Apparently, in Judge Walker's brilliant Prop 8 ruling, he touched on the oft stated erroneous belief that marriage, in all cultures and throughout history, has always been between a man and a woman. Dan Savage mentions this in his editorial about the Prop 8 trial decision.
Link
There is a great passage that Savage quotes:
"Blankenhorn testified that his research has led him to conclude there are three universal rules that govern marriage: (1) the rule of opposites (the "man/woman" rule); (2) the rule of two; and (3) the rule of sex. Blankenhorn explained that there are "no or almost no exceptions" to the rule of opposites, despite some instances of ritualized same-sex relationships in some cultures. "
Due to my curiosity regarding comparative cultural analysis in my 20s, I knew that the notion that heterosexual marriage is universally the only form of marriage across all cultures and history was problematic as far as hard facts go.
This is not an exhaustive discussion of the issue, but it should provide you with an understanding of why I cringe when even marriage equality advocates accept the false claim of historical and cultural uniformity. Perhaps, the best way to cover this is by examining different regions outside of the Western and Abrahamic (Christian, Muslim and Jewish) traditions to see the complicated tapestry that forms the actual history of marriage.
A) Africa
Link
"Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa."
Moreover, these sorts of arrangements were not limited to women.
"Formalized, socially-recognized relations between two men also exist in Africa. Among the Zande (located in southwestern Sudan, northeastern Congo, and the Central African Republic), a male warrior could marry a teenage boy by paying bridewealth to the boy's parents."
B) Native American & Other Tribal Cultures W/ Shamanistic Traditions
"Among the Mohave, men have married alyha (biological males who are officially initiated into a 'female' gender role) and women have married hwame (the female equivalent of alyha)."
While the analogy may be viewed as same sex, the other interpretation is that it is more akin to transgender. Certainly the above example with the Mohave, and the example below, are not as straight forward (pardon the pun) as gay/straight or male/female:
Link
This is why the issue is problematic. It is not easy to understanding these things through our value systems as we see things. While we can not say that these were "same sex marriage" as is being contemplated for gays and lesbians who want to marry right now, these relationships also can not be classified as straight in cultures as different as those of Siberian Shamans.
Link
For additional reading on Siberian shamanism and shamanisn in general you should check out the article here.
C) Pre-modern China
I return to the article about same sex coupling in other cultures here:
"Hu Pu'an records the phenomenon of two-women commitment ceremonies in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong": Within the Golden Orchid women's societies, if two women "have intentions" towards each other, one of them would prepare peanut candy, dates and other goods as a formal gift to show her intent... After the contract is completed, the two women "become like each other's shadows in sitting, lying down, rising, and living...
In the neighboring province of Fujian, same-sex marriages between males were also recognized"
As the article ends, I think this is the important point:
"It is up to each society to decide how to move forward, but there is something to be said for knowing our past and for knowing how people in other parts of the world view the same issue."
The point is not to become like these other cultures. It is to the understand that we are not being presented with true facts regarding history, and that any progress can only occur with truth rather than entrenched belief. Not all these examples are good ones or ones that one would want to emulate. But, they do teach us that certainty on this issue across culture is false.
D) Pre-modern and ancient Europe
It is also not clear that Western culture has always had marriages that were strictly between men and women. Again, the historical record, including in Rome, for example, is complicated.
"Nero, the Emperor of ancient Rome, at different times got married with two other men and nice wedding ceremonies were held. And it was not an exceptional situation as there are the same reports about other Roman Emperors."
Link
The point is that like all the "facts" asserted by the right on this issue- the discussion is actually complicated. One of the reasons "facts have a well known liberal bias" is because it is not easily reducible to concepts of what constitutes tradition or what one should be conserving when looking at the complications of cultures throughout history.
Indeed, even as late as medieval France saw complicated same sex pairings:
"In France, a predominantly Christian country, a union between two men was introduced in the late 1400's. It was a union between 'brothers' (affrèrement). Much like Phololaus and Dioclese, two men would share a household after a ceremony where they pledged to do so."
Link
E) United States
Nor, is the U.S. without a complicated history on the subject of marriage as far as opposite sex gender is concerned:
"In the United States during the nineteenth century there appeared the notion of Boston marriage. Two women could have a continuous relationship based on real commitment. They usually shared accommodation, but it was publicly considered that there was no sexual relationship between them."
Again, the number of things taken as "fact" in the debate over marriage equality needs to be challenged. For example, the notion that marriage has always been a religious institution needs to be rebutted. That history could be the subject of its multiple volume set of books.
So, the next time you read or hear someone say "marriage has always been between and man and woman," you will have the context for realizing that this is not exactly true. What you are actually witnessing in such statements is a kind of cultural and historical arrogance that says "We are the victors. So we can wipe out historical and cultural complexity to reflect only our values."
There's a lot more out there. I encourage you to check it out. Its not all pretty, but it is real.
UPDATE: a) Thank you for recommending this diary. Having an understanding beyond oft repeated frames that are mistaken as "facts" is precisely what I think progressives need to be in the business of doing rather than accepting the status quo's distortion of complicated reality.
b) I changed the title per request to reflect the fact that we are discussing a frame used by the right or those against marriage equality and
c) I don't expect this to change anyone's opinion or be determinative of what should be done now on marriage equality. I simply wanted to have a debate in which we don't accept the underlying assumptions as given.
Here's my view: When we accept these erroneous assumptions without question, it makes fighting the policy issue that much harder because others who are not so involved will simply go with culturally held assumptions that say, "this has always been the case so why should we change it now?"
I wrote this diary to point out that history on these issues are complicated. Much more complicated than the average American voter who listens to the right wing noise machine may know or progressives who are not following the issue as closely at I do. The point is to share my awareness.
It is important that we start to challenge the right rather than simply accept their terms of how the debate should happen. That's my overall point for writing this diary. The diary was never meant to represent a prescription for solving marriage equality issues.