Marriage thru the Millennia
By Primo Encarnación y Hachecristo
There is an Hachecristo cousin who shall remain nameless, but he’s no one you’ve met yet. Within la familia there have been many whispered “Do you think he’s…?” But, unlike the US of A under our peerless leader, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is alive and well among the Hachecristo’s, as is the concept of 1 man + 1 woman = 1 marriage.
You would be correct in assuming that we are all very Democratic and more-or-less liberal. You don’t grow up off-white in this country and not be, unless there’s something wrong with your heart, brain or courage. The older generation suffered the Depression, and celebrated the social justice of the New Deal, and achieved middle class status thanks to the unions. However, they also grew up and got married hearing the Mass in Latin, which contrary to Teapopulist belief is not what Latinos speak at home.
So out of deference to the oldsters, we leave a lot of the RuPaul recaps at the doorstep before going in for dinner on Easter or Mother’s Day. And the divorcees among us walk a little small, too.
Justice Kennedy, who in all respects looks like he may side with liberal half of the court on gay marriage, is, like our parents, DEAD wrong in one respect: 1 man + 1 woman has not been around for millennia. Like most of the other large mammals, thanks be to Darwin, the concept within the species has been 1 male MULTIPLE females, for the space of a single breeding season. And the biggest, strongest, fastest or smartest male, the one able to outmaneuver, outthink or outfight the previous alpha male, is the one who gets to get “married” 3 or 8 or 19 times, depending on the size of the tribe, pride, or herd.
Out of this biological imperative grew our concept of chief, leader, king and emperor. Politics came about, and continues to this day, as a great way to get laid.
As in so many other things, marriage was for a long time a one-way deal, invented by men to subjugate women as property, and to ensure that the male heir to the man’s other property was indeed his own: that he has not been cuckolded with a cuckoo’s egg hatchling set to inherit his stuff.
Sacramental marriage for “love” is a fairly recent development, within the last few centuries: formerly, political concerns were, again, driving the wedding of peers and the begetting of heirs much more than “love.” Even poor brides were required to submit to the droits de seigneur – her maidenhead belonged to the lord of the manor to take, or bestow. Plural marriage is still practiced as a Christian religious imperative (or as television entertainment) inside the United States to this day. Arranged marriages are also still celebrated in America today, within several sub-cultures.
For millennia, then, marriage has actually been about male power, property and privilege. No wonder the Right Wing Nutjobs want to maintain “traditional” definitions.
Great entry! But, what?–Latinos don’t speak Latin at home?
1Bravo! You nailed it!
2So to speak.
Most excellent! Thank you.
3Thanks so much! I have long wondered why no one will bring up the actual history of marriage, why it came about and has been kept in at least most of the world’s cultures.
4Bravo to you!
I, too, am surprised, though, that Latinos don’t speak Latin at home. That’s not logical!
🙂
Just one comment: Droit de seigneur, at least in medieval Europe, was not a widely accepted custom. Some lords may have taken advantage of their power, but there’s no written evidence of its existence before the 16th century, as “something that happened in the bad old days”.
5This drives me bats, because I’m an old broad and I remember the legal definition of marriage changing several time, in the US, in my lifetime. Biblical isn’t even in it.
I remember when marriage was between one man and one woman of the same race.
I remember various changes in various states of the age of consent – one male and one female of more than (x) years of age.
And one of the biggest ones finally disappeared in the very early 70’s, revoked by the last state (under some pressure). Marriage was between one man and one woman. However, the couple was defined as ‘the man’. A woman couldn’t sign for a loan, couldn’t make a medical decision for herself…Couldn’t even say “no” to sex if he wanted it. There was no such legal concept as marital rape. She consented when she said “I do”. Permanently, whenever, whatever, and no backsies. (Unless he wanted them.) The woman, as a legal entity, essentially vanished.
We redefine marriage all the freakin’ time. This is just one more, and probably not the last. No biggie.
6“…power, property and privilege…”. Succinct and so very true. The legal benefits of marriage now need to be extended to everyone, regardless of gender, but the traditional drawbacks of the aforementioned tend to lead the best-intentioned couples into unavoidable strife. Good luck with that.
7Origuy: it may not have always been codified, or even mentioned, but the rights of the more powerful who “own” the less powerful always included rape without consequence, from the time when Jacob’s two wives gave him their handmaidens to kickstart several of the 12 tribes of Israel, to the slave cabins of 19th century America, to Bill Cosby and his “proteges” today.
8Judith C & daChipster, excellent. Just excellent.
9Was thinking along those lines, in the context of the PBS showing of Wolf Hall, about Thomas Cromwell, counselor to the infamous Henry VIII, as he discarded various unsuitable wives in his search for a male heir. There is a handy saying to keep track of the disposition of said various (six) wives: divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, lived. And Henry was known for NOT being faithful to any of the first five.
Thanks for bringing this up Juanita Jean because it is something that has irked me for many years. Anyone with a passing knowledge of European history should be aware that noblemen were happy to arrange marriages between their daughters and nobles was a way of strengthening the ties between the families and a good way to gain standing. To say nothing of the way marriage operates in more traditional places; my friend was in the Peace Corps in an African nation and when the husband of the woman he was playing hoochie with caught wind of the affair he was sued in tribal court and had to pay $100 for misuse of the other man’s property.
10Thanks, daChipster! Wonderful — just wonderful!
11Please don’t let this guy get away, Juanita. I see Comedy Central, maybe The Daily Show, in his future.
12Herm, I have a lasso around DaChipster. He totally cracks me up and I agree with you – he’s an amazing writer.
13Great stuff! Ah, yes! One has to remember that Charlemagne, he of the crown and christianic emperor-dom had five — 5 — wives at one time. Yup. A harem. And no he didn’t live in the Eastern Empire. It took centuries to even begin to figure out marriage as other than a commercial enterprise.
14Last week, while in New Orleans, spousal unit and I learned of the institution of plaçage, also known as mariages de la main gauche or left-handed marriages. These were formalized arrangements between gentlemen of European ethnic descent and women of color. They included contracts of support for the women and any children they bore, often including freedom if the woman was a slave. They were often provided with houses and staffs of servants. The often began as infatuations, but many times turned into romantic matches. Traditional marriage was reserved for unions with ethnic European women (often cousins) and were mostly vehicles of wealth consolidation and conservation and the begetting of heirs for formal inheritance that would keep property in a family or social group. Anyone who thinks marriage isn’t a malleable institution is unlearned or deliberately pig ignorant (my apologies to pigs.)
15Well, daPrimo-ster, I hope someone will point your article at Justice Kennedy, who apparently needs to read it.
16What’s wrong with “marriages of convenience” anyway? The (weak) arguments against same-sex marriage always seems to conveniently condemn what has been the same reasons for people to get married over the past few millennia: protection, status, financial security. Down my way, I see plenty of older gringo men who are married to younger Mexican women, who probably are quite fond of their husbands, but whose pension definitely figured into the equation. Even absent romance, if people see their lives as improved by marriage, there’s no good reason to say they can’t.
17When I read Kennedy’s comment about “millenia” of 1 woman 1 man marriages, I thought perhaps he was speaking of some other planet. 1w/1m history is so brief!
18