AT BABYLON the imposing sanctuary of Bel rose like a pyramid above the city in a series of eight towers or stories, planted one on the top of the other. On the highest tower, reached by an ascent which wound about all the rest, there stood a spacious temple, and in the temple a great bed, magnificently draped and cushioned, with a golden table beside it. In the temple no image was to be seen, and no human being passed the night there, save a single woman, whom, according to the Chaldean priests, the god chose from among all the women of Babylon. They said that the deity himself came into the temple at night and slept in the great bed; and the woman, as a consort of the god, might have no intercourse with mortal man
OK, it’s perhaps not wisest to begin discussing marriage
by quoting The
Golden Bough but this begins with the debate about “same sex marriage” and
the Government’s proposal to change its definition of marriage so as to
encompass partnerships that have no procreational purpose (rather like sleeping
with Bel). In the context of today’s society this is a right and proper thing
to do - although proving less simple that it seemed at first.
In the ancient world, government and religion were one
and the same thing. Here’s Finer, in The History of Government speaking of the
world’s first state - Sumer:
“The king of a city, nevertheless, sat on his throne specifically to order the people’s service to the gods and on him depended not only the routine business of the city, or even its safety and independence, but its well-being and the bounty of Nature itself.”
Every action was a matter for the gods – not least those
occasions that Arnold van Gennep
coined the term ‘rites of passage’ to describe: birth, puberty, death and, of
course, marriage. For a Sumerian to separate marriage from religion would have
been impossible. Indeed, the Sumerian believed that everything – every minor
act of his life – was only possible because the gods allowed it. So it was with
each ancient society – hence the holy prostitute sleeping in Bel’s bed.
So marriage became a thing of the state – especially in
record-obsessed places such as Sumer. And it became a thing of the state
because religion and the state were inseparable. For the peasant
this mattered very little since that peasant owned nothing and marriage merely recognised
a partnership. But for the landowner, the rich and the powerful it really id matter.
However, even beyond the bounds of
civilization, marriage was still a thing of religion – whether we look at
Beltane fires or bride-snatching, we still see belief in spirit as a
justification of these actions. It simply wasn’t sufficient for marriage to be celebrated
by the village, by society. Marriage required the endorsement of a higher
authority – god or government or both these things combined.
And, since
marriage became a factor in who owned things, the government gradually pushed
religion aside – the concerns of mammon triumphed: money, land and business
were more important than the blessings of god. The rite of passage remained but
the institution of marriage became wholly nationalised – a creature of laws not
a blessing of god.
And so it is today. Trooping down a church aisle is no
more a marriage than holding hands and jumping over a besom. Instead we must go
to a room, sign a book and get a certificate from a representative of
government. Only then can we say we are married. And this is what the debate is
all about – marriage is a thing of the state, a nationalised institution. And
government says that its institutions must not discriminate on the basis of sexual
preference.
Maybe marriage shouldn’t be such an institution – one granted
specific and defined privileges in law (that may yet be extended to new tax
privileges). But so long as it is such an institution – and this has nothing to
do with god – then the state’s rules on “equality” must apply. If religious
folk wish to reclaim marriage for the gods then, given that government and
religion are no longer inseparable, they should be campaigning for all state
recognition of marriage to be ended, to privatise marriage and return it to the
religions that created it.
...
