When I was 14 years old I came home from a family members wedding

wondering when- or if- I would be getting married myself. As I thought on it not only did I

try to image who the lucky girl would be but what year and what would my weeding look

like? I eventually planned my whole wedding; I would marry Jennifer C. at some cool

venue in New York City and we would have two kids. As a grew older, the girl changed

but the wedding details stayed the same- just got more specific. I got married last year

to a boy at the age of twenty-seven atop a roof in downtown Salt Lake City. Fourteen

year old me would had never imagined what his actual wedding would look like, where

or how late it would had happened and certainly not that he would marry a pasty-

skinned, blonde hair, blue eyed man. Though eighteen year old me wouldn't had been

as surprised. I look back and wonder why, even though at the age of fourteen I knew I

was gay, did I think and plan to marry a female, even into later stages of my life. I can

not help but blame our culture and heteronormative society when I attempt to figure out

the reasons. All my early life it was taught that men marry women, anything else is

wrong or even an abomination. Every couple on television and in film were male and

female. Books and stories told love stories only of a prince charming and a princess

who lived happily ever after. If ever I heard about a same-sex couple it was followed by

disdain, disgust, or unbelivement- if it was not mocked or made a joke. Gay men and

lesbians were not allowed to get married, they only had boyfriends and girlfriends, but

never the same one for very long, why would they even want to get married? I was

told if you want children one day you have to be married to a female. So of course I

expected to and planned to marry a girl. What other alternative did I have!? Our culture
did not even consider me marrying another man as viable or an option when I was

young, so why would I? Its traditional after all.

Today, when I hear an argument against any form of marriage other than one

man and one woman based off of traditional marriage I can not help but gaff and ask

the individual if they really understand what traditional marriage is- or was. Often the

response is one a christian bases or just the way it is and has been. I believe that if we

are as a society and culture are going to place such emphasis on marriage and make

laws to regulate marriage that we need to know its origins and purpose. That we need

to recognize it is not a religious institution and there for should not be dictated by such

when creating laws on who can partake in marriage. By looking at the history of

marriage and applying it to todays debate as well as the practice of marriage in cultures

around the world, we can then determine what marriage is and how it be regulated

ethically and fairly.

The origins of marriage take root in two human instincts for survival: food and

sex. Men and women would exchange sex for food they wanted but did not have, or

they would just have sex. Due to a lack of contraceptives in the early ages of man, its

no surprise that exchanges in sex resulted in child birth. It was due to having a child that

these men and women would stick close together for several years to ensure the

survival of the child, which once secured, the man would wonder off, essentially creating

the first example of divorce. As man progressed and began to settle, creating a more

set society, men and women began to stay together for longer periods of time. Men did
not wonder off because now they have a permanent place of shelter, ever-growing

source of food, and a community for support. As a result men and women continued to

raise children together till later stages of the child's life resulting in a more established

family unit. The larger the family, the less work one had to do to farm his land or tend to

live stock. This family unit also ensured better economic security when one dies. Soon

these types of unions began to contribute to the community as a whole and it was

realized there was a need for laws to establish inheritance, ownership, and stewardship.

It was not not long until the unions were politicized and used to obtain wealth and

influence. Families, particularly royal and other powerful families, would orchestrate

unions between children or siblings in order to form allies with other nations or

kingdoms, or to just expand their land and possessions. It was not uncommon for

cousins to marry so that such things were kept in the family. There was no religious

influence in these unions until the 9th century when the church dictated monogamy as

the accepted form of marriage after millenniums of polygamy and other commonly

practiced forms of marriage such as group marriages or polyandry. Marriages were

almost always for an economic or power gain; in fact only the poor of society were able

to afford to marry for love. It wasnt until the marriage act of 1753 that the church

dictated certified officiants approved by the church perform official ceremonies.

Eventually the church also began to stake stances on marriage issues such as child

bearing and divorce as well as who was allowed to be married. In more recent history of

marriage, white citizens and black citizens were not allowed to legally marry until 1967!

Traditional implies that a custom or a practice have been in place for generations and
passed on in such a way yet the marriage we claim is traditional has only ben in place

for one generation, two at best.

Even still, if our definition of traditional marriage excludes homosexual marriage,

then can we really call it traditional? There is a long history of homosexual unions

across almost all cultures and eras that testify against the its always been this way

argument. Roman and greek men often entered in to pederasty relationships with young

boys; a sexual relationship that also served as a mentorship to the young man. Two

emperors of Rome, Emperor Nero and Emperor Elagabalus, publicly married men more

than once, holding large and lavish ceremonies similar to weddings in city squares up

until the church banned same-sex marriages in 342 AD. Enbrotherment was an early

form of religious same sex marriage practiced through the middle ages. Through

enbrotherment two saints were married and well known while the Catholic church

recorded an official marriage between two men in 1061 in Spain. Europe was not the

only society that held homosexual unions in high esteem; In the southern Chinese

province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in

contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar

arrangements. Same sex unions have a longer running tradition than our current

common place belief of a traditional marriage.

In the U.S. we now practice love marriages, meaning we are not marrying

someone because it will bring us more wealth or bring peace to our kingdom but

because we are in love with the man or woman we have chosen for ourselves. In many
countries and cultures around the world other, even more traditional, forms of marriage

are practiced. India and places in the middle east still carry out arranged marriages

where the parents choose who their children will marry in the future once they are

marrying age. There are asian cultures who perform ghost marriages, marrying a living

individual to a deceased one, or two dead individuals to one another for the sake of

honor. Cultures in the Appalachians practice polyandry to preserve scarce land and

resources rather than dividing it up multiple times for each son. Other countries have

legalized same-sex marriage for for over twenty years now. With so many forms of

marriage not only in the long history of unions but that continue to be practiced today,

pinning any one practice as traditional is incredibly difficult, if not impossible.

Even if we decide to throw all past practices out the window and revamp

marriage in order to fairly and morally regulate marriage, we have to look at the purpose

of marriage and the role it plays in our society or, better yet, that we want it to play? No

matter what purposes we establish or goals we want marriage in our society to

accomplish, there is no reason that will justify a restriction on marriage between

consenting adults, be it a opposite-sex union or a same-sex union. From a legal

perspective, marriage creates a legal bond between two (potentially more) individuals

who choose to, one, share everything with and create a line of inheritance, and two,

give power of attorney over too in situations of urgency or importance. The government

has no ability in telling you who you love or can not love and it certainly can not restrict

your freedom to marry based off a religious belief. And because religion is not the law of

our land and is kept separate from the state, then really a religious belief has no bearing
on who can and can not marry. In fact, the argument stands that allowing citizens to

marry who they wish, freely and unrestricted, is MORE ethical and morally correct when

religion is removed from the institution, not to mention more accurately traditional.