Feb 23rd, 2011 | By click here | Category: Current Affairs
Tags: Election 2011 , Fine Gael , Lucinda Creighton , marriage equality
So, people have finally learned what Fine Gael’s attitudes towards equality are. It seems to have been a revelation for many.
MamanPoulet summarised the various parties’ stances on LGBT issues recently, based on their respective election manifestos. Since then, Fine Gael’s deputy equality spokesperson, Lucinda Creighton, has drawn attention to that party’s position on marriage equality: that is, Fine Gael is opposed to it.
This isn’t new information: in 2004, Fine Gael proposed a form of civil union, with no prospect of equality, no mention of children who are parented by same-sex couples, and ruling out any changes to adoption laws. It was the first proposal by an Irish political party to propose some recognition for same-sex relationships. Since then, however, very little has changed in the party’s attitude.
What seems to have added to this controversy is partly the fact that for some potential voters, this was news to them; but mostly it’s due to Lucinda’s views – as blogged by @leoie , and as stated by herself on Twitter (@lcreighton).
It’s very “Inequality She Wrote”:
@Clarabel @leoie @campaignforleo I supported the Civil Partnership Bill fully I dont support gay marriage @leoie pls dont misprepresent me
@fIONAfLAPS Apologies -havent been on twitter. Because I think marriage is primarily about children, main purpose being to propagate &create [...]
@fIONAfLAPS environment for children to grow up. Its a good policy for society to support male/female marriage imo. I think civil partrship [...]
@fIONAfLAPS should ensure gay couples r treated fairly and justly re tax inheritance etc & recognition by the StateBut marriage is different
I can’t help but be reminded of Iona “Marriage is the Gold Standard” Institute. And yet marriage has changed repeatedly throughout history, as well as varying widely around the world today. “Traditional marriage”? There simply is no one form of marriage. Here are some more revelations:
Historically in “our” society (Ireland, the UK, Western Europe), there have been varying forms of marriage. In ancient Rome there was more than one form of marriage. According to the Brehon laws, marriage – or rather, households – could be formed in a number of ways, and men and women who married each held their own property in their own right. The introduction of church laws in early Christian Ireland later changed the notion of marriage in that society:
It is impossible to probe the limits or depths of Christianization in these areas because of the want of evidence, but we should not doubt the impact of the church’s teaching. Rituals, moral practices, and beliefs may nonetheless have varied: Archbishop’s Lanfranc’s letters to the Irish complained about abhorrent Irish marriage practices, consanguinity, polygamy, and even wife swapping.
Marriage and sexual morality lay at the fulcrum of the church’s relations with the laity. [...] Marriage was a potent tool in social exchanges and the church’s teaching on sex was particularly repressive. Intercourse was only sanctioned within marriage for the sake of procreation, and even then strictly regulated and limited with regard to when it could be done.
Marriage [...] was far from simple in the early Middle Ages. It was made through a series of gifts and exchanges of greater or lesser formality. There were different types of quite acceptable sexual union defined by the mix of these elements. This in turn affected, though it did not entirely determine, how easily the union could be ended and left room for argument over inheritance. The arrival of Christian ideas of marriage added other arguments to interpreting in the mix, if it not other elements to it.
Marriage for love was at times unusual, certainly in the upper strata of our feudal-based societies. Marriage was long used as a way to secure political alliances between factions or households. Marriages were frequently arranged marriages. Procreation was important, but usually to ensure that a male heir was produced. You may have heard of a certain Henry VIII?
Marriage has also been used to form peace agreements between warring parties. Engaging on a medieval crusade in the name of almighty god? Endeavouring to slaughter the followers of Islam/Christianity? Seeking to secure the holy city of Jerusalem in preparation for the second coming of Christ and the resulting Apocalypse? Sure, lets sign a peace treaty between the religions and throw in marriage to the King’s sister into the bargain. Problem solved!
In the royal courts and noble houses of Europe it was in the past normal practice for men to keep mistresses. Sometimes, these relationships were an open secret. At times, too, a mistress may have had considerable power and influence at court or in the dealings of her, er, keeper. Even Popes were at it.
It was only in the 19th century that we clearly see attempts at defining marriage by the state itself, as distinct from religious marriage, in the ruling of. In 1866. That decision was among the issues dealt with by the Canadian Supreme Court in 2004, when it was nevertheless held that the Canadian parliament could legislate to provide for marriage equality.
In the U.S., inter-racial marriages were prohibited in certain states. …Until they weren’t. This was thanks to the ruling in. The evidence adduced and arguments made during the “Proposition 8″ trial,, are illustrative. Expert witness Nancy Cott, an American history scholar, testified that “marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage”. Her testimony revolved around three main points: how marriage has historically been used “punitively” to demean disfavored groups; how the legally enshrined gender roles in marriage had been disestablished during the 20th century and how the changes in the institution of marriage had mainly involved “shedding inequalities”; which she said strengthens marriage. She emphasized the importance of the institution of marriage by noting that “when slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. And this was not trivial to them, by any means”.
In marriage, women were until relatively recent times regarded as simple property: from being the property of her father, upon marriage she became the property of her husband: chattel, an owned object. As such, the wife lacked any independent legal personality. She was subsumed into the person of her husband. Ergo “Mr and Mrs Smith”; police officers not responding to “domestics”. A woman could be barred from testifying her husband in court.
In Ireland, it was until very recently legally impossible for a wife to be raped by her husband. Yes, there was a “martial exemption” to rape. In Ireland, spousal rape was criminalised only in 1990 . (The first conviction was in 2002 .) Interestingly:
FORMER MINISTER for justice Gerry Collins rejected a plea from the Council for the Status of Women to change criminal law to tackle rape within marriage.
In a submission to the Seanad in October 1978, the women’s council called for legislation to allow for the prosecution of a man for the rape of his wife and for changes to the law to disallow evidence on the sexual history of the complainant.
And let’s not forget that in 1996, an amendment was introduced to Bunreacht na hÉireann to allow for a constitutionally permissable attack on the institution of marriage: divorce.
There is no single definition of marriage: it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from culture to culture.
The legal minimum age for marriage depends on where the ceremony takes place. In some countries, the minimum age may be as low as 14 years, for example in Mexico, Colombia, Canada. In a couple of countries, for example, Brunei and Kuwait, no minimum age is specified.
Cultural practices vary widely. The Wodaabe of West Africa, part of the Fula ethnic group, hold the almost-annual Gerewol. This is a festival which coincides with the seasons and, if there have been sufficient rains, the nomadic family groups gather together for Gerewol. There, among the celebrations, men and women – single and married – basically hold an elaborate swingers party: subject to particular rules the men prettify themselves and line up, waiting to be selected by one of three women for sex. After Gerewol, everyone – including the married men and women – reunite into their groups and wander back into the desert.
In parts of the world, polygamy (polygyny/polyandry) is practiced. There are some societies which have elements of matriarchy. The practice of “bride kidnapping” continues in Caucasus and elsewhere, sometimes as a pretext for a couple eloping, but sometimes as actual kidnapping. There are also temporary marriages, such as the Celtic “handfasting”, and Shi’a Islam’s “nikah mut‘ah” or “sigheh”.
As for marriage equality: Yes, it does exist . And no, those societies haven’t broken down, nor have they witnessed the institution of marriage being “attacked”: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Mexico City, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, several states in the US plus the Coquille tribe. In fact, several expert bodies have noted the importance of marriage equality .
And, of course, same-sex marriages too have taken place throughout history. For example, in the Ming and Zhou dynasties of China; during the early Roman empire and ancient Greece; in France in the late middle ages with affrèrement or “enbrotherment”; among many other examples.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment