I just finished an interesting, although way too academic, book, A History of Private Life-REvelations of the Medieval World- that details marriage and family life in that time (along with every other possible topic). We have come a very long way since then in the way we define marriage and the role of the family.
The goal of every estate, headed by the paterfamilias, was to expand, by his own marriage to another estate (woman as property), and by the bringing in and supporting of other men under him, who in their turn increased the population and power of the estate. It was all very businesslike and practical and had nothing to do with "love", not that conjugal love didn't exist at times.
We no longer force women into marriages, or treat them as property, or believe that everyone should have a zillion children to increase the power of their family. There is no compelling reason not to go farther in our reassessment of what defines marriage, while allowing that a family unit is still a basic societal building block.
The religious right should focus more on keeping families with children intact, rather than worrying about a very small percentage of the population being granted the same rights they already have and have so often abused. |
