Opponents of gay marriage often say to allow gays to marry would be redefining marriage(as if it hasn't been redefined before), and engaging in a radical social experiment. However, if they were look back through history, they would find, as my mother often says that there is nothing new under the sun. While these marriages were sometimes more about inheritance and maintaining the family name than love or sexual orientation, they prove that same-sex marriage is not a new invention. Time for a history lesson kiddies:)
Let's start in Africa--oh yes all you Afrocentrists who'd swear on Marcus Garvey's grave that gay folks never existed in Africa--you are wrong. According to this excerpt from Stephen O. Murrary's book Boy-wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities(which I still need to read lol:):
Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa. Typically, such arrangements involved two women undergoing formal marriage rites; the requisite bride price is paid by one party as in a heterosexual marriage. The woman who pays the bride price for the other woman becomes the sociological 'husband'. The couple may have children with the help of a 'sperm donor', who is a male kinsman or friend of the female husband, or a man of the wife's own choosing, depending on the customs of the community. The female husband is the sociological father of any resulting offspring. The children belong to her lineage, not to their biological father's.
Formalized, socially-recognized relations between two men also exist in Africa. Among the Zande (located in southwestern Sudan, northeastern Congo, and the Central African Republic), a male warrior could marry a teenage boy by paying bridewealth to the boy's parents. The man addressed the boy-wife's parents as his in-laws, and performed services for them as befitted a son-in-law. Unlike women-women marriages, man-boy marriages end when the boy comes of age. The former boy-wife can now take his own boy wives, and his former husband can marry another boy-wife.
Native Americans also recognized gays and lesbians in their tribes as two-spirit people, and thought of them as being gifted with supernatural powers and shamanistic abilities. They also supported alternate gender roles for both men and women. Among the Mohave, "men have married alyha (biological males who are officially initiated into a 'female' gender role) and women have married hwame (the female equivalent of alyha)."
Records in ancient China detail committment ceremonies between women in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong." If a woman was interested in another woman, she would prepare gifts such as peanut candy, a date, or other gifts for her crush. If the other woman accepted the gifts she also accepted the proposal. A contract ceremony followed by a celebration with friends and plenty of drink happened afterwards. The new couple would then "become like each other's shadows in sitting, lying down, rising, and living." However if one of the women broke the contract she would subjected to a "hundred humiliation." (You know some folks don't take breakups well, lol).
Same-sex marriages among men were also recognized in the neighboring city of Fujian:
The Fujianese take male-on-male passion very seriously. Men from all strata of society form partnerships within their own social classes. The older man is the "sworn older brother", and the younger man is the "sworn younger brother". When the "older brother" goes to the home of his "younger brother", the parents of the "younger brother" treat him like a son-in-law. From henceforth, any living costs or heterosexual marriage expenses of the "younger brother" will be paid by the "older brother". Those who love each other ... also sleep together as spouses.
Similar to the Zande model in Central Africa, Fujian boy-marriages involved a man paying bridewealth to a teenage boy's parents, and the union typically ended when the boy came of age, though there were exceptions. Sometimes same-sex couples adopted and raised children.
In Europe historical evidence such as legal documents and gravesites also give evidence same-sex unions existed in medieval France. During this time people often signed documents, called affrèrement, translated as brotherment, which had many similarities to marriage contracts. While these affrèrements were used for families in transfering property and inhieritance, they were also used for non-relatives as well. According to Allen A. Tulchin, historian at Shippensburg University in Pennyslvania:
The effects of entering into an affrèrement were profound. As Tulchin explains: “All of their goods usually became the joint property of both parties, and each commonly became the other’s legal heir. They also frequently testified that they entered into the contract because of their affection for one another. As with all contracts, affrèrements had to be sworn before a notary and required witnesses, commonly the friends of the affrèrés.”
Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrèrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents.”
He concludes: “The very existence of affrèrements shows that there was a radical shift in attitudes between the sixteenth century and the rise of modern antihomosexual legislation in the twentieth.”
All of this is not to say that we should follow all the traditions (i.e. humiliating someone if they want out of a marriage or shacking up with teenage boys) of same-sex unions throughout history, but it is to explain the fact that same-sex marriage is not some new master plan of "the gay agenda" or a sign of the apocalypse, as some folks want to believe. Every culture and society throughout history has had to deal with this issue one way or another, and has responded either negatively or positively.
However, in more recent times countries like Canada, Sweden, South Africa, Norway, Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands, as well U.S. states Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts, have legalized gay marriage, and the world has not blown to bits. Straight folks are still shacking up, hooking up, getting hitched, and breaking up. So I guess my question to gay marriage opponents is since the idea of same-sex marriage is nothing new, has been proven not to be disastrous in other countries, does not pose a threat to straight folks or the nuclear family, and is going to be treated as a separate, civil, legal ceremony: WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?
*Sorry for the long post. I guess I was in a journalistic mood lol:).
Let's start in Africa--oh yes all you Afrocentrists who'd swear on Marcus Garvey's grave that gay folks never existed in Africa--you are wrong. According to this excerpt from Stephen O. Murrary's book Boy-wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities(which I still need to read lol:):
Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa. Typically, such arrangements involved two women undergoing formal marriage rites; the requisite bride price is paid by one party as in a heterosexual marriage. The woman who pays the bride price for the other woman becomes the sociological 'husband'. The couple may have children with the help of a 'sperm donor', who is a male kinsman or friend of the female husband, or a man of the wife's own choosing, depending on the customs of the community. The female husband is the sociological father of any resulting offspring. The children belong to her lineage, not to their biological father's.
Formalized, socially-recognized relations between two men also exist in Africa. Among the Zande (located in southwestern Sudan, northeastern Congo, and the Central African Republic), a male warrior could marry a teenage boy by paying bridewealth to the boy's parents. The man addressed the boy-wife's parents as his in-laws, and performed services for them as befitted a son-in-law. Unlike women-women marriages, man-boy marriages end when the boy comes of age. The former boy-wife can now take his own boy wives, and his former husband can marry another boy-wife.
Native Americans also recognized gays and lesbians in their tribes as two-spirit people, and thought of them as being gifted with supernatural powers and shamanistic abilities. They also supported alternate gender roles for both men and women. Among the Mohave, "men have married alyha (biological males who are officially initiated into a 'female' gender role) and women have married hwame (the female equivalent of alyha)."
Records in ancient China detail committment ceremonies between women in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong." If a woman was interested in another woman, she would prepare gifts such as peanut candy, a date, or other gifts for her crush. If the other woman accepted the gifts she also accepted the proposal. A contract ceremony followed by a celebration with friends and plenty of drink happened afterwards. The new couple would then "become like each other's shadows in sitting, lying down, rising, and living." However if one of the women broke the contract she would subjected to a "hundred humiliation." (You know some folks don't take breakups well, lol).
Same-sex marriages among men were also recognized in the neighboring city of Fujian:
The Fujianese take male-on-male passion very seriously. Men from all strata of society form partnerships within their own social classes. The older man is the "sworn older brother", and the younger man is the "sworn younger brother". When the "older brother" goes to the home of his "younger brother", the parents of the "younger brother" treat him like a son-in-law. From henceforth, any living costs or heterosexual marriage expenses of the "younger brother" will be paid by the "older brother". Those who love each other ... also sleep together as spouses.
Similar to the Zande model in Central Africa, Fujian boy-marriages involved a man paying bridewealth to a teenage boy's parents, and the union typically ended when the boy came of age, though there were exceptions. Sometimes same-sex couples adopted and raised children.
In Europe historical evidence such as legal documents and gravesites also give evidence same-sex unions existed in medieval France. During this time people often signed documents, called affrèrement, translated as brotherment, which had many similarities to marriage contracts. While these affrèrements were used for families in transfering property and inhieritance, they were also used for non-relatives as well. According to Allen A. Tulchin, historian at Shippensburg University in Pennyslvania:
The effects of entering into an affrèrement were profound. As Tulchin explains: “All of their goods usually became the joint property of both parties, and each commonly became the other’s legal heir. They also frequently testified that they entered into the contract because of their affection for one another. As with all contracts, affrèrements had to be sworn before a notary and required witnesses, commonly the friends of the affrèrés.”
Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrèrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents.”
He concludes: “The very existence of affrèrements shows that there was a radical shift in attitudes between the sixteenth century and the rise of modern antihomosexual legislation in the twentieth.”
All of this is not to say that we should follow all the traditions (i.e. humiliating someone if they want out of a marriage or shacking up with teenage boys) of same-sex unions throughout history, but it is to explain the fact that same-sex marriage is not some new master plan of "the gay agenda" or a sign of the apocalypse, as some folks want to believe. Every culture and society throughout history has had to deal with this issue one way or another, and has responded either negatively or positively.
However, in more recent times countries like Canada, Sweden, South Africa, Norway, Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands, as well U.S. states Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts, have legalized gay marriage, and the world has not blown to bits. Straight folks are still shacking up, hooking up, getting hitched, and breaking up. So I guess my question to gay marriage opponents is since the idea of same-sex marriage is nothing new, has been proven not to be disastrous in other countries, does not pose a threat to straight folks or the nuclear family, and is going to be treated as a separate, civil, legal ceremony: WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?
*Sorry for the long post. I guess I was in a journalistic mood lol:).
Comments