Love and marriage didn't always go together

Now that we have celebrated the paper anniversary of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, may we pause for a moment to admit that the opponents were right: Same-sex marriage is proof of a crisis in traditional marriage.

But gay marriage is not the cause of the crisis, it's a consequence. The true culprit is, well, Cupid.

<snip>

Until roughly two centuries ago, the institution of marriage was considered far too important to leave up to the emotions of two people. Marriage was about economics and politics and more than anything else, about creating new in-laws.

To see how far we've strayed from the rule of in-laws to the rule of love, just compare the 16th-century "Romeo and Juliet" to the 21st-century - forgive me, Will - "Shrek 2." In our modern fairy tales, a father is expected to support a love match even if his daughter marries an ogre. Any mother who interferes is a "Monster-in-Law."

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/11699545.htm

Marrying someone because you love them is a relatively new and radical concept in the history of humankind.

the traditional marriage wasn't much of a bargain for women. Treated as property, as children, as idiots, as slaves, women suffered daily want, brutality, and basic lack of choices. It wasn't uncommon for a man to go through women like tissues, killing them with pregnancy if not by other means. This state of affairs continues today, even in "enlightened " nations like ours, but at least it is illegal now. Except for the brainwashed who have been cowed into believing that suffering and punishment for being female is proper and natural. And if a woman was strong enough, rich enough, or well-connected enough to hold her own, well then, the man could just walk, or escape into a bottle or infidelity, or other drugs. A lot of that goes on nowadays, maybe even more than before.

So call me an idealist, but I know what a good marriage between two equals looks like, and I'm not settling for less, and neither should you.

and notes that "the truly traditional marriage was ... held in check by the economic dependency of wives, the unreliability of birth control, and penalties for having children out of wedlock." with the ultimate conclusion being: "Over the years, same-sex marriages will be subject to the usual ups and downs, risks and rewards. But now, love has everything to do with it."

I think the title is a bit deceiving.