"in defense of marriage" ignores history

the following is a copy of a letter i wrote to the editorial page of the milwaukee journal sentinel.  there's every chance it may not be published, since i just had one printed recently, and they only allow one submission published by someone every 60 days.  that, and it may have been a little longer than they allow (anyone who knows me can testify to the fact that i do have the tendency to go on, especially on topics i feel passionate about).

stephen mcguire, in his op-ed of november 1st, wants to defend "traditional marriage" by saying that it has  "for centuries" been "enshrined in law and culture as the union between one man and one woman".  if i may, i would like to remind him of a few things that tend to contradict his assertions.

first of all, in some cultures, polygamy was the norm.  check your bible.  many jewish patriarchs had multiple wives, so the so the claim that even from the moment of creation, god intended marriage to be a monogamous institution, falls flat.

secondly, marriage was considered essential, not "to provide the optimal environment" for the raising of a child, but rather for simply creating a legitimate child tom whom an inheritance may be passed.  without that legitimacy, dynasty's could not be created and extended, and political power would be forfeit.

which brings me to my third point.  children were necessary for the maintenance of power, both political and financial.  marriage was more of a necessary evil.  how many arranged marriages were there throughout history where the couple, even as minor children themselves, occurred merely to advance two country's political, or even financial agendas.  (i won't even bother to mention marriages between brothers and sisters to keep the blood-line intact).  in many cases, these marriages took place without the bride and groom ever meeting.  this tradition lasted even into the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.  but, of course, to many, women in those times, were pretty much just considered property.
next, you stress your point that two parents (one of each sex)*** are necessary for the raising of a child.  once more, children, going back centuries, were seldom raised by their parents.  both parents may have been "present" to some degree, but the raising was most often done by nannies, and not just in wealthier households.  even middle class homes had a nanny, sometimes simply because there were too many children (procreation being of prime concern, in the day) that a mother could not handle the children and take care of the house, as was required, even with other servants that may be employed.  you are "kind" enough to give some degree of credit to those parents who find themselves as single parents who "heroically swim upstream to raise their children".  this brings up another point.  single FATHERHOOD was relatively common, also, since women dying in childbirth was not uncommon, leaving the children with the father, and ultimately the nanny, while the father had to provide and eventually find a suitable woman to marry, thereby filling the maternal role and provide (produce?) more children.  and all this does not take into consideration the children who were sent away to boarding schools, many to simply keep them out of the way.

many of these examples continue to this day and i'm certainly i think you will concede, some are rare or extinct and definitely uncommon in this country, practised by cultures that may not be considered of the american mainstream (i.e. un-christian cultures).*

finally, the claims that children are so much better (off)**** in families with both a mother and a father, brings up the instances of such arrangements where the children are abused, used as "objects" for others sexual gratification, or simply abandoned for whatever matter of inconvenience comes to mind.  being able to create children does not qualify as parenthood.

oh, there is one last thing i wanted to mention.  you mentioned treating gays and lesbians with respect.  i thank you.  but, i'm sorry, we don't need your charity.**



*i can't believe i sent that off with that paragraph of gibberish.  i THINK i meant to write "i'm certain i think you will concede, some are rare and/or extinct and definitely uncommon in this country, and when practised, done so only by what many would consider out of the "american mainstream" ( translate as non-christian cultures).
**he states in his op-ed it is his obligation to treat gays and lesbians with respect and charity.  i simply didn't like his choice of words.
***this wording was not in the original, but should have been.
****the word "off" should have been included.


well. that's it.  and to think i proof-read the damn thing.  pisses me off that i missed the things i did.  but it was just something i had to respond to.
'til next time, when something else pisses me off or strikes my funny bone.