It was a relief for me that the Commons voted so strongly in favour of gay marriage - not because I'd like to marry a woman - but for peace of mind that our politicians have not been time warped along with Richard III.
The so-called traditionalists, who claimed that allowing gay marriage would alter centuries of marital custom, don't know what they are talking about. The form and purpose of marriage is constantly being reinvented.
Like any societal or linguistic change, there are always resistors. But evolution is natural and results from changes in attitudes, desires and choices of the people. Nowhere is this more true than romantic relationships.
In researching my next book, F*ck the Fairytale, which examines modern models of relationships, I've found that increasing numbers of adults are abandoning 'traditional' models (the fairytale relationship, as I call it) and creating their own individualised dynamic for long-term relationships.
I put 'traditional' in inverted commas because what is historically seen as traditional marriage, is not what gay marriage opponents have in mind. What they see as 'traditional' is the heterosexual, monogamous, co-habiting, love-based, life-long union. In fact, the only time in history when this has been sustained and universally aspired to was one lonely decade - the 1950s. For most of history - from the beginning of civilisation until around the Victorian era - marriage was about practicality, inheritance, family ties and political relationships. Yes even for the working classes.
Not only that, for most of human history and in most cultures the most widely accepted model of marriage was polygamy, which is also the family structure most referred to in The Old Testament.
Opponents of gay marriage say that the opening up of marriage to homosexuals would cause problems for teachers and churches in explaining the meaning marriage to children. Well, this is no fresh problem. Sociologists have long struggled to find a ubiquitous principle. Go on, see if you can spot a pattern: In polyandrous societies a woman can marry more than one man. In polygamous societies a man has multiple wives. In some societies a woman can take another woman as a "female husband". In parts of China and Sudan children can be married to dead relatives! In Iran temporary marriages can be granted for as little as one hour. Tricky isn't it?
Commentators have dubbed the result of Tuesday's vote as one of the greatest historical changes to marriage. That's not so either. As historian Stephanie Coontz makes very clear in her book, Marriage, a History, the most consequential change to the way we conducted our marital lives and built families was when, in the early 19C, youth demanded a say in who they could marry.
"Heterosexuals revolutionised marriage and in doing so have paved the way for gay marriage. Two hundreds years ago people started to think love was important to marriage. One hundred years ago they began to think sexual compatibility was important. It was only in the 1930s that married couples had the right not to have children. Then in the 1970s, the 'head and master' laws, that gave men the final say in all household matters, was repealed. All these things that would have prevented gay marriage are the things which have been overcome in heterosexual marriages."
Just like the ruling on gay marriage, there were also vicious opponents to love marriages. People thought it would disrupt the foundation of society. But, just like 200 years ago, people power thankfully succeeded in pushing aside antiquated customs to make way for more socially relevant ones.
In researching my book, I have been astonished and enlightened to find such a rich tapestry of modern relationship models that resemble nothing like the mythical 'traditional relationship'. The goals, rules and interactions of romantic unions are now so wide and varied that they are becoming even more difficult to define.
We can no longer say pairing up is about starting families for I've met several women who've chosen to become mothers alone through sperm donors. I've met gay and straight men and women who've agreed to become platonic 'co-parents'. Marriage no longer necessarily means sharing daily lives for I've come across many married couples who live apart. Marriage is not always even about a sexual relationship if you an asexual couple. To them commitment is about finding an exclusive, trusted, but non-sexual partner whom they feel enough affection to share a life with. Their love does not need to be consummated.
Nor is marriage about calling time on sexual variety as there are plenty of in-love couples who have open relationships. For some marriage still isn't about love. A surprising number will admit their wedding vows were for financial or pragmatic reasons.
Resistance to gay marriage is a tell-tale sign of our obsession to box marriage and commitment up. It is the indoctrination of the fairytale happily-ever-after ending which causes such unrealistic demands on relationships. The more we allow couples (or groups, if that's your thing), gay or straight, to define their own dynamic, the more easy marriage will fit the zeitgeist.
Follow Helen Croydon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Helen_Croydon
Jon-Christopher Bua: The Times They Are a Changin'
Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free ...
Equal civil marriage consultation | Home Office
Same sex marriage » British Humanist Association
Gay marriage: Party leaders hail vote
Gay marriage: MPs vote in favour leaves Cameron adrift from Tories
Mistress Croydon, I don't think you would recognise traditional marriage if it hit you between the eyes, so do what your type usually do and write a book about being an author...if you are one.
The idea that marriage for love only came in 200 years ago is silly. Here is the Puritan poet, Anne Bradstreet, writing to her new husband in about 1650:-
If ever two were one, then surely we.
If ever man were lov'd by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me ye women if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole Mines of gold,
Or all the riches that the East doth hold.
My love is such that Rivers cannot quench,
Nor ought but love from thee, give recompence.
Thy love is such I can no way repay,
The heavens reward thee manifold I pray.
Then while we live, in love let's so persever,
That when we live no more, we may live ever.
"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'?"
You've also chosen to ignore those people who choose not to have sex, and those who cannot have sex, as well as those who do not or cannot have children.
As the author informed you marriage historically were not about what they have become about, they were used as tools, mostly to join families together for mutual benefit.
As to the evolutionary point to which you remark with everyone becoming homosexual, answer this better question, if homosexuality is bad for the species why does it exist at all?
If it were negative for the species then natural selection would have filtered it out by now, it's existed for millennia, homosexuality must be to the benefit of our species otherwise it wouldn't exist.
Seeing as you're a lawyer I would have thought you'd do your due diligence and read what Parliament has proposed, including removing consummation from the law of marriage.
Well said; exquisite logic, Sir.
And it is NOT victimization when other people are given the rights that you have always taken for granted.
However why does the fact that gay people can marry have any impact upon your marriage, does my eating a doughnut effect another persons diet?
What you view as marriage is a very modern concept, caused by many things, but marriage changes with every generation, each generation embraces new, or perhaps even old, changes to marriage, and so across time marriage changes, it's why I cannot legally rape my wife, because one generation decided they'd abandon that particular practice.
Provided the parties to a contract are 18 or over , of sound mind then they are free to make a contract - a binding legal agrement ..
Having said that I do wonder about the sanity of some of the people who enter these contracts but plenty of business people sign stupid contracts also .
Very simply - if you don't want to be bound by the deal or have to shell out a shed load of money to get out of the contract don;'t be stupid enough to sign up in the first place - remember marriage has a 50% failure rate - the sensible thing is to live together without the contract - then eirther party is free to walk away - it is a voluntary agreement - not a binding legal agreement .
Any matrimonial lawyer will tell you this - clients are fortunately usually to stupid to take good legal advice at the outset so their failure to listen provides a good living and a large pension pot - the day clients do what they are told legal incomes will halve - long may it be delayed !!
It doesn't always cost large sums of money to end a marriage either, normally that happens when one party has broken their end of the agreement, which is the most common reason for divorce.
My parents were in a traditional marriage (til death) and so were my wifes parents.
I don't know who this Helen Croyden woman is, but I do feel sorry for her.
I am happier in my apparent fanasy world, than she is in hers.
Her world sounds very sick to me.
Hit the nail square on the head there - I was figuring out a similar response, but you said it!
F+F
I live in a different world, according to Ms Croyden