Evidence for a Definition of Marriage

[Mr Skeptic]

All opinion should be clearly labeled as opinion. All facts should be clearly referenced.

 

So, who can define marriage, and prove their definition correct? Specifically, enough to answer the question of whether the word "marriage" includes sames sex couples or not. Obviously, this is a central issue to the gay marriage debate (though separate from the question of giving them equal rights but not calling it marriage).

 

So far, we have plenty of people's opinions on the definition of marriage, and pretty much nil in terms of evidence. I'd like some evidence in favor of said opinions. The most relevant evidence would be concerning the historical definitions our laws are based on. This includes some common law from before our nation was funded, from England and such, and wherever they got their common law from. But also would be interesting to see what other countries had to think, and what the oldest definition we can find is. Just don't expect to simply be able to look it up in a dictionary: the oldest English dictionary seems to be from 1604 by Robert Cawdrey.

 

One problem with dictionaries is that the definitions are not necessarily complete. Sometimes they leave stuff out. It could be that in defining marriage to be between two people they might have left out that they are opposite sexes as too obvious. However, if in addition to that there are examples of same sex couples being called married, evidence that it was phrased inclusively intentionally, or if it specifically included same sex couples, that should be quite conclusive. I'm not trying to be unfair here. In the same way, most dictionaries don't say anything about eg married people having sex, though most people seem to think that having sex is part of marriage.

 

This thread is for discovery and evidence. You don't need to take a side to participate. Also, feel free to ask for specific tidbits of relevant information that might help you decide, in addition to providing some answers if you have some.

 

All opinion should be clearly labeled as opinion. All facts should be clearly referenced.

 

Below are a few requests for specific tidbits of information (mods, feel free to edit in other's specific requests, or even the answers if everyone can agree on it, esp. if the thread gets huge):

*As the oldest known English dictionary, what does A Table Alphabeticall, from 1604, define marriage to be? Edit: it doesn't define it, as it is a list of hard and unusual words

*As the oldest known American dictionary, what does An American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 by Noah Webster, define marriage to be?

*What was the oldest known same-sex marriage-like union anywhere in the world?

*What was the oldest known same-sex marriage-like union somewhere that might be relevant to our law?

*What was the oldest known same-sex marriage-like union, that was actually called a marriage (either officially or unofficially at the time)?

*When was the first same sex marriage performed in the United States?

*When was the earliest definition of marriage, that excluded same sex couples?

*When was the earliest definition of marriage, that included (or did not exclude) same sex couples?

*When was the earliest definition of marriage, that explicitly (ie, went out of its way to) included same sex couples?

 

Relevant reading:

http://hnn.us/articles/4400.html

Shared by lucaspa, tells of the history of marriage (both legal and popular opinion) in the US, how the institution has changed, and how that relates to the current debate about gay marriage.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[iNow]

So, who can define marriage, and prove their definition correct? Specifically, enough to answer the question of whether the word "marriage" includes sames sex couples or not.

 

Since you're asking for a definition, I presume that Webster's Dictionary will be good enough for you.

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife

<...>

(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

 

 

 

 

As an aside, what precisely is it that you hope to achieve with this thread? We've covered this issue repeatedly, and the deceased equine has been sufficiently flogged.

[Mr Skeptic]

As the oldest known English dictionary, what does A Table Alphabeticall, from 1604, define marriage to be?

 

The full name of that dictionary was:

A Table Alphabetical, Containing and Teaching the True Writing and Understanding of Hard Usual English Words, Borrowed from the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or French &c.

 

Seems that "marriage" was not a hard enough word. However, it did have

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/cawdrey/cawdrey0.html

sodomitrie, when one man lyeth filthylie with another man

[Mokele]

What, however, do you mean by "definition"?

 

Do you want only codified laws, or do you include cultural understandings and/or traditions (especially for non-literate cultures, or even our own, prior to literacy)?

 

What do you mean by "marriage"? Several cultures have relationships that are non-identical to our concept of marriage. Does a union based on romantic love count? What if we find same-sex unions more akin to the arranged marriages that used to be so common? Does age difference matter?

 

What do you mean by "same-sex"? What if a marriage system instead recognizes such individuals as an alternative gender, thus while *we* would consider it 'same-sex', they wouldn't, as in the Native American Two-spirit concept? Are we strictly going by the concept of biological sex?

[jackson33]

While I agree, we have certainly covered this issue several times over, your questions and or observations are based on two completely different subjects. There only relevance to each other are the changes in acceptance of each to the societies these changes have effected....

 

Sodomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy has been around under it's current definition through written history and no doubt practiced through out human existence.

 

Marriage is a practice of a society (generally for religious reason) to honor, recognize, glorify or giving some sanction or approval to that societies people. Though this is reasonably new (around 14th Century) rituals have probably been practiced by some societies, long before written history.

 

Once Religious Text were written, around 1500 BC, sodomy has been condemned...

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sodom

 

 

 

1-What was the oldest known same-sex marriage-like union anywhere in the world?

2-What was the oldest known same-sex marriage-like union somewhere that might be relevant to our law?

3-What was the oldest known same-sex marriage-like union, that was actually called a marriage (either officially or unofficially at the time)?

4-When was the first same sex marriage performed in the United States?

 

Technically (1-3) only opinion can be offered, as either they precede written history or happened with out any record...

 

1-Aside from the Sodom reference, many cultures were thought to have large groups where homosexuality was practiced. Many references are available from Books written on the 'Roman Empire'. Then whether a learned fetish or a genetic impulse, people have probably been attracted to the same sex, since they lived much past 20-30 or where staying alive was their only concern.

 

2-If your talking legal/State recognized SSU and in the US, no doubt in the last few years only as States legalized. As to influence on our laws, which on these issues have followed European Laws (as an influence) probably you good look at Sweden in the

1960's. However ALL Islamics States today and back to their origin 1400's, sodomy was and is illegal and mention of SS attraction will get your head cut off, especially from a daughter or wife. Might add in Russia, India and China or up to 4+ Billion of the worlds people or their governments frown on the subject and have laws to deal harshly with those that practice SS sexual cohabitation.

 

3-Probably again pre-historic and recognized by the local Chief or Medicine Doctor.

In the US, there have always been some Church's or Indian Reservation, that would use their authority to cater to people, where there was no place else to go. In the US, many societies honor traditions of their ancestry and even today there are no formal records available.

 

4- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

______________

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd say err on the side of including anything vaguely relevant. Those who don't find something relevant can skip over that, and whoever is interested can read it.

 

What, however, do you mean by "definition"?

 

Do you want only codified laws, or do you include cultural understandings and/or traditions (especially for non-literate cultures, or even our own, prior to literacy)?

 

Codified laws would be nice, especially if they are the ones our laws or understanding of law are based on. Cultural understandings and traditions are also good. Anything that could shed some light on the question of the definition of marriage, both the legal definition, popular definition, historical roots, anything. So long as it isn't opinion and is vaguely relevant.

 

Also, anything relating to the history of homosexuality and especially long-term homosexual relationships, since that is the particular aspect of marriage I'm most interested in.

 

What do you mean by "marriage"? Several cultures have relationships that are non-identical to our concept of marriage. Does a union based on romantic love count? What if we find same-sex unions more akin to the arranged marriages that used to be so common? Does age difference matter?

 

The more like our own concept of marriage, the better. I suppose if it is a long-lasting sexual relationship, especially with some sort of public recognition, its close enough to mention.

 

What do you mean by "same-sex"? What if a marriage system instead recognizes such individuals as an alternative gender, thus while *we* would consider it 'same-sex', they wouldn't, as in the Native American Two-spirit concept? Are we strictly going by the concept of biological sex?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

Two-spirits might have relationships with people of either sex.[8] Female-bodied two-spirits usually had sexual relations or marriages with only females.[9] In the Lakota tribe, two-spirits commonly married widowers; a male-bodied two-spirit could perform the function of parenting the children of her husband's late wife without any risk of bearing new children to whom she might give priority.[10] Partners of two-spirits did not take on any special recognition, although some believed that after having sexual relations with a two-spirit they would obtain magical abilities, be given obscene nicknames by the two-spirited person which they believed held "good luck," or in the case of male partners, receive a boost to their masculinity. Relationships between two two-spirited individuals is absent in the literature with one tribe as an exception, the Tewa.[11] Male-bodied two-spirits regarded each other as "sisters," it is speculated that it may have been seen as incestuous to have a relationship with another two-spirit.[12] It is known that in certain tribes a relationship between a two-spirit and non-two-spirit was seen on the most part as neither heterosexual nor homosexual (in modern day terms) but more "hetero-gender," Europeans however saw them as being homosexual. Partners of two-spirits did not experience themselves as "homosexual," and moreover drew a sharp conceptual line between themselves and two-spirits.[13]

 

Seems relevant.

[waitforufo]

Come on people, this really is not a difficult question. Up until very recently virtually no one considered marriage as anything but a formal relationship between one man and one woman. Even in polygamous societies marriage does not define the relationship between the wives of one man or the husbands of one woman. Laws against polygamy simply restrict each person to only one marriage.

 

Words mean what they are widely held to mean. Just 10 years ago no one talked about same sex marriage.

 

The idea of marriage as recognized in law between same sex couples is new. I for one am glad to see the definition of marriage changing to include same sex couples, but I am honest enough not to pretend that marriage has always included our modern notions. I am also glad to see that legislatures are creating laws that permit the formalization of relationships between same sex couples. I personally don't believe this effort will be finished until one set of laws describe relationships between couples regardless of sex.

 

You want evidence. Well look around. How many same sex marriages exist? When were they legally created? How many existed 10 years ago? 100 years ago? When did people start protesting for same sex marriage?

 

Words mean what they are widely held to mean.

[lucaspa]

I tend to agree with waitforufo. Definitions change. Look at the definition of "citizen" over the centuries. Or the change in qualifications that defined "voter". Definitions are a consensus of what a word means at the time. That consensus can change.

 

However, these sites give a history marriage:

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

http://molly.kalafut.org/marriage/marriage-types.html

 

This article is by an historian specializing in the history of marriage:

http://hnn.us/articles/4400.html

 

This article summarizes laws regarding same-sex unions in all the countries of the world:

http://molly.kalafut.org/marriage/world-laws.html

[Mr Skeptic]

The trick, however, is to show that that is the case. This is more difficult because until recently, homosexuality was outlawed (in the US at least), so that explains the absence of same sex marriages, independently of whether they would have been considered marriages at all.

 

But no one is going to take your word for it. That's why you need references.

[john5746]

Words mean what they are widely held to mean.

 

This is true and it is just as important to realize that as popular opinion changes, so does the definition. Some act as if it was written on a stone tablet somewhere and has been that way, unaltered since time began. These things evolve in the culture. We hope reason eventually wins out, regardless of the outcome.

[Mr Skeptic]

This article is by an historian specializing in the history of marriage:

http://hnn.us/articles/4400.html

 

This one in particular is an excellent link, following both legal and popular views on marriage in the US. Particularly a change from a focus on inheritance and family to one of romance (and pursuit of happiness). I shall edit the OP to include this link.

 

The "before" to this fundamental right is a world in which marriage is about continuing property relations and about sexual reproduction. Or, to join the two, the "before" is a world in which men possessed property rights in children understood as necessary labor power and as valuable resources. Marriage was how the legal system marked children as owned -- possessed legally or legitimately -- just as all legal systems develop mechanisms for marking valuable property as possessed. And for the wealthy, who were the main consumers of marital law until the nineteenth century, it was also a way to define lineage and to negotiate alliances between families. Happiness (and love) had nothing to do with it.

...

Fifteen years ago there was a significant literature of critiques of marriage and rejections of argument for gay marriage, from within the gay and particularly within the lesbian communities. Those critiques were shaped by statements of the form: Why would we want to buy into this historically unequal, oppressive institution designed for the subordination of women? I may be wrong, but it is my impression that such critiques have disappeared in the last few years. There are many possible explanations for that disappearance, but I suspect that one reason for the disappearance of the critique is the change in the meaning of marriage, as the egalitarian changes of the past generation have become normative and predictable parts of the legal landscape.

 

Interesting. It seems that a prerequisite for gay marriage was the change of marriage from being about inheritance and family, to that of romance and "pursuit of happiness"

Edited April 17, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[waitforufo]

This is true and it is just as important to realize that as popular opinion changes, so does the definition. Some act as if it was written on a stone tablet somewhere and has been that way, unaltered since time began. These things evolve in the culture. We hope reason eventually wins out, regardless of the outcome.

 

I agree with the above, but I also believe that laws must be interpreted based on the definition of words when the laws were written. By interpreting laws in this way, stability is created in our legal system. Without the damping provided by interpreting laws based on their original intent, our justice system would be at the whimsy of popular fads.

[john5746]

I agree with the above, but I also believe that laws must be interpreted based on the definition of words when the laws were written. By interpreting laws in this way, stability is created in our legal system. Without the damping provided by interpreting laws based on their original intent, our justice system would be at the whimsy of popular fads.

 

No argument here. That's why we have amendments and changes to law. However, changes in interpretation do have a cascading effect that cannot be eliminated. For example, when we read "All men are created equal" that has a much different meaning then it did when first written.

[Mokele]

Up until very recently virtually no one considered marriage as anything but a formal relationship between one man and one woman.

 

Go read the link on Two-spirits. Gay marriage was common for the majority of American history. It only stopped when we showed up, killed off most of the original Americans, and implanted our laws.

 

So, care to explain how you can simple dismiss a tradition that thrived through thousands of tribes for thousands of years?

[ParanoiA]

Go read the link on Two-spirits. Gay marriage was common for the majority of American history. It only stopped when we showed up, killed off most of the original Americans, and implanted our laws.

 

So, care to explain how you can simple dismiss a tradition that thrived through thousands of tribes for thousands of years?

 

I'll do it for him. By your own argument above, they were killed and it was stopped - THEN we wrote our laws. The verbiage in our laws are trapped in time - we must interpret them per their definition at the time they were written in order to establish the true intent of the law. Even if it was discriminatory and evil. Because we interpret the intent of the authors first, then we determine if it's constitutional.

 

Which means, if you think about it, that the laws could be considered unconstitutional. That's actually the argument I'm making in another thread, that it's a privileged institution that is being used to filter rights. I can't imagine that's constitutional at all.

[Mokele]

You missed the point - this thread is explicitly about this historical definitions of marriage. It didn't specify *whose* definitions, nor should it. It was created to have a reference for those who claim marriage is defined this or that way.

 

Waitforufo specifically said that it was a purely recent phenomenon without further specification. On that basis, my point flat-out proves him wrong, showing that it has a long history, longer than law itself.

 

 

If this thread is just about *American* *legal* definition, then it should specify. That, however, was NOT specified, and the thread creator himself indicated that the two-spirit system was relevant.

[ParanoiA]

You're right, I jumped the gun. Sorry.

[Mr Skeptic]

If this thread is just about *American* *legal* definition, then it should specify.

 

Well, the focus is on the legal and historical aspects of marriage and homosexuality, and how that all relates to the current situation. Our knowledge base, on which we base our current opinions, is now extremely broad. So I would say that even knowledge that would not have been relevant to previous understanding of marriage, now is, simply because we now have access to it. Stuff that both we and our lawmakers knew is doubly relevant. But stuff they didn't know is still relevant to current opinions.

 

The purpose is, as you said, a reference base for us people about marriage, as that keeps popping up. So anything we the forum (not just me, as I forget some things eg the native Americans) would find a useful reference, is also relevant.

[iNow]

Look up the work of Professor John Boswell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell

 

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html

Excerpts from the keynote address made by Prof. Boswell to the Fourth Biennial Dignity International Convention in 1979.

 

 

 

 

http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

 

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

 

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

 

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

 

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

 

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

 

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

 

 

Here's one of the documents translated which shows gay marriages taking place back during the Medieval period and performed by Christian leaders:

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/sykeon-adelpho.html

 

 

 

Also, there's this:

 

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homosexuality.html

John Boswell (a Yale Historian) also notes that historical gay ceremonies carried out by the church in previous centuries were in the same fashion as heterosexual ones.

“For nearly two centuries after Christianity had become the state religion, Christian emperors in Eastern cities not only tolerated but actually taxed gay prostitution. In 7th century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler's legislation against homogenital acts. By the 9th century almost every area in Christian Europe had local law codes, including detailed sections on sexual offenses; none outside of Spain forbade homogenital acts. By the High Middle Ages, a gay subculture thrived, as in Greco-Roman times. A body of gay literature was standard discussion material at courses in the medieval universities where clerics were educated.

 

Opposition to homosexuality, as in Augustine and Chrysostom, rested on reasons unacceptable today: "natural-law" arguments based on beliefs about supposed sexual practices among hares, hyenas, and weasels; a philosophical Stoicism that was suspicious of any sexual enjoyment; a sexism that saw a degrading effeminacy in being the receptive partner in sex. All-out Christian opposition to homosexuality arose at a time when medieval society first began to oppress many minority groups: Jews, heretics, the poor, usurers. A campaign to stir up support for the Crusades by vilifying the Muslims with charges of homosexual rape also played a part in Christian Europe's change of attitude toward gay and lesbian sex.”

"Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell (1980)

 

The author lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece. The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek. An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic.

 

Christianity has always contained a mix of pro- and anti- homosexual elements. Periods of oppression of homosexuals and celebration of love, homosexual or not, have came and went. Finally, same-sex marriage is not only found in early Christianity - it has existed quite freely in other cultures and civilizations. For example a four thousand year old Tomb belonging to gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep exists in Saqqara, Egypt.

 

 

 

I figured since you didn't respond to my reference to Webster's that you were after something more "meaty" and "historical" like this.

[lucaspa]

It seems that a prerequisite for gay marriage was the change of marriage from being about inheritance and family, to that of romance and "pursuit of happiness"

 

Here I would disagree with the author based upon later interviews with gays. The change in attitude came about because of AIDS. Initially, gays did argue they didn't want to go for marriage. But then along came AIDS and suddenly gay life partners found themselves excluded by homophobic family members of the sick individual because they had no legal standing. So they were not allowed into hospital rooms because they were "not family", excluded from care and end of life decisions, excluded from inheritance of sentimentally valuable remembrances (and sometimes very valuable real property), etc.

 

So gays changed their minds about marriage and wanted the legal protections and rights that go to spouses.

[Mr Skeptic]

Found this recently:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Anthropological_definitions

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners"[10] and due to Nuer of Sudan allowing for homosexual marriages (limited only to females), Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[11]

 

11 Gough, E. Kathleen (1959), "The Nayars and the Definition of Marriage", Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: pp. 89:23-34 Nuer female-female marriage is done to keep property within a family that has no sons; It's not a form of lesbianism.

 

However I'm not sure how old this tradition is, but it seems to be fairly old since anthropologists were discussing it 50 years ago.

[iNow]

However I'm not sure how old this tradition is, but it seems to be fairly old since anthropologists were discussing it 50 years ago.

If you're basing "correctness" on "oldness," then my definition supplied in post #19 wins, as it goes back to the 8th century. What else ya got?