I've decided to copy the essay I composed in response to Bush's February 24th speech endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment. It originally appeared on my UTA student website. The essay has been getting around; I've gotten responses from Chris Daniels at Berkeley and Amber Rogers in Colorado Springs, as well as other places nationwide. So far, everyone that I've heard from has enthusiastically approved--thank you.
I've published my resources at the end.
The Changing Definition of Marriage:
A Brief History Lesson for President George W
To hear President Bush speak, one would assume that the definition of marriage, outside of being the union of a man and a woman, has not changed in “more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience.” Quite the contrary; the definition of marriage has changed countless times, evolving to suit social norms and needs throughout the recorded history of western civilization. In fact, the face of marriage today is radically different from what it was 1000, 200, or even 100 years ago. Definitions of marriage that have changed or evolved more recently in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are the advents of dissolubility, common law marriage, and interracial marriage. Bush wants to halt further marital evolution by permanently affixing the modern definition, mistakenly implying that it is the same as it has historically been, in the United States Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The Constitution of the United Sates of America is a sacred document because it is a contract between the federal government and the American population. Its purpose is to ensure civil rights and liberties by restricting the government’s power. The Constitution accomplishes this because its authors took great care in ensuring it was not easily circumvented by making it changeable only through the complicated amendment process.
Once something is written into it, it can only be altered through amendment. Thus, it is reserved for only those laws pertinent to preserving American government and social freedom. Bush wants to abuse the Constitution’s staying power by customizing it to suit his ideology. The last time it was used in such a manner—to restrict the rights of its citizens—was the Prohibition Movement of the early twentieth century. That experiment failed quickly and miserably, the prohibition amendment repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment. Amending the Constitution in a similar fashion, to prohibit same-sex marriage, would eventually meet a similar fate.
The instances that constitutional amendments succeeded in bettering society occurred through granting rights and civil liberties protections—not restricting them—such as the Fourteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, which guaranteed the rights of women and minorities to participate in the political process, and repealed the destructive Eighteenth Amendment. The Constitution has the purpose and power to empower; using it to segregate members of society violates the very intentions of the founding fathers.
The statements President Bush has made regarding same-sex marriage bear striking and greatly disturbing resemblance to the pro-slavery rhetoric that denied marriage rights to African-Americans prior to emancipation. The public perception of the sexual habits of African-Americans that proliferated in the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries stemmed from the very same circumstances surrounding the negative public perception of gays and lesbians: they were not allowed by law to be married; therefore, they did what it is in human nature to do, they had sex and formed families, even in the absence of marriage. The resultant attitude was that the slaves (carrying over to later freed slaves) were sexually immoral, “loose.”
Ironically, this is also a public fallacy stigmatizing homosexuals—especially men—and one perpetuated by the inability to legally commit in monogamous relationships between two members of the same sex. Like the African-American slaves of the previous centuries, same-sex relationships are viewed as immoral precisely because same-sex couples have no legal recourse to sanctify their relationships. Granting this fundamental right is met today with the same hesitation it was met with in the 1800’s because it would require lawmakers to admit their prejudices are wrong. Bush has proven to the American public that he will never admit to an error in judgment, instead he distracts public attention to other issues under the guise of preserving sanctity and tradition.
In the interest of “protecting the institution of marriage…to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever,” maybe President Bush would like to add to the Federal Marriage Amendment those anti-feminist definitions that made single, autonomous women the sole property of their husbands with no rights of their own once they uttered those two little words, “I do”—such was the definition as late as the early twentieth century. When a man and woman were married, the law viewed them as being one entity headed by the man, giving him all rights and her none.
Women had no property rights, could not enter into contracts, and had no choice but to endure marriages in which sexual or physical abuse affected them or their children, because such occurrences were rarely grounds for divorce until late into the Industrial Revolution. Reflective of the changes to marriage roles is the term “man and wife” changing to “husband and wife,” denoting two equal partners in the institution of marriage. Obviously, modern wives are far removed from their ancestral counterparts, and as such, it is also obvious that the definition of marriage is quite different as well.
Perhaps Bush would like to reach back to the first millennium for an earlier definition of marriage, when marriages were arranged by fathers for financial or political purposes, or were the products of outright abductions of girls and young women by wealthy landowners and young noblemen who considered such behavior sporting; when a girl was eligible for marriage as soon as she had her first menses. Then Bush could justify his desire to “preserve the sanctity” of traditionally defined marriage.
Since Bush does not seem to understand the constitutional clause separating church and state, it is worth mentioning the church’s role in marriage, since it is certain to be a concern to him. Church involvement in marriage originally occurred to create stable family environments, discourage the solicitation of prostitutes, and curtail the sexual dalliances of men and women—all valid and reasonable grounds for marriage to exist. Therefore, does it not make sense to make solid and codified same-sex relationships available for these very motives? It makes one wonder what the impact of HIV/AIDS would have been on the gay community had same-sex marriage been available from the start.
Finally, marriage has been said to be reflective of society as well as its cornerstone, so it has understandably redefined itself much as society has; in colonial America marriage reflected loyalty and communal duty over happiness, reflecting the fledgling republic’s ideals of remaining loyal to the new government through hardship and turmoil. Before that, it was reflective of the patriarchal system based in the Divine Right of the king to rule, a right passed down only to his sons. In modern America, where the pursuit of happiness is the social ideal prevailing over all others, marriage has reflected this, evident in an unlikely statistic, the increasingly higher divorce rate. One would think that proponents of strong and stable family models would jump at the chance to increase the numbers of solidified families.
As the rights of women and African-Americans evolved, the definition of marriage changed to suit the newfound liberties. Since the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the last vestiges of antiquated laws that criminalized homosexuality, the civil rights of the GLBT community have finally begun to be recognized and respected. Following in the great American tradition of extending all rights and privileges to those groups of people rising up from second-class citizenship, marriage rights are the last great threshold of becoming fully recognized in the eyes of the law.
Committed, solid same-sex relationships and families exist. It is time society’s mutable looking glass reflected the reality of twenty-first century America. The definition of straight marriages will not change; they will not lose any rights or privileges. However, loving and committed gay couples and families have everything to gain by being included in that definition. Eventually, the Defense of Marriage Act will go before the Supreme Court, and the justices will find it in violation of the United States Constitution. Bush is most afraid of this inevitable recognition by law that gay families are legitimate; that the straights-only club of marriage will have to abandon its segregationist ways. Our families are here, they’re queer, so Bush, get used to it.
Resources
Andrew, Donna T. “Marriage History as Social History.” Canadian Journal of History. Dec. 1989:
p381-85. Electronic. EBSCOhost, Univ of Texas Arlington Lib. 25 Feb. 2004.
Battan, Jessie F. “The ‘Rights’ of Husbands and the ‘Duties’ of Wives: Power and Desire in the
American Bedroom, 1850-1910.” Journal of Family History. Apr. 1999: p165. Electronic.
EBSCOhost, Univ of Texas Arlington Lib. 25 Feb. 2004.
Bush, George W. “President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage.” 24 Feb.
2004. Electronic. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html.
26 Feb. 2004.
Shanley, Mary Lyndon. “Public Values and Private Lives: Cott, Davis, and Hartog on the History of
Marriage Law in the United States.” Law and Social Inquiry. 2002: p923. Electronic.
EBSCOhost, Univ of Texas Arlington Lib. 25 Feb. 2004.
Stafford, Pauline. “Medieval Marriage.” History Today. Jun. 1984: p49. Electronic. EBSCOhost,
Univ of Texas Arlington Lib. 25 Feb. 2004.
Wheaton, Wil. “This Ocean Will Not Be Grasped.” 25 Feb. 2004. Electronic.
http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/001544.php#001544. 26 Feb. 2004.
I've published my resources at the end.
A Brief History Lesson for President George W
To hear President Bush speak, one would assume that the definition of marriage, outside of being the union of a man and a woman, has not changed in “more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience.” Quite the contrary; the definition of marriage has changed countless times, evolving to suit social norms and needs throughout the recorded history of western civilization. In fact, the face of marriage today is radically different from what it was 1000, 200, or even 100 years ago. Definitions of marriage that have changed or evolved more recently in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are the advents of dissolubility, common law marriage, and interracial marriage. Bush wants to halt further marital evolution by permanently affixing the modern definition, mistakenly implying that it is the same as it has historically been, in the United States Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The Constitution of the United Sates of America is a sacred document because it is a contract between the federal government and the American population. Its purpose is to ensure civil rights and liberties by restricting the government’s power. The Constitution accomplishes this because its authors took great care in ensuring it was not easily circumvented by making it changeable only through the complicated amendment process.
Once something is written into it, it can only be altered through amendment. Thus, it is reserved for only those laws pertinent to preserving American government and social freedom. Bush wants to abuse the Constitution’s staying power by customizing it to suit his ideology. The last time it was used in such a manner—to restrict the rights of its citizens—was the Prohibition Movement of the early twentieth century. That experiment failed quickly and miserably, the prohibition amendment repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment. Amending the Constitution in a similar fashion, to prohibit same-sex marriage, would eventually meet a similar fate.
The instances that constitutional amendments succeeded in bettering society occurred through granting rights and civil liberties protections—not restricting them—such as the Fourteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, which guaranteed the rights of women and minorities to participate in the political process, and repealed the destructive Eighteenth Amendment. The Constitution has the purpose and power to empower; using it to segregate members of society violates the very intentions of the founding fathers.
The statements President Bush has made regarding same-sex marriage bear striking and greatly disturbing resemblance to the pro-slavery rhetoric that denied marriage rights to African-Americans prior to emancipation. The public perception of the sexual habits of African-Americans that proliferated in the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries stemmed from the very same circumstances surrounding the negative public perception of gays and lesbians: they were not allowed by law to be married; therefore, they did what it is in human nature to do, they had sex and formed families, even in the absence of marriage. The resultant attitude was that the slaves (carrying over to later freed slaves) were sexually immoral, “loose.”
Ironically, this is also a public fallacy stigmatizing homosexuals—especially men—and one perpetuated by the inability to legally commit in monogamous relationships between two members of the same sex. Like the African-American slaves of the previous centuries, same-sex relationships are viewed as immoral precisely because same-sex couples have no legal recourse to sanctify their relationships. Granting this fundamental right is met today with the same hesitation it was met with in the 1800’s because it would require lawmakers to admit their prejudices are wrong. Bush has proven to the American public that he will never admit to an error in judgment, instead he distracts public attention to other issues under the guise of preserving sanctity and tradition.
In the interest of “protecting the institution of marriage…to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever,” maybe President Bush would like to add to the Federal Marriage Amendment those anti-feminist definitions that made single, autonomous women the sole property of their husbands with no rights of their own once they uttered those two little words, “I do”—such was the definition as late as the early twentieth century. When a man and woman were married, the law viewed them as being one entity headed by the man, giving him all rights and her none.
Women had no property rights, could not enter into contracts, and had no choice but to endure marriages in which sexual or physical abuse affected them or their children, because such occurrences were rarely grounds for divorce until late into the Industrial Revolution. Reflective of the changes to marriage roles is the term “man and wife” changing to “husband and wife,” denoting two equal partners in the institution of marriage. Obviously, modern wives are far removed from their ancestral counterparts, and as such, it is also obvious that the definition of marriage is quite different as well.
Perhaps Bush would like to reach back to the first millennium for an earlier definition of marriage, when marriages were arranged by fathers for financial or political purposes, or were the products of outright abductions of girls and young women by wealthy landowners and young noblemen who considered such behavior sporting; when a girl was eligible for marriage as soon as she had her first menses. Then Bush could justify his desire to “preserve the sanctity” of traditionally defined marriage.
Since Bush does not seem to understand the constitutional clause separating church and state, it is worth mentioning the church’s role in marriage, since it is certain to be a concern to him. Church involvement in marriage originally occurred to create stable family environments, discourage the solicitation of prostitutes, and curtail the sexual dalliances of men and women—all valid and reasonable grounds for marriage to exist. Therefore, does it not make sense to make solid and codified same-sex relationships available for these very motives? It makes one wonder what the impact of HIV/AIDS would have been on the gay community had same-sex marriage been available from the start.
Finally, marriage has been said to be reflective of society as well as its cornerstone, so it has understandably redefined itself much as society has; in colonial America marriage reflected loyalty and communal duty over happiness, reflecting the fledgling republic’s ideals of remaining loyal to the new government through hardship and turmoil. Before that, it was reflective of the patriarchal system based in the Divine Right of the king to rule, a right passed down only to his sons. In modern America, where the pursuit of happiness is the social ideal prevailing over all others, marriage has reflected this, evident in an unlikely statistic, the increasingly higher divorce rate. One would think that proponents of strong and stable family models would jump at the chance to increase the numbers of solidified families.
As the rights of women and African-Americans evolved, the definition of marriage changed to suit the newfound liberties. Since the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the last vestiges of antiquated laws that criminalized homosexuality, the civil rights of the GLBT community have finally begun to be recognized and respected. Following in the great American tradition of extending all rights and privileges to those groups of people rising up from second-class citizenship, marriage rights are the last great threshold of becoming fully recognized in the eyes of the law.
Committed, solid same-sex relationships and families exist. It is time society’s mutable looking glass reflected the reality of twenty-first century America. The definition of straight marriages will not change; they will not lose any rights or privileges. However, loving and committed gay couples and families have everything to gain by being included in that definition. Eventually, the Defense of Marriage Act will go before the Supreme Court, and the justices will find it in violation of the United States Constitution. Bush is most afraid of this inevitable recognition by law that gay families are legitimate; that the straights-only club of marriage will have to abandon its segregationist ways. Our families are here, they’re queer, so Bush, get used to it.
Andrew, Donna T. “Marriage History as Social History.” Canadian Journal of History. Dec. 1989:
p381-85. Electronic. EBSCOhost, Univ of Texas Arlington Lib. 25 Feb. 2004.
Battan, Jessie F. “The ‘Rights’ of Husbands and the ‘Duties’ of Wives: Power and Desire in the
American Bedroom, 1850-1910.” Journal of Family History. Apr. 1999: p165. Electronic.
EBSCOhost, Univ of Texas Arlington Lib. 25 Feb. 2004.
Bush, George W. “President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage.” 24 Feb.
2004. Electronic. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html.
26 Feb. 2004.
Shanley, Mary Lyndon. “Public Values and Private Lives: Cott, Davis, and Hartog on the History of
Marriage Law in the United States.” Law and Social Inquiry. 2002: p923. Electronic.
EBSCOhost, Univ of Texas Arlington Lib. 25 Feb. 2004.
Stafford, Pauline. “Medieval Marriage.” History Today. Jun. 1984: p49. Electronic. EBSCOhost,
Univ of Texas Arlington Lib. 25 Feb. 2004.
Wheaton, Wil. “This Ocean Will Not Be Grasped.” 25 Feb. 2004. Electronic.
http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/001544.php#001544. 26 Feb. 2004.
Comments