I hoped to encourage a more philosophical discussion and some have done so. I put forward the traditional (and simplistic) understanding of marriage as presented in recent debates. Anyone can see that common and prescriptive laws were built around a cultural consensus of what necessary conditions, both objective and subjective, that must be present in order for a marriage to be recognized as such.
The implied objectively recognizable conditions of a Western marriage were few. A marriage is limited to two people. The marriage partners must be of opposite sex biologically. The marriage partners cannot be blood relatives.
In contrast to this, the subjective preconditions vary by culture, but in post-Enlightenment Western society some tacit conditions have applied. The marriage must be consensual. Slave-Master marriages would not be legitimate, nor would marriages between with the insane, insensate, nor those before the age of consent.
As I see it, state laws were put in place not to establish the objective preconditions for marriage. These objective facts were just part of what it meant to be married. Instead state laws were meant to clarify when subjective preconditions, like age of consent, were met. The problem I see with the current process of redefining marriage is that it brings into question all the objective preconditions. Biological sex, which is objective, has been replaced with gender, a self-selected identity. Thus there is no reason that prevents doing the same with number of partners and blood relatives.
What happens, or rather what do you think should happen, when marriage equality is requested for second and third wives. Can any number of people legitimately claim marital status? Is there a compelling state interest for not extending marriage equality to blood relatives? Etc.
The implied objectively recognizable conditions of a Western marriage were few. A marriage is limited to two people. The marriage partners must be of opposite sex biologically. The marriage partners cannot be blood relatives.
In contrast to this, the subjective preconditions vary by culture, but in post-Enlightenment Western society some tacit conditions have applied. The marriage must be consensual. Slave-Master marriages would not be legitimate, nor would marriages between with the insane, insensate, nor those before the age of consent.
As I see it, state laws were put in place not to establish the objective preconditions for marriage. These objective facts were just part of what it meant to be married. Instead state laws were meant to clarify when subjective preconditions, like age of consent, were met. The problem I see with the current process of redefining marriage is that it brings into question all the objective preconditions. Biological sex, which is objective, has been replaced with gender, a self-selected identity. Thus there is no reason that prevents doing the same with number of partners and blood relatives.
What happens, or rather what do you think should happen, when marriage equality is requested for second and third wives. Can any number of people legitimately claim marital status? Is there a compelling state interest for not extending marriage equality to blood relatives? Etc.
