Posted by:
Brother Of Jerry
(
)
Date: October 11, 2010 11:30AM
That is not a typo. Mormons famously redefined marriage in the 1890s when they (sort of) moved polygamy from this life to the afterlife, to get the Feds off their backs. But they also changed the rules for marriage twice in Utah in the 1990s. The second change, in particular, has interesting implications for the same-sex marriage debate.
The first change was to raise the minimum age for marriage from 14 to 16. It had been legal in Utah for a minor under 16 to marry, with parental permission. When this fact was made public by some events within polygamist communities, there was general outrage at this policy. However, when a bill to raise the age to 16 was proposed, it was defeated the first time it came before the legislature. The opposing legislators thought it was important to allow girls under 16 the opportunity to get married if they should become pregnant.
Those favoring raising the age of consent went to work gathering statistics to show that this age loophole was being used by older men to marry what would otherwise be underage girls, and parents in polygamist cults were willing to give their permission for such marriages.
Armed with that information, proponents of raising the age to 16 were successful a year later, when the same bill was introduced a second time. Never let it be said that the heavily Mormon Utah legislature could be rushed in their deliberations on the subject of redefining marriage, even when polygs are marrying 14 year olds.
The second instance occurred in the late 1990s. (I failed in my google attempts to find the exact date - help appreciated). This change involved older people living in small rural Utah towns. There was a relatively large population of widows and widowers in these town, and it would be helpful in terms of coping with the loss of abilities with age, if these people could live together.
Trouble is, these residents were overwhelmingly Mormon, so heterosexual couples were not willing/able to simply move in together without benefit of marriage. Furthermore, also because they were elderly Mormons in rural Utah, they where frequently cousins, so they were not allowed by state law to get married.
Some constituents brought this up to their local legislators, wondering if the law could not be changed to allow cousins beyond childbearing age to marry. This would satisfy religious restrictions on cohabitation, reduce loneliness, keep people out of state subsidized assisted living facilities longer. It looked like a winning idea all around - a chance for government to be responsive to real needs of some of its citizens, make people's lives better, and save some tax dollars to boot.
A bill was introduced in the Utah legislature to do just that. Cousins could marry in Utah provided they were both over 60 years old. If they were over 50, they could still marry, but they had to sign a declaration that were not capable of having children.
The bill passed the first time it came up for a vote. In a state where the legislature has a well deserved reputation for being obstructionist, it was a surprisingly good example of government responding quickly and cleanly to citizens' needs.
So, what are the larger lessons we can take away from this second change, in light of the same-sex marriage debate? A number of things come to mind.
For starters, one of the principal objections of those opposing same sex marriage is that marriage is first and foremost about having and raising children, so we can't extend marriage to a group of people who can't have children. There is the obvious point that a good many homosexual adults DO have children, but setting that aside, isn't it interesting that when the discussion is about redefining marriage to include heterosexual couples that cannot have children, not only is it acceptable, but an inability to have children is made a requirement for extending the right to marry to them.
And it wasn't a bunch of libertine New Englanders redefining marriage willy-nilly. This was the Utah legislature, a group so vociferously pro marriage and pro family they act like they have a trademark on the term "family"™.
So, when it comes to same-sex marriage, the inability to have children is a show-stopper, but for heterosexual aging cousin marriage, not only is it not a show stopper, it is not even a speed bump. An inability to have children is required. Funny how that works. I can think of no clearer demonstration that "we can't redefine marriage, because marriage is about raising children" is nothing more than a cheap rationalization trying to pass as a principled reason.
The second conclusion to be drawn from this law is that even as conservative a body as the Utah legislature is quite willing to redefine marriage when it suits them. This law passed on its first go-round, with little debate, and no second guessing after the fact. They seem quite content with the results of the law, after more than a decade in action.
A third conclusion is that companionship is a perfectly valid reason for getting married, even when it is the only reason. Everybody has always known that, but opponents of same-sex marriage often argued that somehow that was not sufficient reason for same-sex couples to marry. It is sufficient for aging heterosexual cousins. Again, funny how that works.
And finally, I'd like to comment on the phrase "redefine marriage". When describing something, it is possible to use more precise or less precise language. Generally, if you are going for the big picture, you want less precise language, and if you are trying to carefully delineate a point, you use more precise language. However, there can be other reasons for varying the precision of the language you use.
In the case of the marriage debate, a more precise description of the debate would be whether the state should extend the right of marriage to same-sex couples. This is a clean, matter-of-fact description of what the debate is about. No spin. The law would not have to be changed in any way to affect how heterosexual marriage is done. As with the aging cousin marriage right, it is extending the right to a previously excluded group.
However, opponents of same-sex marriage invariably talk of "redefining" marriage. Well, technically, an extension is a redefinition, but lots of other things besides a simple extension to a new group could be redefinitions of marriage as well, but this debate is not about any of those other things. So why are opponents continually hammering on how we can't "redefine" marriage?
Simple. They are trying to stir up FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. "Redefining" marriage sounds like it will affect all marriages, or at least has that potential. "Extending" marriage to include a relatively small group of excluded people sounds much less frightening. In fact, it sounds kind of snarky to refuse to extend a right to a group of people.
People opposed to same-sex marriage have been called on this repeatedly, in every venue where this debate has raged. "How, exactly, is this going to damage your heterosexual marriage?" They invariably mutter and try to change the subject, because everyone knows this is not really about redefining marriage. This was the precise question the judge raised at the Prop 8 trial, and the opponents of same-sex marriage failed miserably to come up with a coherent argument, for the plain and simple reason that there isn't one. When the language of the debate is made more precise, and discusses the drawbacks of extending marriage to same-sex couples, the so-called dangers of redefining marriage disappear.
So, if this debate is not really about protecting marriage, what is it about? The worst opponents don't like homosexuals. They want the lives of homosexuals to be as difficult as possible. If they could be thrown in jail, that would be fine with some people. They must be denied the societal acceptance implied in allowing them to marry. This opposition is not about protecting anything. It is about punishing homosexuals so as to discourage anyone from "wanting" to be gay. Full stop.
The Utah legislature was perfectly willing to extend marriage rights to one group of its citizens a mere decade ago. They have adamantly refused to give the same consideration to another group of citizens, and in fact have done everything in their power to exclude them, including denying them the right to adopt children in Utah. Utah legislators are big on claiming to defend the Constitution. It would sure be nice if they would defend that part about giving equal protection under the law.