Recently, science fiction author Orson Scott Card wrote a long essay opposing laws that would allow homosexual couples to marry. Like many opponents of gay marriage, one of Card’s fundamental reasons for opposing gay marriage is the idea that heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman is a universal norm, one that governments mess around with at their peril. As he writes:

Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife’s children would be his.

Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.

These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government.

This provides an excellent illustration of the typical conservative case against gay marriage. It is also a fundamental misreading of history. While it is true that monogamous, heterosexual relationships are the most common types of marriage, they are by no means the only type of marriage found in human cultures. Additionally, the modern institution of marriage is very different from the historical one.

The first and most obvious retort to this point is the widespread, near-universal custom of polygamy. All societies have accepted, and even encouraged, some form of polygamy throughout the majority of human history. Most African societies, for example, freely allowed plural marriages until the colonial era. Muslim societies allowed polygamy, as did the Mormons here in the United States. The Jewish patriarchs in the Bible had multiple wives, as well. Even in Western cultures where monogamy in marriage was the norm, most societies allowed and accepted concubines and mistresses as the normal state of affairs, which is a de facto polygamy even though monogamy was the de jure rule.

Second, it is not even true that marriage between homosexuals is a new concept. Marriage between gay couples have been recorded in Egypt as early as 3,000 B.C. Some Ancient Greek states had legally recognized gay relationships–indeed, the special forces of the Theban army, the “Sacred Band of Thebes,” was comprised solely of homosexual couples.

Marriage between male couples also existed in the Roman Empire. In fact, the Roman Emperor Elagabalus was actually married to his male lover in an open ceremony. The Romans did not outlaw gay marriage until 342–after Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. Gay marriage has also been recorded among several African nations, Native American nations, and in the ancient Chinese province of Fujian. In many of these cultures, the marriages between men were much the same as between men and women. The older man would approach the family of the younger man he wanted to marry, pay a bride price, and be married in a traditional ceremony.

Nor were these same-sex marriages limited to male homosexuals. Several African peoples, including the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Zulus and Sotho and others allowed marriages between women. Women-women marriages were also common in Chinese societies known as the “Golden Orchids.” It is also worth noting that in nearly every culture which accepted gay marriage, these couples frequently adopted children.

Even in societies where marriage between men and women was the norm, it wasn’t marriage as we know it today. Marriages were frequently arranged; set up to ally families or expand wealth, or brides were simply bought from families by a suitor. These were not marriages formed because of a loving relationship between two people. Indeed, throughout history, marriages were frequently formed against the will of one or both parties.

Additionally, many defenders of “traditional” marriage, like Card, are Christians. This is of interest because the early Christian church actually took quite a dim view of marriage. To the theologians of the early Church, the ideal life was a celibate one. In the New Testament, marriage isn’t recognized as a blessed thing, but rather as a less than perfect solution for those persons who are simply incapable of celibacy. Marriage was recognized in the early church (and some historians argue that even gay unions were so recognized) but this was on the principle that “if they cannot control themselves, they should marry…” Neither Jesus nor Paul were particularly fond of marriage, and Paul makes it clear that the purpose of marriage isn’t stable families or children, but as an outlet for sexual release. This is hardly the outlook that Card describes in his article.

There is no question that the decline of the traditional American idea of marriage is something that should pose some concern, and it is understandable that some people might be wary of messing with the institution for fear of making things worse. However, it’s important to realize that the weakening of marriage in the United States has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuals or the desire of homosexuals to marry, and the factors that are responsible will not be affected by homosexual marriages.

What is leading to the decline of traditional American marriage is four things — reliable contraception, women’s equality, infatuation, and no-fault divorce.

Reliable contraception makes the odds of getting pregnant from sexual encounters much, much lower. As a consequence, women are free to have multiple sexual partners throughout their lifetime without the worry about getting tied down to one person as a result of having an unwanted child. Thus, people tend to get married later.

Women’s equality, particularly the ability to gain meaningful employment, makes it practical for a woman to not be married in order to sustain herself, thereby weakening the demand for a traditional American marriage where the husband supports the wife and children.

But the real factor leading to the decline of traditional American marriage is the idea of romantic love. With contraception making marriage because of an accidental pregnancy less likely, and women’s equality making it unnecessary for women to depend on men for economic support, the primary motivation for marriage in American society today is simply love.

With the popularization of the notion of love, and only love, as the foundation of marriage, continual divorce and a decline in total marriages is inevitable. This is because while our culture is obsessed with the idea of love and passion, people often mistake mere lust/infatuation lust for love. So while a deep and true love can make it through rough patches and conflict that are inevitable in marriage, infatuation usually can’t. Without the economic and social pressures to force a marriage to survive despite a loss of infatuation, frequent divorce is inevitable, so long as no-fault divorces remain easily available.

This is because, sadly, a lot more marriages are based on infatuation than they are on love.

These are the factors leading to higher divorce rates over the past few decades, not some mysterious liberal plot or “homosexual agenda.”

Note that allowing homosexuals to marry or not allowing them to marry doesn’t address these factors in the increase of divorces in this country. There’s no logical reason to connect the two, and no real reason to assume that gay marriage will have any effect–good or ill–on heterosexual marriages.

Now, it’s important to note that despite declines in recent years, there’s really no reason to think that marriage will not survive. The desire for love, stability, and companionship are powerful motivators. But right now we’re living in a time of social transition, where the nature of marriage itself is changing, as the nature of marriage has changed throughout history.

It may be that we’re approaching a time when marriage becomes much less formal–just a matter of “living together” long term with somebody. This would actually be a return to the common European practice. Marriages in Europe were mostly informal affairs until shortly after the Protestant Reformation, when the Council of Trent decreed in 1545 that marriages between Catholics were only valid if performed by a priest. Protestant churches followed suit. Perhaps a return to a more informal pattern is what we’re due for soon. It’s a difficult thing to predict.

One thing that is certain, though, is that the idea that marriage has always been monogamous and heterosexual completely ignores the complex social history of marriage that is common to all human cultures.

[Edited for clarity on August 20, 2008]