Comment - On Marriage and Women's Rights

"Women in Saudi Arabia are considered property, not people.  Most spend their lives locked away indoors.  They're not permitted to drive an automobile.  They're not permitted to go out in public without a make escort and without first concealing themselves beneath an abaya and a veil.  They're not permitted to travel, even inside the country, without receiving permission from their fathers or older brothers.  Honor killings are permissible if a woman brings shame upon her family or engages in un-Islamic behavior, and adultery is a crime punishable by stoning. In the birthplace of Islam, women cannot even enter a mosque except in Mecca and Medina, which is odd, since the Prophet Muhammad was something of a feminist. 'Treat your women well and be kind to them,' the Prophet said, ' for they are your partners and committed helpers.'"

The above is from the book, Portrait of a Spy by Daniel Silva.  It is the book I am currently reading and it is a novel. However, it reminded me of the time I was in Egypt in 1976 and one of the lecturers arranged for us to go to an Egyptian wedding.  We were told that what we would be attending was the party after the wedding.  The wedding itself took place in a small room of the Mosque and the bride did not even attend.  She would be at the party but her presence was not necessary at the wedding itself which took place between her father and her husband,  It was a "transfer of property."  She went from being the property of her father to that of her husband. We were told that many times the woman only left the house to go to her husband's house from her fathers at the time of her wedding and also that her bridal veil was her burial shroud. On top of that the Islamic man may have up to four wives.. (at least to my understanding)


When I think of the storm we have going in our country right now over marriage and the presidential candidates have all signed a pledge to define marriage between one man and one woman the mind boggles.


One of the candidates (whom I will not mention by name) goes around saying that a paper towel is not a napkin and a glass of beer is not a glass of water in his homophobic rants he insists (as do the others) that the only kind of marriage anyone can have is between one man and one woman.  


Well, I wonder... What kind of marriage did Abraham have.. Three wives??  Yep.  And don't tell me that two and three were concubines. He had those also.  Later down the line King David wound up with EIGHT wives.


King Solomon - 700 wives and 300 concubines.   Most for alliances but wives never-the-less. 


And as far as their claim that the only type of traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.  I got to wondering.  I knew that there was a couple of men who were "married" in ancient Egypt and were buried together as a married couple.  I found the following:

Various types of same-sex unions have {existed throughout history}, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that a same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history. These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. "

So their "traditional marriage dates only from 342 AD. And it was not even a sacrament of the Catholic Church until about 1350.

Paper towel or napkin.  It depends on what you use it for.  For the Catholic Church marriage is for procreation.

Some folks, beyond the age of procreating, still get married.  They do so for other reasons. Some get married because they are lonely,  or because they want someone to take care of them or they want to take care of someone.  Some get married for money.  I remember in one of my college classes the professor asked us about our dreams. The men had various things which they dreamed about.  Most of the women were dreaming about getting married.  Some of them could see their groom.  Others could not see a specific person but they were marrying someone.  It seems our culture has programmed little girls to think of being married as the end all, be all of their lives.  Not for all but for most. (And remember this was in the years 1961 - 65.

In those marriages described to me by our Egyptian guide the wedding was for the transfer of property... "What's Love Got to Do With It?" as the song goes.  

"The myth of the natural inferiority of women greatly influenced the status of women in law. Under the common law of England, an unmarried woman could own property, make a contract, or sue and be sued. But a married woman, defined as being one with her husband, gave up her name, and virtually all her property came under her husband's control.During the early history of the United States, a man virtually owned his wife and children as he did his material possessions. If a poor man chose to send his children to the poorhouse, the mother was legally defenseless to object. Some communities, however, modified the common law to allow women to act as lawyers in the courts, to sue for property, and to own property in their own names if their husbands agreed."[1]

  

In the 1970's there was a push for the Equal Rights Amendment. It made sense to me. Why should women not have the same rights as men?  Why not get equal pay for equal work? Why would any woman be against them.  There was a perfectly horrible woman named Phyllis Schlafly who became the point person for the arguments against it much as that Maggie woman heads up the National Organization for Women today, both are really awful persons.  

"Arguments by ERA opponents such as Phyllis Schlafly, right-wing leader of the Eagle Forum/STOP ERA, played on the same fears that had generated female opposition to woman suffrage. Anti-ERA organizers claimed that the ERA would deny woman’s right to be supported by her husband, privacy rights would be overturned, women would be sent into combat, and abortion rights and homosexual marriages would be upheld. Opponents surfaced from other traditional sectors as well. States’-rights advocates said the ERA was a federal power grab, and business interests such as the insurance industry opposed a measure they believed would cost them money. Opposition to the ERA was also organized by fundamentalist religious groups". [2]

Wow,  the same mentality today as we had then. And all of it bogus.  People ought to be able to get married to join together as a family with the person they love.  Those fighting same sex marriage are fighting Love and Love is God so they are fighting God.  They want to blame God for everything from hurricanes to earthquakes.  Unfortunately for them God had nothing to do with any of that. At least not if you worship the God of Love.  As for the mentality of the people who are fighting this (and who fought the ERA and the Women's right to vote and the right for women to own property.)   


These people have the same mentality of the Islamic men who hold their women as property as described above and also the Puritans who burned the women at the stake as witches.  They would establish a Theocracy.  They would run our country by religious principles as defined narrowly by them. And they would punish according to biblical laws.. Many of them use the Code of Leviticus as a guide for their prejudice or at least parts of it.  


One major problem I have is that not all Christians believe the same thing.  Whose Church is going to be in charge.  I don't agree with those who say that the Bible is the inerrent Word of God. The Bible was written by men.  It is an oral history written down. Sometimes long after the facts of the case.  Men differ.  Even in the four Gospels there are variations in the accounts.  So who is going to be on this religious Council in Charge of our Theocracy?  


The Founding Fathers wisely knowing that the religions of men were many and varied decreed the separation of Church and State.  It should stay that way. Religion should stay out of the government business.  And government should stay out of the religion business.  And that includes giving them tax money (or for that matter tax breaks)  Faith based initiatives should not be run with public money. If you want to be religious and have a religion fine. Up to you. However stay the hell out of anyone else's religion and let them be.


Here are some thoughts on Marriage from a PBS Newshour spot. Interesting ideas on how marriage is evolving:

Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.

I admit that most of my thinking is pretty simplistic but that's the way I see it.  If you don't agree that is your privilege.


Addendum -  Just in case you don't believe me about the Fundamentalist Agenda go read this. Found it this morning.