Sacred Traditions of Marriage
From out of the woodwork comes the inevitable backlash of anti-gay marriage forces responding to the past two days of oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Most of the arguments involve religion. This line of reasoning is irrelevant. Spectral evidence is inadmissible in a court of law. God doesn’t answer subpoenaes.
Some of the arguments are obscene, like this bit from Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema, who posted this link. It is full of hateful nonsense, like "37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism." and "The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75."
Those who are at least a little self-aware argue the meaning of marriage, like this bit published a few weeks ago by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank: “Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces,” the report says. “This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
It's so much easier to win arguments when you start by begging the question. Since when does the Heritage Foundation get to define the purpose of marriage? By their lights, my long and happy marriage to the Unindicted Co-Conspirator is invalid.
Others speak of thousands of years of tradition, as though marriage is some immutable constant throughout history. The fact is, marriage as we know it, where the husband and wife are equal partners, is only the most recent version. We’ve been changing the definition of marriage for as long as it’s existed.
"If any single thing should remain untouched by the hand of the reformer, it was the sacred institution of marriage [which] was about to be destroyed in one thoughtless blow that might produce change in all phases of domestic life."
Thus spake a New York state legislator, arguing against married women being given the right to own property, circa 1840. Prior to then in New York, and still later elsewhere in America, the English common law of coverture applied. A single woman had the right to own property and make contracts, but a married woman ceased to exist. According to Sir William Blackstone, a prominent Eighteenth century British jurist: "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law...the very legal being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during marriage, or at least is incorporated or consolidated."
According to Wikipedia:
"A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a woman did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds, since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other."
It would not be correct to describe the wife as the husband's chattel property. "Ward" would be a better description. And believe it or not, there are still people out there who think this was a marvelous arrangement, and that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket ever since Married Women's Property Acts became law. I'm sure it won't surprise you that most of those people are men.
According to one conservative admirer of the good old days, "In a successful marriage between responsible persons, such an arrangement, so far from being burdensome, had many advantages, not the least of which was that it discouraged the couple from quarreling about financial decisions." That's an interesting way to look at it, even for the ultra-conservative Rockford Institute, whose Chronicles Magazine is quoted above. What about less successful marriages? "In a traditional society, even a reckless husband could be checked either by the resentment of his wife's male relatives or by community disapproval, and a woman's dowry was a concrete manifestation of the honor paid her by her family."
Oh, for the good old days when marriage was just a matter of giving the father of the bride three goats and two bushels of grain...
Some of the arguments are obscene, like this bit from Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema, who posted this link. It is full of hateful nonsense, like "37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism." and "The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75."
Those who are at least a little self-aware argue the meaning of marriage, like this bit published a few weeks ago by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank: “Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces,” the report says. “This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
It's so much easier to win arguments when you start by begging the question. Since when does the Heritage Foundation get to define the purpose of marriage? By their lights, my long and happy marriage to the Unindicted Co-Conspirator is invalid.
Others speak of thousands of years of tradition, as though marriage is some immutable constant throughout history. The fact is, marriage as we know it, where the husband and wife are equal partners, is only the most recent version. We’ve been changing the definition of marriage for as long as it’s existed.
"If any single thing should remain untouched by the hand of the reformer, it was the sacred institution of marriage [which] was about to be destroyed in one thoughtless blow that might produce change in all phases of domestic life."
Thus spake a New York state legislator, arguing against married women being given the right to own property, circa 1840. Prior to then in New York, and still later elsewhere in America, the English common law of coverture applied. A single woman had the right to own property and make contracts, but a married woman ceased to exist. According to Sir William Blackstone, a prominent Eighteenth century British jurist: "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law...the very legal being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during marriage, or at least is incorporated or consolidated."
According to Wikipedia:
"A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a woman did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds, since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other."
It would not be correct to describe the wife as the husband's chattel property. "Ward" would be a better description. And believe it or not, there are still people out there who think this was a marvelous arrangement, and that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket ever since Married Women's Property Acts became law. I'm sure it won't surprise you that most of those people are men.
According to one conservative admirer of the good old days, "In a successful marriage between responsible persons, such an arrangement, so far from being burdensome, had many advantages, not the least of which was that it discouraged the couple from quarreling about financial decisions." That's an interesting way to look at it, even for the ultra-conservative Rockford Institute, whose Chronicles Magazine is quoted above. What about less successful marriages? "In a traditional society, even a reckless husband could be checked either by the resentment of his wife's male relatives or by community disapproval, and a woman's dowry was a concrete manifestation of the honor paid her by her family."
Oh, for the good old days when marriage was just a matter of giving the father of the bride three goats and two bushels of grain...