Decline and Fall

The good news about Mike Huckabee is that he no longer believes AIDS patients should be quarantined, as he once did back in 1992. On the other hand, Samhita and Feministing directs my attention to this gem in a GQ interview:

I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business.

So I suppose Blackstone-era family law must still be intact here in the West, because otherwise our civilization would have perished long ago. Or maybe conceptions of marriage and family structure are constantly shifting and this idea that they never change is just a cop-out effort to avoid squarely making the case for discrimination against gays and lesbians. My money's going on number two.

Photo by Flickr user Rneches used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Are people seriously ignoring the various cultures where polygamy is or has been practiced? I mean, there's a Mormon running for the nomination and an HBO series with polygamous Mormons as the main characters. The idea that there is an historically static definition of marriage is so laughably wrong that I'm embarrassed for the reporters who let the statement sit there.

Posted by JoeF | December 9, 2007 1:36 PM

This is where a little historical literacy from reporters would be very helpful. Huckabee is basically asserting that:

- marriages for property
- marriages for dowry
- marriages to cement political ties
- arranged marriages
- polygamy

. . . never existed in human history, or were never altered without the death of the civilization. Maybe he can ask his pal Mitt if that's true.

Posted by southpaw | December 9, 2007 1:41 PM

No actual comment. I just realised that I took the exact same picture in 2006.

Sic Transit Gloria, or something like that.

Posted by Tony J | December 9, 2007 2:07 PM

Are you guys seriously looking at history as a whole? I don't suppose you would care to note that the norm, average, basic, usual, intended marriage was between a man and a woman. That is not to say the other forms have never existed; it is saying that they were not (and are not) the framework from which we measure marriage. They are on the outer edge of the graph, not the center.
I suppose we ought to ask... who gets to define marriage???

Posted by Markus | December 9, 2007 2:18 PM

Markus, I suspect that the classical Greek who said (mangling the quote, I'm afraid) that we have have wives for children, mistresses for pleasure, and boys for what the others don't give us really wasn't talking about what Huckabee would think of as marriage. And probably, to Huckabee's credit, he wasn't thinking of what Jeff Davis offered his slaves either.

By the way, in the picture above I seem to see the house of the Vestal Virgins, certainly not very compatible with the Huckabee idea of marriage, a temple built by (or to?) Antoninus Pius, who also undertook marriage under rather different assumptions, and the assigned churches of various Cardinals, whose "nephews" also represent a rather different aspect of the sacrament -- of course I don't believe that a Southern Baptist would see it as a sacrament -- score six incompatible ideas in two paragraphs.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | December 9, 2007 2:33 PM

There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived.

Also never been a civilization that landed on the moon and survived. Guess that was a big mistake too.

Posted by right | December 9, 2007 2:34 PM

Huckabee is saying that the similarities between our institution of marriage (it's between a man and a woman), and the way the institution worked in previous generations (shotgun marriages, non-availability/stigmatization of divorce, dowries, unequal status of women), outweigh the differences. And that is simply preposterous.

But I wouldn't exactly expect a sweeping view of history from a guy who graduated from Ouachita Baptist University.

Posted by kth | December 9, 2007 2:38 PM

Are you guys seriously looking at history as a whole? I don't suppose you would care to note that the norm, average, basic, usual, intended marriage was between a man and a woman. That is not to say the other forms have never existed; it is saying that they were not (and are not) the framework from which we measure marriage. They are on the outer edge of the graph, not the center.

Non-responsive.

The question is whether shifting conceptions of marriage spell civilizational death. That just ain't true. Lots of civilizations have conceived of marriage as primarily an economic transaction between the parents of the couple in question. Many of those civilizations (inlcuding our own) have converted to the modern view that marriage is mostly about finding someone who's right for you and forming a stable relationship; those civilizations have done this without dying.

It's a fairly radical notion that a minor amendment to this conception of marriage to allow all persons to marry in accordance with their sexual preference will necessarily bring the United States of America to ruin.

I suppose we ought to ask... who gets to define marriage???

If your point is that government shouldn't be in the marriage defining business, then I'm with you. We should leave these matters to the church and design some minimalist, all-inclusive domestic partnership that the legal system can use as a substitute. But unfortunately, that idea is a political non-starter, so we have to have this other debate.

Posted by southpaw | December 9, 2007 2:47 PM

Maybe he's saying that not only should we not allow gay marriage, but also that the changes to marriage that we have already made (i.e. moving towards a relationship between equals and away from the ownership of women by men) is a problem as well. I mean that's pretty much what this phrase "traditional marriage" means.

His argument for this is completely tautological. Not only are people always changing the meaning and customs associated with marriage, but any civilization in the past has fallen and the jury is still out for any that still exist. Empires crumble, history goes on.
You could make this argument about any of the things that civilizations do, i.e.: Any civilization which has tried to invade its neighbors and expand has fallen. Every civilization which has based a large portion of its economic base on agriculture has fallen.

And of course not only did Rome fall for boring reasons like decaying infrastructure and bureaucracy, they actually redefined marriage in the other direction away from tolerating certain kinds of male homosexuality as they moved towards the end.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | December 9, 2007 3:11 PM

What ruf said.

Posted by gerontion | December 9, 2007 3:45 PM

"And of course not only did Rome fall for boring reasons like decaying infrastructure and bureaucracy, they actually redefined marriage in the other direction away from tolerating certain kinds of male homosexuality as they moved towards the end."

Gibbon said 'twas Christianity that killed the beast. But I don't think they teach that in parochial schools--or at Ouachita Baptist University.

Posted by Henderstock | December 9, 2007 4:20 PM

None of these arguments are persuasive to opponents of gay marriage because they don't care that marriage has changed over time -- what they really care about is that the status quo is frozen. In that status quo, marriage between a man and woman is sanctified and backed by the government's imprimatur. Since many opponents of gay marriage are also religious, and some even believe in the exceptional quasi-divinity of our form of government, the implications for government-endorsed sin are epic and civilizational.

In addition to this fear of divine "civilizational destruction" is a deep sense of insecurity about the interlocutor's own private family arrangements and aspirations. If society ceases to privilege marriage as it presently exists, the norm of universal desirability and sanctity of man-woman marriage no longer backs up your private decisions; you lose one form of "glue" that you imagine holds your family together. That feels like an attack on the integrity of one's own family, as well as a civilizational sin.

That's why southpaw's proposal for abolishing any governmental imprimatur on man-woman marriages never gets off the ground. For opponents of gay marriage, this has never been about personal choice -- it's about (1) the need to have your private choices ratified by overwhelming public consensus and (2) avoiding divine vengeance. There's no pareto optimal move whereby both conservatives and gay marriage proponents can get what the want. Even if you can convince conservatives that their family arrangements can survive alongside novel ones, how do you shake their conviction that God will punish a nation that ratifies sin?

Posted by StJoe | December 9, 2007 4:21 PM

1) Hmmm. I thought Edward Gibbon did a lifelong, indepth study of the primary sources and concluded that Rome fell because of the spread of the fucking Christian evangelicals.

2) 10 years ago, the idea of the Romans feeding said evangelicals to the lions seemed appalling. Today, er..not so much.

Posted by Don Williams | December 9, 2007 4:22 PM

Not that Rome actually really fell, you know...it slowly decayed away until it was far more efficient for largely Romanized chieftans to take over as rulers of smaller regions...Gibbon is hardly the most unbiased voice on the issue. Why is everyone so fascinated with why a fascist state built on the backs of slaves fell anyhow?

On the marriage issue, no matter how many times you tell the average American that marriage for love is a creation of the last century will they listen to you. To them, its always been about romance, rather than the purely economic structure others have already mentioned. Ironic that the concept of marriage for love is what is finally, thankfully, opening it up for all to take part in.

Posted by Jadon Nisly | December 9, 2007 5:24 PM

"In that status quo, marriage between a man and woman is sanctified and backed by the government's imprimatur" and the two became one and that one under the law was the man. All this is really about feminism as well as gay sex, that's why abortion rights always go hand in hand with gay marriage. (have you ever heard of a politician who supported the right to choose *and* the sancitity of marriage? )

Otherwise, what Ruf said ... and what Don said.

Because I'm really starting to see why feeding the evangelicials to the lions was considered a good idea by the civilized classes of the time...

Posted by Diana | December 9, 2007 5:28 PM

All prior civilizations fell, by definition. And as you all point out, all (or most) prior civilizations had shifting norms of marriage. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Score 1 for Huckabee. Everybody is challenging his factual assumptions, and ignoring the logical construction. You're only helping it's persuasiveness. And by helping I mean uncritically feeding into the biased presumptions of those Huckabee is addressing. Conservatives disagree with your value judgements, period, so why are you arguing on those grounds? Also, plea to history is just as fallacious. Just because it _was_ isn't persuasive unless, like most people, you're just pining for self-justification.

Its been 8 years since Karl Rove mastered this technique, and yet people still fall for it. *sigh*

Posted by Bill | December 9, 2007 6:12 PM

"You're only helping it's persuasiveness."

I am?

"Conservatives disagree with your value judgements, period, so why are you arguing on those grounds?"

"...how do you shake their conviction that God will punish a nation that ratifies sin?"

By ignoring all that freakily bad vibe and turning up and out the base,..., Lord Jesus! I'ma comin' home!

Posted by Rihilism | December 9, 2007 6:58 PM

Bill,

If I said:

"There's never been a blog commenter who disagreed with Mike Huckabee and survived."

Would you call that a true statement as well?

Further, would you call it persuasive?

Posted by southpaw | December 9, 2007 7:08 PM

Re Jadon Nisly's comment "Not that Rome actually really fell, you know...it slowly decayed away until it was far more efficient for largely Romanized chieftans to take over as rulers of smaller regions "
---------------
To bad you weren't around to offer that dispassionate view to the Roman women being raped and sodomized by Vandals circa 455 AD. After the gates of Rome were opened by Bishop Leo.

Posted by Don Williams | December 9, 2007 7:35 PM

Re Bill's comment "Also, plea to history is just as fallacious. Just because it _was_ isn't persuasive unless, like most people, you're just pining for self-justification. "
----------
1) I disagree. We look at history in order to see the larger picture --to become aware of matters that would not occur to us if we focused solely on the present. History is our memory of past experience -- and such memory is what distinguishes an adult from an ignorant child -- a child who wonders blindly into danger.

2) What history tells us is that organized religion frequently destroys nations. Bitter religious disputes divide a nation and have even , in the past, sparked murderous civil wars.

Our natural toleration for religious beliefs blinds us when malign actors cloak political operations behind a religious facade.

Men who use religion to promote wealthy private interests -- because those interests drop hefty checks into the collection plate. The Southern Baptist Convention ,as I've noted, was founded by those who defended human slavery.

3) If I was running a malign political campaign to subvert and control a population, I could not think of a better tool than organized religion.

It lets my operatives solicit donations that are tax free.

It lets me run TV programs hour after hour, day after day, designed to brainwash my viewers into supporting foreign and domestic policies favored by my patrons. And if anyone criticizes my false and misleading broadcasts, I can denounce them for persecuting religion. For hating Christianity. That means I don't even have to address any complaints from my critics. Or from the IRS or FCC or FEC.

4) It lets me FRAME every issue in terms I choose -- since I'm acting as the voice from God. That way, I don't have to stick to the facts or even to Christian values.

It lets me advocate a murderous Middle Eastern policy which spits on the teachings of Christ in Matthew 25. By proclaiming that God can't bring about the Resurrection without our help -- that we need to support Israel over the "Islamofascists".

Which is a pretty good cover for raiding the US Treasury and sacrificing the US military in order to grab oil deposits.

5) It lets me build networks of people PAID to work ,day in and day out, recruiting people to support my political agenda -- which is disguised as a religious crusade.

An agenda committed to the destruction of the US Constitution -- by destroying the values behind the Constitution.

6) It lets me destroy political opponents simply by claiming that they are "not Christian" and are "immoral" -- thereby letting me duck nasty debates over whether my selfish actions are in the national interest.

I can even tie the country up in knots for 2 years with the first Presidential impeachment in over 100 years -- based on whether Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica. All the time, I can be carrying on my own sexual affair. Then I can go and speak before the "Christians United for Israel".

Posted by Don Williams | December 9, 2007 8:52 PM

Re: To bad you weren't around to offer that dispassionate view to the Roman women being raped and sodomized by Vandals circa 455 AD. After the gates of Rome were opened by Bishop Leo.

It becomes convoluted. Did Vandals redefine marriage for Romans? Nothing against you, Don, just the we ever so gradually went off tangent.

Anyway, when you will visit the snowy wasteland that was Ontario, look at the ruins of Toronto and despair. Wheep over bleak tidal marches where ruins of once proud city of Amsterdam are slowly sinking down.

Posted by piotr | December 9, 2007 9:03 PM

I thought Edward Gibbon did a lifelong, indepth study of the primary sources and concluded that Rome fell because of the spread of the fucking Christian evangelicals.

Gibbon's main claim to fame was a prose artist, not a historian. Besides, how is it that Christianity caused only a specific part of the empire to collapse?

To bad you weren't around to offer that dispassionate view to the Roman women being raped and sodomized by Vandals circa 455 AD. After the gates of Rome were opened by Bishop Leo.

At which point the capital of the western empire had been Ravenna, not Rome, for almost 50 years.

Posted by Tyro | December 9, 2007 9:35 PM

Re Tyro's comment "Gibbon's main claim to fame was a prose artist, not a historian "
-----------
1) Oh, bullshit. That's the lazy, glib superficial learning of the postmodernists.

Have we learned more about Roman history in the 230 years since Gibbon published? Obviously Yes -- especially with new data from archaelogy. And we try to address details of economics that were largely ignored by older historians.

2) But today's modern historians sometimes can't see the forests for the trees -- they spend their life focused on minutae. They are narrow academics -- not broad men of affairs in the manner of 18th century gentlemen.

For example, they generally have little real knowledge of major human occuptations -- of agriculture, military techniques, the art of government and international diplomacy.

3) Assembling a jigsaw puzzle on some detailed issue has value. But few historians today can look at the grand sweep of history over a period of 500 years in the manner of Gibbon. Can sort through the piles of information and pull out the important piece of information.

Or identify the important forces in a human society and track how those forces evolved and changed with time.

4) Up until about 20 years ago, US foreign trade constituted about 5 percent of GDP. With the collapse of the Soviet Union , our elites --without ANY public debate -- made the same decision as the patricians of the Roman Republic. To use surplus military power to build a global empire. NO question was raised of whether globalization was in the national interest.

5) Gibbon would have questioned the wisdom of that decision -- to pursue "immoderate greatness". It was Gibbon who noted that the fragmentated nature of Europe preserves human freedom --because potential tyrants are deterred by the opinion and powers of their rivals. That if a tyrant does take over your country, you can flee elsewhere, gain the means to make a new life and ,perhaps, gain revenge.

But Gibbon noted that when the empire of the Romans filled the world , then everyone was in the same dreary prison -- whether living in exile on the frozen banks of the Danube or dragging golden chains in the Roman Senate.

6) Bush/Cheney are creating the horrible world of Commodus, Nero, and Domitian. And Hillary will continue to do the same. They have no choice -- their wealthy patrons have too much invested.

Posted by Don Williams | December 9, 2007 10:25 PM

"There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."

Predisposing he knows what "marriage and family" means.

Given that he almost certainly thinks in terms of the "nuclear family" - which in itself isn't even CHALLENGED by the conventional two-person "gay marriage" (see: Foster, Jodie) - which didn't exist for most of human "civilization", that's a pretty broad statement.

Can't wait to see what he thinks of the Transhumans rewriting what it means to be "human" at all - or better yet, abandoning the very notion of being "human" as the main problem.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 9, 2007 11:45 PM

There has never been a civilization that has denied the right to same sex marriage and survived.

Posted by michael farris | December 10, 2007 8:32 AM