I’m not opposed to the contemporary American notion of “traditional marriage.” After all, I’m (happily) participating in the institution. But I do have a problem with how the modern definition is presented as something timeless (and by extension, sacred), as if we could find the Cleavers in ancient Israel (”Gee Wally, guess it wasn’t very nice of me to make fun of that old bald guy”) or the Cunninghams in medieval Iceland (I picture a viking Fonz). Jill at Feministe has more to say on the subject, as she examines the “economic transaction” that traditional marriage was/is.
“Traditional” Marriage.
Posted by John on July 10th, 2006 at 6:56 am · 1 Comment
Tags: Feminism
1 response so far ↓
1 Parker // Jul 13, 2006 at 4:18 am
Well you know any practice that has a life of, say ten or twelve minutes, becomes the traditional practice. Or if I judge that something is a worthwhile practice I will set about to make it a tradition. Or, if I am certain God approves (and how I achieved my certainty is an epistemological mystery)then it is certainly traditional, even if it isn’t historical.
I belong to a religious tradition that has gone through several iterations of family and marriage constructs in its short history, each ordained of God. Now God wants marriage to mean a union between one man and one woman, and family to be that union plus the offspring. God is never changing, but his concept of family and marriage does. And I have confusion as a bed partner.
Parker
Leave a Comment