If we are looking for a way back to a time when family was a goal

What makes you think that family, however you define that, is not the goal now? I know several gay couples who have children and who fight for marriage rights simply to make the lives of their loved ones easier. Gay marriage is not anti-family. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but I think we need to make that clear!

The issue with defining an institution like marriage is that marriage belongs to more than one culture and one period in time. So if you, in general, want to define marriage with a normative purpose in mind, you have to make sure you won’t restrict its meaning to a historical understanding of marriage or to an utilitarian point of view.

First, culture. For most of our history, the United States has successfully assimilated the largest number of diverse cultures and people, it could be argued. Many chose to speak their native tongue at home or in their neighborhoods, but they wanted to learn English for the workplace. One reason was utilitarian. They wanted a job and in most instances, use of the language was required or at least preferred. The other reason was an emotional need–the immigrant felt that learning English, the language of America, was a source of pride, a sign that he or she had worked hard to belong.
We know, of course (and unfortunately it is a fact that some on the far left either can’t or won’t concede for reasons I don’t understand) that language binds people to one another. Linguistics, anthropology, neuroscience, sociology–there is no field of study that denies the link between thought and language, no field that denies that language binds people to one another. The globe is full of examples of the forcing together of peoples within certain borders even when they don’t share a common language. The results are almost always disappointing and conflict, strife are historically common.
Thus, that immigrants to the US wanted to come here while still retaining their own cultures up to a point (and I will state that it was the immigrants themselves who added the “up to a point”) was, it seems, what accounted for their success here and the country’s success. What is occurring now in states in which immigration from Central America is heavy, is that a high percentage of people, particularly those from Mexico rather than those from Guatemala and Nicaragua do not attempt to learn English. I don’t think this is necessarily because they don’t want to learn, but rather because there are powerful interest groups, lobbies, that see to it that they needn’t learn English in order to enage in commerce, attend public schools, etc. Humans don’t do what they don’t need to do.
If one lives in one of these states, most of which are border states, one sees this occurring, and realizes that Balkanization is taking place. Everyone is a loser, everyone that is except those whose power or influence is derived from seeing to it that a common language is not developed, that a crucial binding cultural force is not woven into our lives.
I mention this only because you rightfully mention marriage as a cultural institution. belonging to more than one culture. Yes, but like language, marriage and attitudes toward it are that which bind diverse peoples together. I am not disagreeing with you so much as I am simply stressing that this nation has always been successful at accepting diverse peoples, diverse cultures. However, there was a two way street, as the immigrant realized he came here precisely because the country offered what was not offered at home, and the individual seemed to understand that one couldn’t find hope for financial security and freedom if one came to a land disunified by cultural diversity. The immigrant often came here fleing chaos, seeking order, and he knew that such order was achieved by accepting certain cultural norms–language was certainly chief among these.
Another norm was the concept of family. I was raised in a town in which a man from West Africa had been married to several women. He was almost murdered by a fellow tribesman in his homeland so his cousin sponsored his immigration to the US. He never expected that once here, our laws would accommodate him by allowing him to have a concubine.
I understand that some nations have allowed or are flirting with allowing Sharia law. I also understand that the populace themselves are against this and that there is a resultant, growing ethnic strife, that instead of prejudice waning (on both sides), it is growing. I think it clear that this happens when people sense that something so basic to their culture, something which binds them, is altered without their consent. They needn’t be educated in history to instinctively know that while diversity is enriching, it can reach a point at which, if certain norms are not held in common, there is no unifying force. All there are are borders and names attached to peoples. The drawing of a border and the naming of people as West Germans and East Germans did not obliterate their common cultural heritage. Similarly, the forcing together of diverse peoples, the slapping on them a name the “Soviet Union,” as if they really were a “union,” as if they shared much of anything, was farcical and tragic. We all know how that turned out.
We haven’t the homogeniety of the Scandinavian countries nor of Japan, a homogenity that might allow for rather broad changes in norms, nor the heterogeniety of the former Soviet “Union,” a heterogeniety that may presage our own fate, many fear. Would that not be ironic?
So, norms? I have to think about that, Evan. My initial response is to react by saying that norms are crucial, particularly in a country as diverse as ours. Otherwise, we are nothing but a collection of peoples held together by…what? A name? The United States? United in what way?
Hope to talk to you later.
BTW, I still would like for us to consider what our justices must consider. What might be a workable definition of “marriage” in this, the United States. Or, if we can’t find one, does that mean we should dispense with the term altogether, from a legal standpoint, anyway?
I am especially interested in the ideas of those who are in favor of keeping the term “marriage,” but in changing it. I would like to know how it should read, in your opinion.