Amos's River of Justice

Tag: women’s rights

  • Same-Sex Marriage and a Woman’s Place

    The Catholic Church is being criticized for its recent announcement that it will not bless same-sex unions. I’ve written previously about the problems I see in modern marriage, but that is not what I want to talk about here.   The argument I’m making in this article is that the Catholic Church’s stance toward marriage is pro-woman.  My focus is not the same as the Church’s focus.  My concern is the impact of the legalization of same-sex marriage on a woman’s place in marriage and, through marriage, in society.

    Conflicting Views of Reality

    Since same-sex marriage is already the law of the land, I am hopeful that this discussion will not be overly threatening to same-sex partners. I’ll start with this: it seems to me that the gay lobby’s insistence that the Church bless same-sex unions is a challenge to the Church’s definition of marriage, more than an attempt to advance gay rights.  And as a claim about reality its influence may be all out of proportion to the number of same-sex marriages.  I believe it is intended to be a challenge to the definition of marriage because the Gay lobby has already won the right for same-sex couples to marry, and yet they choose to engage the Church publicly.  Also gay people represent a small percentage of the population, and a small percentage of that small percentage will be Catholic and/or choose to marry.

    The Church’s refusal to bless same-sex unions is also a statement about reality.  This reality was defined by the church’s sacrament of marriage long before this issue arose.  I hope this discussion will help women see the importance of this debate in their own lives.

    True love and same-sex marriage

    I wrote an article about same-sex marriage when it was first legalized.  I said that the only criterion left in our society for heterosexual marriage is true love.   Since it is impossible to argue that same-sex couples are not as capable of true love as heterosexual couples, denying marriage to same-sex couples would be discriminatory.  This was meant as a criticism of our casual approach to marriage rather than a defense of same-sex marriage.  I’m writing this now because I think there is potential for injustice in the direction we are headed .  I think it is important to consider the implications of same-sex marriage for a woman’s place in society.

    What does same-sex marriage say about the place of women?

    At some point, LGBTQ rights always seem to challenge the place of women.  This happens with trans-women in sports, and it happens when the gay lobby challenges the definition of marriage.  The Church defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of creating children.  This is as close as it gets in our society to acknowledging a woman’s place in society.  So I argue that in the context of the same-sex marriage debate, the Church’s definition of marriage protects a woman’s place in marriage, and in society.

    Most women have trouble imagining how the marriage of same-sex partners can be a threat to heterosexual marriage.  Perhaps the main threat is not to marriage but to women.  It seems to me that the gay lobby’s demand for the Catholic Church to bless same-sex unions is a renewed attack on a woman’s place in marriage and in society.

    Female Same-Sex Families Are Still Vulnerable to Misogyny

    But what about female same-sex partners you ask?  Don’t they benefit?  I would argue that they don’t in the same degree.  There are twice as many gay men as gay women.  In addition, half of gay women identify as bi-sexual and many of them are already in heterosexual marriages. So for the most part we are talking about male same-sex partners.

    Another reason I focus on male same-sex partners is that female same-sex couples remain more vulnerable to harassment than male same-sex couples.  At the same time a judge in Utah threatened to remove a foster child from the home of a lesbian same-sex couple, male same-sex couples living in Utah were not threatened.

    Worse-case scenario for a woman’s place

    Even though gay people make up a minority of the population, the view of marriage the gay lobby espouses, and the way the media amplifies this view, has the potential to make women even less important than they are.  When you include the fact that male same-sex partners may adopt children, it becomes clear that same-sex marriage actually makes the presence of women optional in the families they create.  But again, this all seems to make sense because of our current understanding of marriage.

    The Status of a Woman’s Child-bearing Role Was Already in Question

    There is a precedent for the diminished status of women in their role of bearing children.  Women are relegated to a peripheral position every time a baby is taken from a single mother and given to a heterosexual couple.  In other words, it is generally accepted that a woman can lose her baby by default. This practice may have added legitimacy to the adoption of children by male same-sex couples.

    Conclusion

    A remedy might be to ask how we can encourage the Church’s definition and protections of marriage for women and at the same time deal humanely with the way people actually live.  One way this has been dealt with in the past is to impose sanctions on people who don’t fit the mold.  This seems to have had destructive consequences.

    These are very old questions and no society has answered them in a satisfactory way.  But in the context of the same-sex marriage debate, the Church’s definition of marriage is pro-woman.  Our incomplete understanding of marriage is to blame for the fact that we have failed to examine the connection between same-sex marriage and a woman’s place.

  • Onan and the Patriarchal Agenda

    This issue of women’s rights is at the center of any serious discussion about political reform. It can be argued that women’s rights are synonymous with human rights, or that the repression of women is the foundation of all repression. Every repressive regime in the world has developed a rationale for limiting the freedom of women. Onan and the patriarchal agenda demonstrates this trend.

    In this article, I will show how the biblical story of Onan is used to justify a patriarchal agenda and the repression of women’s rights. We will also see how it remains so powerful after all this time.

    Society Treats the Patriarchal Agenda as Proper

    Even though there is clear evidence of this effort, powerful influences make women’s rights look like a peripheral issue. Systems of male rule are bound up with religion and treated as proper, inevitable, even moral. In addition, they are sustained by claims to great antiquity. For example, until the eighteenth century, educated classes in Europe and the United States believed that Abraham established the patriarchal order.  Believers were told that Abraham’s descendants carried it forward until it radiated from the temple of Solomon to the rest of the world.

    Confronting These Ideas is a Necessity

    I based my suggestion for self-governing, matrilineal communities on a pre-patriarchal model of society. I am aware that revolutionary change is improbable. However, it is a waste of time to talk about reform without confronting the ideas that have made reform necessary. I will use the matrilineal model to identify the principles that lead to strong families and communities. I will also call into question the dogmas that obscure these principles.

    The Withdrawal Method of Birth Control Was Condemned by Onan and the Patriarchal Agenda

    We haven’t yet had the discussion of Christianity that it deserves. We’ve talked about its Hermeticism and the ‘heretical’ teachings of some sects, like the Dispensationalists. But we were analyzing their influence on current events. Now we’ll talk about the historical effects.

    Misrepresenting the Religion of Israel and Christianity

    In this post I want to expand on another troubling tendency that I have already mentioned, the tendency to disguise unrelated ideas as the religion of Israel. Here, we will discuss the Biblical story of Onan, the son of Judah, in greater detail. Onan married his sister-in-law Tamar, but instead of fathering a child with her, he practiced the withdrawal method of birth control. The Bible says Yahweh killed Onan Onan for spilling his seed on the ground.

    The Quiverfull Movement

    This story is especially relevant today because of the Quiverfull movement. Quiverfull is the vanguard movement of America’s pronatalist agenda. It rejects any form of birth control including the withdrawal method, which they call Onanism.

    Judah and Tamar

    We first meet Onan in the account of Judah and Tamar, in Genesis 38: 1-30. In this story, Judah left the family to go and live in the Canaanite lowlands to the West.This happened immediately after Joseph was sold into slavery.

    At about that time, Judah parted from his brothers and put in with a certain Adullamite named Hirah.

    There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her.

    She conceived and bore a son, who was named Er.

    She conceived again and bore a son, whom she named Onan.

    Then she bore still another son, whom she named Shelah; they were at Chezib when she bore him.

    Judah got a wife for his first-born Er, and her name was Tamar.

    but Er, Judah’s first-born displeased Yahweh, and Yahweh took his life.

    Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law, and thus maintain your brother’s line.”

    But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste on the ground every time that he cohabited with his brother’s widow, so as not to contribute offspring for his brother.

    What he did displeased Yahweh, and he took his life too.

    Whereupon Judah said to his daughter-in-law, “Stay as widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up” –for he feared that this one also might die like his brothers. So Tamar went to live in her father’s house.

    A long time afterward, Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When the period of sorrow was over, Judah went to Timnah for the shearing of his sheep, in the company of his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

    When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah for the sheep-shearing,” she took off her widow’s garb, wrapped a veil about her to disguise herself, and sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the way to Timnah; for she saw that, although Shelah was grown up, she had not been given to him in marriage.

    When Judah saw her, he took her for a harlot, since she had covered her face.

    So he turned aside to her by the roadside, and said, “See now, let me lie with you” –not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law. She answered, “What will you pay me for lying with me?”

    He replied, “I will send you a kid from my flock.” but she answered, “you will have to leave a pledge until such time as you send it.”

    He asked, “What pledge shall I leave you?” She answered, “your seal-and-cord, and the staff you carry.” So he gave them to her, and lay with her, and she conceived by him.

    She left soon, took off her veil, and resumed her widow’s garb.

    Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite to redeem the pledge from the woman, but he could not find her.

    He inquired of the men of that place, “Where is the votary, the one by the Enaim road?” They answered, “there has never been here a votary!”

    So he went back to Judah and said to him, “I couldn’t find her. What is more, the townspeople told me, ‘there has never been here a votary.”

    And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things, or we shall become a laughingstock. I did my part in sending her the kid, but you never found her.”

    About three months later, Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; moreover, she is with child from harlotry.” “Bring her out,” Judah shouted, “and she shall be burned!”

    As they were taking her out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “It is by the man to whom these things belong that I am with child. Please verify,” she said, “to whom these things belong–the seal-and-cord and the staff!”

    Judah recognized them, and said, “she is more in the right than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Nor was he intimate with her again.

    Bible Writers May Have Inserted Onan’s Patriarchal Agenda

    There are several problems with this story, but the most obvious one would be the portrayal of Levirate marriage. According to Yaffa Eliach, Levirate marriage simply didn’t work that way. The obligation to remarry belonged to the widow. This obligation was taken quite seriously and there were legal ramifications if she breached it.

    The woman was obliged to remarry, but her brother-in-law could release her from her obligation to him. He could do this by giving her a legal document relinquishing his claim. 1

    Yet, in this story we have Tamar mooning over Judah’s ‘seed’. It’s as though she knows it represents a royal line, or these are the last men left on earth.

    What Can the Institution of Levirate Marriage Tell Us?

    It seems to me that if Levirate marriage obligated the widow rather than her brother-in-law there was a different dynamic than what we see in this story. It’s more likely that it was part of the custom of matrilineal inheritance and/or bridewealth.

    The Bible does not provide detailed information about Israelite customs in this matter. But according to Roland de Vaux, among the Israelites, the mohar was a sum paid by the groom to the bride’s family as compensation for the loss of their daughter. The bride’s father could use the profits from this payment, but the principal reverted to her at the time of ‘succession’, or her husband’s death. (This explains why Rachel and Leah complained in Genesis 31:15 that their father, Laban, ‘devoured’ their money after having ‘sold’ them. Apparently he used the principal of the mohar, rather than holding it in trust for his daughters.)

    The Palestinian Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians, and the Jewish Colony of Elephantine Had a Similar Custom

    The Palestinian Arabs of today have a similar custom, the makr, and part of it goes to the bride’s trousseau. In Babylonian law, the tirhatu was paid to the girl’s father, and was administered by him. It reverted to her if she was widowed, or to her children after her death. In Assyria, the tirhani was given to the girl herself. There was a parallel in the Jewish colony of Elephantine, where the mohat was paid to the girl’s father, but was counted among her possessions.

    In Israel, parents might give their daughter gifts after her wedding, and these were considered her property. In Babylon, the father gave his daughter presents that belonged to her in her own right. But while she was married, her husband had the use of them. They reverted to her if she was widowed or divorced, without fault on her part. Assyrian law has similar provisions. 2

    You could argue that under such a system the groom’s family would have stood to lose their investment in the marriage if their son died prematurely. They would also lose any benefits that accrued from the bride’s property while the marriage lasted. Levirate marriage would protect this investment.

    This would explain why it was the man’s right to release the woman from this obligation and not the other way around. It also makes nonsense of Onan’s stated motive. He should have given Tamar a letter releasing her from her obligation.

    Onan’s Supposed Motivation is All Wrong

    Of course, the story doesn’t attribute monetary concerns to Onan. It says he was reluctant to ‘raise seed to his brother.’ In my opinion, this presents its own difficulties. It seems to me that It implies either non-Hebrew religious beliefs or a non-Hebrew political organization. The following is my own speculation.

    The belief that one could raise seed to a deceased brother is consistent with the belief in a fully functional afterlife. Unfortunately, the Hebrews didn’t have such a belief at that time.

    But perhaps Onan’s reluctance had a more worldly aspiration–he wanted to be the father of a dynasty. If that’s the case, he would have resented the fact that the royal line would be attributed to his brother. Again, the Hebrews didn’t have kings in this period, not to mention dynastic succession.

    Perhaps We’re Looking at a Matrilineal System in Disguise

    On the contrary, the modes of inheritance mentioned above indicate a matrilineal system, although it takes a rare scholar to admit this. It is customary to call such an inheritance a gift, but property belonged to the woman in her own right.

    It also follows that any ‘seed’ would have belonged to Tamar’s line, regardless of who the father was. Tamar’s seed would only belong to her husband’s line if  bridewealth was paid to her father’s family.

    Did the Bible’s ‘J’ Author Use This Story to Trace a Lineage for King David?

    According to the Anchor Bible, this episode was written by the Bible’s ‘J’ author, who wanted to trace the lineage of King David from the tribe of Judah. Unfortunately, the Judah of this story doesn’t match Judah, the brother of Joseph. This Judah stays in Canaan long enough for his three sons to reach manhood, but when the story of Joseph resumes there has been no corresponding passage of time and Judah is still living with Jacob’s family. 3

    Conclusion

    I conclude that the story of Onan is suspect. Perhaps it was never anything more than pro-patriarchy, pronatalist propaganda. After all, that is how it is used today. This isn’t the first time we have seen a ruling class agenda in the Bible and, as usual, it hinges on the subjection of women–especially of their reproductive potential.

    Compare Moor’s Hindu Pantheon

    Recently, I found corroboration in Moor’s Hindu Pantheon for my theory that the story of Onan is an Indo-European idea.

    “To the four deities of purification, Maruta, Indra, Vrihaspati, and Agni, goes all the divine light, which the Veda had imparted, from the student who commits the foul sin avacirna.”–Ib. v. 122.

    According to this source, avacirna is a term for anyone who commits the sin of Onanism. The offender must follow specific instructions to expiate this sin.

    “…sacrifice a black or a one-eyed ass, by way of a meat offering to Nirriti, patroness of the south-west, by night, in a place where four ways meet….Let him daily offer to her in fire the fat of that ass; and, at the close of the ceremony let him offer clarified butter, with the holy text Sem, and so forth, to Pavana, to Indra, to Vrihaspati, and to Agni, regent of wind, clouds, a planet, and fire.”–Ins. of Menu, Chap. XI. verses 119, 120.

    The imposition of patriarchy on the world is still blamed on Israel. This is not surprising considering the effort that has gone into making it appear that way. The biblical story of Onan is not evidence for a patriarchal system in Israel. It is only evidence that the ruling class has no shame.

error: Content is protected !!