Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments

Defending the (Vacillating) Martial Flux in the United States

Over three billion years ago viable life on planet earth underwent a dynamic cataclysmic shift from previous sociological norms—it began to reproduce sexually. Long before bridal veils and bachelor parties, genetic DNA was bartered in lieu of nuptial bands in order to ensure the propagation of life on this planet. In his splendiferous essay "Same Sex Marriage—Should Gays Marry?" Marc Perkel, the self-confessed "most dangerous mind on the Internet" maps out the trajectory of human reproduction and evolution, the foundational genetics under which all human beings are currently governed. "An individual needed not only to be born, but also to survive to the reproductive age and reproduce before dying" (www.perkel.com). The axis of human evolution and the future history of mankind rested solely on the fact that our ancestors sexually reproduced.

In the same article Perkel further asserts that, "Marriage was born from primitive cultures that recognized that males and females mated and as a result produced children that needed to be cared for." Marriage was not an ordained function of the Church nor was it a concern of the state. Marriage was simply a buttress between two human beings to help further augment the survival and continuity of our current civilization.

Under the dogmatic aegis of Christian and Islamic law, marriage evolved into something of a commodity. Wives were submissive to their philandering spouses and donned the occasional veil to keep their demeanor in check. The marriage of church and state would later lead to laws that, in almost every Westernized culture, placed a greater emphatic interest on the Waspish male over his subservient conjugal.

The United States as a nation was christened under this biased perspective. It's almost gospel that when the third person pronoun was historically inked into the first sentence of the Constitution, the "We" did not refer to all people currently inhabiting the states, but conversely referred to a select group of elitist patriotic fops, who donned wigs and tights, harvested fields of marijuana, kept scores of slaves, enjoyed the occasional syphilitic bout and murdered the original inhabitants of the land they appropriated rationalizing much of their uncouth actions under the name of a deity whose opinion apparently mirrored their own misguided jingoism.

Marriage in the United States was fastened under this jurisdiction. The website ReligiousTolerance.org stresses that throughout the history of the United States, marriage and civil rights have always adhered to a somewhat malleable definition. In a recent diagnosis, Newsweek magazine states that the evolution of marriage has been vacillating for centuries. "The institution of marriage has been in a state of flux, always responding to the particular needs of that era"(Kantrowitz 40). African American's were not allowed to legally marry in all areas of the United States until after the Civil War. It was only in 1967, less than forty years ago, that the Supreme Court officially recognized interracial marriage. Until 1970, there was no such notion as martial rape because it was judicially inferred that a husband owned his wife's sexuality.

The greatest sociological slap to the purported sacrosanct union of matrimony in recent years has undoubtedly been the alarming rise in divorce. Over the last twenty years, the onset of the Nuclear family prematurely fostered a generation of overtly-cynical, politically despondent Gen-X siblings; the bastards of the baby-boomers growing up in an technology-laced society where parental marriage holds both the tenuous shelf life and fleeced superficiality comparable to a stale televised sitcom. According to a recent report released by the center of disease control and prevention and estimated forty-three percent of all first marriages will end in separation or divorce within 15 years, and all first or second marriages are more likely to end in divorce today than two decades ago (www.divorceform.org). The reason so many young adults seem dubious about their society, lackluster in their jobs, incredulous towards their governmental policies is because the first civil union they ever witnessed, the union of mother and father, was a failed campaign.

Viewed from this facet, marriage has sadly transitioned to the tune of the latest zero financed marketable asset. Even mega-conservative mongrel Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family states that, “If marriage means everything, it means nothing” (Religioustolerance.org).

But in the past three months, marriage has meant something; it has meant everything for citizens previously banned from the lawful hassle of declaring public declaration their love in the confines of a courtroom or comfort of a cathedral. In February rainbow flags were simultaneously raised all over the country in support of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to declare proposition 22—the 2000 California ballot that defined marriage as between a man and a woman—unconstitutional in terms of discrimination.

“I don’t agree with separate but unequal,” stated Mayor Newsom is a press release following his mandate. “Civil Unions are not good enough” ( Taylor, 40).

The results were astounding. In the first week alone over 6,000 couples were granted the legalities of a valid marriage. Six thousand couples whom, in their own lifetime, faced serious struggles in terms of sexual-identification and familial consent while battling “secular” inequity and political partiality brimming with bigotry. In one-weeks time, centuries of misunderstanding and malice were supplanted by bells and bouquets as over six thousand civil unions were cemented and declared lawful by a gracious government that has gradually taken its time inserting the universal ‘We’ back into the first sentence of the Constitution.

As was expected, the political right contorted from wing to fist, lambasting Mayor Newsom’s mayoral perspicacity. “It’s time for San Francisco to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law.” California Governor Schwarzenegger said. President Bush publicly admitted that he was seriously “troubled” by the recent support in minority rights. Even Dr. James Dobson postulated that the current pervasive trend of Gay marriage will inevitably mar marriages presupposed holiness. “Marriage will mean nothing to same-sex as well as to opposite-sex couples. The current decline of the institution of marriage will be accelerated (Taylor 40).

The trend towards universal marriage mirrors mankind’s immortal quest of self-realization in relationship towards another human being. While discussing the elusive nature of love and mysticism, poet and translator Coleman Barks commented to Bill Moyers that, “The fact that we are multiple is not so great as the fact that we are one.”

Barks was referring to an ancient poem by the Persian mystic Shams of Tabriz in which one-third of the poem consisted entirely of pronouns. “I you he she we/ In the garden of mystic lovers/ These are not true distinctions.”

William Shakespeare also seemed keenly aware of the hearts dilemma. In his widely anthologized Sonnet 114, Shakespeare urges his readers to, “Let me not to the marriage of true minds/ admit impediments Love is not love/ Which alters when its alteration finds/not bends with the remover to remove/ O no, it is an ever fixed mark” (Cohen 1962).

Unbridled love is indeed an indelible nagging urge. I myself feel blessed to have witness the event that transpired in San Francisco and anticipate the pending cultivation of acceptance of universal matrimony within the United States. In an age where even Christian conservatism remains skeptical over the future of marriage, I myself remain optimistic, acknowledging that nothing is perhaps more sacred than the marriage of true minds in an age where coifed conservative naiveté has reluctantly become fashionable. Even over the discourse of 300 billion years, sociological norms will continue to radically shift, thus allowing future evolution into the creature called man.




Quotations:
"Each individual's journey through life is unique. Some will make this journey alone, others in loving relationships - maybe in marriage or other forms of commitment. We need to ponder our own choices and try to understand the choices of others. Love has many shapes and colors and is not finite. It can not be measured or defined in terms of sexual orientation." From the Statement of Affirmation and Reconciliation by the Quaker meeting in Aotearoa.

"Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." The Marriage Resolution, by the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. 3

"If marriage means everything, it means absolutely nothing. It will mean nothing to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. The current decline of the institution of marriage will be accelerated. Increasing numbers of couples will elect to simply 'live together'." Dr. James C. Dobson, of Focus on the Family.