I’m darkly amused by some of the dismay over the Supreme Court’s decision to expand marriage licensing to homosexual couples. I mean, as Brad Torgerson said, heterosexual couples have been treating marriage like garbage since before I was born. So what actual institution did homosexual couples gain access to?
That’s all a government-issued “marriage” license gives you as far as an institution. The actual institution of marriage hasn’t been a going concern for quite a while now, since it required certain social mores surrounding very particular vows. You know, those “outdated” rules that frowned upon fornication, back when you could incur civil punishment for adultery, and society actually expected married couples to fulfill each others’ sexual needs. And the vows included promises of sexual fidelity until death, and not just promises of companionship “until the love runs out.” (Sorry, heterosexual couples: if you don’t include actual marriage vows in your ceremony, I don’t care if the state calls you “married.” You’re not married. You’re just officially shacked up together – for now.)
What homosexuals got from the SCOTUS isn’t the ancient institution of marriage. That institution predates the concept of government itself – and is not legally recognized by any bureaucracy that allows no-fault divorce.
Because if you can get out of it without your spouse either dying or cheating on you, it’s not marriage. Because a society that won’t frown on promiscuity and channel your sexual appetites toward your spouse doesn’t support marriage, and therefore can’t give it to you. Certainly a society that tells you that it’s not only okay to sleep around, but makes promiscuity practically mandatory (or else you’re some kind of uptight prude!), then tells you that you should marry someone only if you’re really infatuated with him, but never to treat his sexual desires for you as important or meaningful, and then divorce him whenever you don’t “feel the love” anymore… well, you think that society can grant you access to the ancient and honorable institution of marriage?
Nope. It can’t give you what it doesn’t possess in the first place.
And that’s the sad thing. All those paeans to how great marriage is? Sure. It is great. And the legal rights that have encrusted marriage – from back when it was actual marriage and not the farce we have today – are nice, I’m sure. But the institution we have today is not marriage. It is serial monogamy. That’s the irony – the people who think being “married” increases a relationship’s stability are mistaking the symptom for the cause, just as certain policymakers mistake a college degree and a house in the suburbs as the causes of success rather than the results.
Soon, that easily dissolved state-granted marriage is not even going to be serial monogamy – after all, polygamy does happen to be very… traditional. And only a bigot would stand in the way of love, right?