By Gordon Barlow

This little essay
is five years old. I posted it on my personal blog in 2013, as a
general commentary on the topic of marriage in general, directed at
my international readers. Surprisingly, it’s still relevant today –
especially in Cayman. Who’d have thought?

Most people in the
West are tolerant of same-sex sexual relationships, but the rest of
us draw the line at same-sex marriages. Why is that? Most
people in the world probably couldn’t care less if siblings live
together, but very few approve of sexual goings-on between or among
them. Almost all of them would draw the line at sibling marriages.
Why is that?

What is so special
about marriage? It can’t be all about children, surely, in these
sophisticated times. At least, not in the West. Here, promiscuity is
blatant, adoptions are easy, artificial insemination is routine,
divorces are simple, surgical sex-changes abound, birth control is
everywhere, and serial monogamy is the norm. The old ideal of “the
nuclear family” has gone out the window.

Why should we
(society) draw the line anywhere, as long as there are no
children involved or envisioned? What would be lost, if we scrapped
the idea that society needs to formally approve every marriage?
Nothing. Not a damn thing. The law governing civil contracts can take
care of any children.

Is it about taxes,
pensions or other entitlements? It may be. The last surviving widow
of a US Civil War veteran died in 2003, and the last surviving son
of a US Civil War Veteran was still alive just last year. (I would
want a DNA test for him, but the relevant US Government agency was
still paying his pension of $70 a week.)

It was the custom
for young girls to be married off to ancient Veterans specifically in
order to inherit the Vets’ lifetime pensions. Sex was rarely
required of the girls, if ever. Deathbed marriages were just a way
for old codgers to do their friends’ families a favour. Sometimes
the favours would be reciprocal. Today’s marriages of convenience
are following some fine precedents.

Some private
companies in some countries will not pay spouses’ lifetime benefits
(pension and medical) if the age gap is greater than a designated
number of years. It’s a good idea. Why don’t national governments
introduce a similar measure? Or, why don’t they simply get out of
the marriage-approval business altogether? (Or, busybody-ness,
which is what it really is.) Yes, why don’t they?

The original purpose
of community-approved marriage, in the days before nations, was to
give tribal elders the power to ensure the stability of the ruling
classes. In the earliest civilisations, marriages within the nobility
had to be carefully monitored to minimise the likelihood of factional
rebellions. Marriages were designed to cement alliances of families,
clans and factions.

The serfs were
generally left alone to arrange their own marriages, though rulers
kept a weather eye out for suspicious alliances. Slave families were
deliberately split up in order to remove any temptation to plot
against their masters. It happened to the Africans in the Americas,
and the precedent is an ancient one.

The difference with
same-sex relationships was the absence of children, but in
actuality the ruling classes were less against homosexual
marriages than for the traditional form. Long ago, empires in
China were largely governed by eunuchs, whose value to emperors was
that they could not produce lineages to which they might owe their
primary loyalties.

National histories
are cluttered with examples of military dynasties jostling for
political power. As individual rights have gradually superseded
community rights, the reason for the official licensing of marriages
has lessened. There is no point in the custom any more, and if it
were scrapped altogether, it would be no loss.

Even today, there is occasional deep suspicion by hereditary rulers of a “Pink Mafia” whose members, like Masonic lodges, might be loyal to each other at the expense of loyalty to the ruling classes. That kind of loyalty might indeed exist here and there, but formal marriage doesn’t and wouldn’t frustrate it. Some state, somewhere, ought to have the courage to abandon the power to license marriages altogether. It doesn’t serve any useful purpose any more.

END

Gordon Barlow

Gordon Barlow has lived in Cayman since 1978. He was the first full-time Manager of the Cayman Islands Chamber of Commerce (1986-1988)- a turbulent period as the Chamber struggled to establish its political independence. He has publicly commented on social and political issues since 1990, and in 1998 served as the secretary of two committees of the ‘Vision 2008’ exercise. He has represented the Chamber at several overseas conferences, and the Cayman Islands Human Rights Committee at an international symposium in Gibraltar in 2004.

You can view all his blogs at: https://barlowscayman.blogspot.com