On Marriage.
On Marriage.
Words and the concepts they represent do not belong to people, ideologies, points in time or places in the world.
Marriage. Like all words, it is an arrangement of letters and sounds that represent more than their constitutive syllables (mare-ij). It is a word layered with social implications: a signifier of legal status, a marker of emotional attachment, a tool for moral-makers. But words and the concepts they represent do not belong to people, ideologies, points in time or places in the world. Words cannot be held hostage by a particular church or monopolized by a particular political party.
Contrary to what proponents of a “traditional” definition of marriage dictate, the word is not Biblical in either age or meaning. Marriage has a fairly unremarkable etymology. It appears first in 13th century Middle English as mariage, derived from the Old French marier, which in turn is derived from the Latin word maritare (to provide with a husband or wife). Likewise, the word matrimony is derived from a Latin combination of mater (mother) and monimum (action). Any Biblical references to marriage were, of course, translated from the original Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Koine Greek.
English translations of the Old Testament use the word marriage in place of a number of different concepts expressed in very different Hebrew language. For example, Exodus 21:3 is translated in English Bibles as “If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.” But the literal translation of the Hebrew would look more like “If in single of him he is coming, in single of him he shall go further: if possessor of woman he and she goes forth woman of him with him.” Here, a description of a particular relationship – or rather – ownership of a woman by a man, is labeled many centuries later in English as marriage. In Psalms 78:63, the literal translation of the Hebrew “choice young men of him she devoured fire and virgins of him not they were praised” is translated into English as “the fire consumed their young men; and their maidens were not given to marriage.”
Translations are always an interesting place to look when issues are locked at the intersection of language, meaning and politics. The role of translations here is not to tell the story of how marriage as a concept has evolved, but rather to remind us that the language we use today and the words we will use tomorrow are not inherently tied to a static idea or institution. Words are chosen in translation across languages, time, ideologies and space.
Opponents of marriage equality who base their position on a “traditional” definition will continue to argue that, despite the etymology of the word, it is the concept that is traditional, sacred, and defined as a union between one man and one woman. To that I say, religions and private individuals are free to limit their personal blessing to heterosexual unions. But no person or institution is free to claim sole-proprietorship of the word marriage. Neither words nor love can be owned by anyone.
No, but power politics has put them both up for lease. Depending on votes, appointments, and jurisprudence, it may take another generation before love joins the free market.