| Marriage: An Institution of Change in America |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Written by Brad Beauchamp, assistant editor |
| Saturday, 16 January 2010 13:11 |
 It can be said that equal rights has been an ongoing theme in the history of our nation. Yet outlining the chapter on same-sex marriage rights has remained, for the most part, a loose series of questions, grey research, and oftentimes misperceptions. In educating ourselves more fully about the history and context of marriage, we can better understand current events about the issue and act on them more effectively. What many people don’t realize when discussing marriage is that there have been many fundamental changes in the role of marriage, particularly over the past 150 years. Specifically, there have been four distinct shifts involving the definition of “marriage” – the role of the wife, the right to divorce, the right to use contraceptives, and the end of race discrimination. Each one of these came with great opposition and fear from the citizens of the era in which they occurred. In the end, the ideal of marriage, as well as all of American society, have greatly benefited from the adaptation of “marriage” to modern society. It wasn’t until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that married women gained any rights in matrimony. With the invention of machining technologies came a need for labor in the workforce. Some women worked in factories, while a select few began moving into professions that were considered strictly for men, such as medicine and law. Although women worked in the mid-nineteenth century, the consensus belief among most Americans was that it was  God’s will for women to be servants to their husbands. It was this ingrained belief that allowed husbands to collect their wives’ paychecks and spend them as they wished. In fact, court records show a case in 1857 when a husband who was in prison sued his wife for her weekly pay, which she needed to support herself. The court sided with the man, and the wife lost her wages to her imprisoned husband. The increased need for labor during World War II led to one of the largest changes in women’s roles in America. With most of the men serving in the military, many companies began hiring women in professions that had previously been considered “impossible their gender.” Factories, offices, storefronts, hospitals, and schools were now filled with capable, intelligent women who were doing the same exact jobs that men had held. These women also had control of their finances at home, as well as the ownership of their land. Once the war ended in 1945, the job market declined heavily for women. However, many people could no longer accept that women were subservient to their husbands because of their gender, for they had already proven themselves to be on equal ground. Those who believed that women were meant only to bear children and serve their husbands were outraged by this newfound mentality; they claimed that women would cause the downfall of American society. Today, women hold more executive and management positions than ever before in American history.
Contraceptives are considered a safe and smart practice for anyone who is sexually active, but there was a time when married couples were barred from using them. At the turn of the twentieth century, many groups drastically opposed the use of contraceptives, claiming that “birth control represented a rebellion of women against their primary social duty—motherhood.” Birth control was made illegal in many states, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, and anyone who sold contraceptives were immediately shut down and arrested. This included doctors and medical practitioners who distributed birth control items as late as 1961. It wasn’t until 1965, barely forty years ago, that the United States Supreme Court decreed that procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Instead, they argued, marriage “is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” This concept of marriage puts a much greater emphasis on the love between two individuals, and much less on the continuation of the family unit through the generations. In pre-modern times, divorce was practically unheard of. Marriages were for economics alone, and for many religions, such as Catholicism, divorce wasn’t even considered possible. By 1880, ideology began to shift and people started believing that everyone deserved to love their spouse, and to be loved, regardless of economics. With this newfound mentality, many of the laws that had stopped divorces for hundreds of years were removed. The divorce rate more than doubled in thirty-six years, jumping from 4.7% in 1880 to 11% in 1916. This concerned a great deal of conservative groups, who believed that it was “a prelude to social disorder and a sign of female selfishness.” Over the years, public debate exploded regarding whether or not divorce would end up tearing the fabric of the human family apart, and bring us into an apocalyptic state. Yet more and more, the American people believed that two individuals deserved to be in a relationship full of mutual respect, love, and support. And those not supported by their partners should be allowed to divorce, and seek happiness elsewhere. Today, the divorce rate is at a staggering 50% - a percentage, interestingly enough, based entirely on statistics concerning only heterosexual unions. Race discrimination has been a challenge in the United States since its inception. From the onset of the founding colonies, there have been laws written explicitly denouncing the marriage of inter-racial couples. Most slaves were not given the right to marry at all, as a means of further dehumanizing them. In 1913, Massachusetts created a law in its state Constitution that required all marriages to have “two willing spouses and an approving state.” Since the majority of states, especially those in the South, had laws written into their Constitutions banning inter-racial marriages, couples from those states were not allowed to marry in Massachusetts. This same law, which has been ignored for over half a century but was never removed from the state Constitution, is now being used to stop gay and lesbian couples from marrying in Massachusetts.  It wasn’t until 1948, not one lifetime ago, that California became the first state to nullify its policies against inter-racial marriage. At the time, 90% of the citizens in California were against the courts. A federal case reached the United States Supreme court in 1967, and the right to inter-racial marriage was afforded to all Americans. It’s important to note that at that time, 70% of the people disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision. If the right for an individual to marry the person of their choice had been left to the public (as many states are currently doing regarding gay marriage), then inter-racial marriage would most likely still be illegal today. Luckily for all of us, the courts took an active stance and, further, sided with the rights of the minority regardless of the public opinion at that time. Currently, the right to marriage is only offered to same-sex couples in one state: Massachusetts. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are available in a few other states; however, they do not cover all of the legal and financial benefits that come with marriage. On June 6th, the Senate will be voting on whether or not to add the Federal Marriage Amendment Act to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage. A similar Amendment did not pass in 2004; however, it did receive 48 of the needed 67 votes. If the Amendment were to pass, then many of the steps that GLBT people have taken to protect their families and loved ones would become null and void, not only at a state level, but under the highest level of the land, the United States Constitution. Although the definition of “marriage” has been a point of turmoil, opposition, and struggle for centuries, the path of marriage has remained constant. Through time it has moved from an economic tool to a partnership, consisting of ever-broadening individual freedoms, mutual support, and a deep respect for one another. It seems only natural that as the chapter continues to unfold, the scope of marriage will someday, inevitably, include gay and lesbian couples in this definition. Last Updated ( Thursday, 14 June 2007 ) |
| Last Updated on Friday, 22 January 2010 11:42 |
