Even her website touts this message:
I was the chief author of a constitutional amendment in the Minnesota Senate defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I will continue to support traditional marriage as a union between a man and woman.
What is a tradition?
Main Entry: tra·di·tion
Pronunciation: tr&-'di-sh&n
Function: noun
from Latin Etymology: Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradicion,tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition -- more at TREASON
1 a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style
*Merriam Webster doesn't explain how long something must persist before it becomes tradition, but do you think 600 years would be enough?
An interesting new article by Allan A. Tulchin in the Journal of Modern History makes the case that marriage and union were far more varied than previously thought.
“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize, and Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”
The concept is known as affrèrement, and it was apparently used some 600 years ago to bind relatives and even non-relatives (of the same sex or opposite sex) in civil union type arrangements.
“The model for these household arrangements is that of two or more brothers who have inherited the family home on an equal basis from their parents and who will continue to live together, just as they did when they were children.”
“the affrèrement was not only for brothers”
“All of their goods usually became the joint property of both parties, and each commonly became the other’s legal heir. They also frequently testified that they entered into the contract because of their affection for one another. As with all contracts, affrèrements had to be sworn before a notary and required witnesses, commonly the friends of the affrèrés.”
“considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents.”
“The very existence of affrèrements shows that there was a radical shift in attitudes between the sixteenth century and the rise of modern antihomosexual legislation in the twentieth.”
So, in the 16th century, arrangements were made of a legal civil manner to bind many types of different families together. While it certainly is not definitive evidence that homosexuality was accepted, it certainly shows that what we believe was traditional was in fact only one traditional option among several for people some 600 years ago.
It begs the question: Were the people of the 16th century more enlightened and accepting than the anti-gay Bachmann's of the 21st century?
