Marriage: The Ultimate Perk
Patricia Nell Warren
months now, the news has echoed with angry sound bites from enemies of same-sex
marriage. Homosexual nuptials, it's being said, will
tarnish the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage.
Gosh, do these folks ever read the newspaper? Or a history book? Marriage
has already been deeply de-sanctified by centuries of festering heterosexual
Admittedly my views are colored by experience. For 16 years I tried to be
the perfect straight wife...gave it the old college try. But I never felt
sacred -- just felt more and more stifled and dishonest. When my homophobic
spouse finally found out, he told me I was "sick." My first and only visit
to a shrink revealed that he shared my spouse's opinion. So I ran for my
life -- divorce and coming out.
Apologists for "traditional values" seem to forget the real history
marriage. Christian civilization was built by royalty and nobility who saw
marriage as dynastic. People wedded for titles, wealth, feudal estates,
vassals, heirs -- to link empires and win wars. Lifelong compulsory monogamy
and chastity belts were invented to ensure that a husband passed his power
only to his genetic offspring. While these marriages were sprinkled in holy
water by ministers of "heaven," many of them were made in hell
-- as the tortured histories of blueblood families can tell us.
When the American Revolution separated church and state, it also separated
marriage from church control. Marriage became basically a civil arrangement.
Today, many American nuptials still start with church bells. But the "sanctity"
of civil marriage is arguable, since it boils down to a list of heterosexual
legalities that judges can rule on. These include inheritance rights, tax
breaks, hospital visitation, pensions, joint custody -- all things that
homosexuals want too, and are told they can't have, in the name of "sanctity."
Since when do the arbiters of "holiness" include probate courts,
hospital receptionists, company pension plans and the IRS?
Americans also rely on marriage for certain perks and conveniences. For
minors, getting married is a way of evading parental custody. For
embarrassed parents of a pregnant teen, shotgun marriage (hopefully)
preserves the family honor. Marriage can get you free airline travel, a
dental plan, diplomatic privileges, free housing on military bases, U.S.
citizenship, the boss's daughter, and slave labor in the form of lots of
kids. Marriage routinely enhances a celebrity career, even serves as cover
for some CIA intelligence work. Repeated marriage-and-divorce allows some
folks to cloak sexual adventure in legality. Years of living together in "common law" can equal marital status, or at least get you a nasty
"palimony" lawsuit. To the man or woman who marries for nice things,
marriage may equal prostitution.
Are these profane perks protected by state and federal law? Yes. Are they
sacred? Hardly. It is amusing to think how many heterosexual Americans would
scream bloody murder if they lost their "right" to this array
of conveniences. Yet they would turn around and deny those same perks to
Closet marriages go beyond perk, into prevarication. "Closet" is how
homosexuals historically conformed to the old feudal mandate. Nobody tries
harder to make marriage work, than a fag or dyke or bi who is hell-bent
to pass! We have even pumped out children to be cannon fodder for feudalism.
Indeed, the gay community's love of drag and theater may be instilled in
us by long centuries of performing with that sword held to our throat. But
an Oscar-winning act is still an act, no matter how brilliantly sequinned
in "sanctity" it might be.
Interestingly enough, homosexuals don't have monopolize the closet. Marriage
is a good place for certain straights to hide too. Like the prostitute with
heart of gold who hides her past by marrying Mr. Respectable with heart
of gold. Or the "missing person" who hides in a marriage to start
a new life, and cover the trail. Or the straight military man who grudgingly
marries to advance his career, because the brass don't like to promote bachelors
Marriage has no global agreement about what makes it "sacred."
It's social silly-putty, squished into a thousand shapes by bias and blind
belief. To the Israelites of the Ten Commandments, "sanctity"
of marriage included polygamy, and a man's right to kill his wife and children
if they got out of line. To feudal lords, the "sacredness" of
a serf wedding required the bride to give her virginity to the lord. To
the American colonists, a woman could work her way into marriage through
contract labor or being an indentured servant. To Southern slaveowners,
marriage was out of bounds for black people. To my Irish Catholic forebears,
the marriage knot required a priest's
"authority". To my Protestant forebears, Catholic sacraments were
"evil popery," so only a preacher's words could authorize the
knot. But to bride and groom on the high seas, a ship captain's authority
is "sacred" enough.
Some of my native American forebears had more sensible views. A couple stood
before Creation and married each other on their own authority as human beings.
They had no concept of being married by the power of some other person's
religion or authority. "Nobody tells a Cheyenne what to do," my
cousins used to say. If things went bad, all the aggrieved person had to
do was put the partner's moccasins outside the teepee door...with the toes
Can today's American marriage overcome its sorry history as a list of perks?
Can a person today make it sacred and wonderful? Yes, I believe so. Real
sacredness is infused into any relationship only by the two people themselves,
be they straight or gay. They build a balance between their own self-respect
and their respect for each other -- and for
their children, if they have them. If this sacredness is not deeply felt
on the personal level, no law or sermon or tax break can put it there! Not
even God and Goddess!
Not every heterosexual wants wants this kind of relationship. Not every
homosexual does either. But those who do deserve the best that marriage
So yes...marriage in the '90s is darkly tarnished. But denying marriage
to gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people will not untarnish
Heterosexuals have to take responsibility for the mess they've made of marriage.
They were the ones who wanted to have marriage. They have spent 3000 years
making it a juggernaut of Judaeo-Christian empire, politics,
patriarchy, property, including their "right" to control of wife,
children and genetic heritage. Now, in the ultimate paradox, heterosexuals
may actually need the help of us homosexuals, if they want to put some sacredness
back in marriage.
Patricia Nell Warren is author of "The Front Runner" and other
books, as well as a widely published commentator. Her publisher is Wildcat
Press. Copyright (c) 1996 by Patricia Nell Warren. All Rights Reserved.
This column may be crossposted on the Internet, without change and in
its entirety for noncommercial purposes, without prior permission from the
author -- just email us to let us know where it reappears.
To reprint in print or other media, express permission must be asked.
Please call 213/966-2466, or fax 213/966-2467, or email
firstname.lastname@example.org. The last three
lines of the column, containing
author and copyright information, must appear with the reprint.
Wildcat Press, 8306 Wilshire Blvd. Box 8306,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211.
Copyright © 2004 by the author
All Rights Reserved
| Our Mission | What
We Believe | FAQ | Issues
| Prayer Requests | TeleSeminars | Daily Devotions | Religion Dispatch Blog | Audio Whosoever | Whosoever Podcast | Resources
| Letters To The Editor | Reverent
Responses | Seeds of Hope | Reader
Survey | Bookstore
| Contact Us