BlogHer - Marriage – A Brief Historical Overview and Ideas On Going Forward - Comments

Step back to answer the purpose of Life

tab69 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:55:25 -0600

Thanks for writing back

"If it so great and wonderful why are half the straight people who are married getting a divorce? What indeed are you trying to protect?"

I do not know a perfect answer to this, i would say a lack of commitment & a very liberal society takes away the pressures to stay united. A orientation to religious belief can help married couples to define their goals or purpose of life.

I am quoting some statistics from book " The wall street journal book of chief executive style ". (1989) (ISBN 0-688-07922-9)

CEO Family : Married : 94% Divorced 3% Seperated 1%.

Times Married : Once 81% , twice 16% , three times 2%.

Number of years married : 20 years + = 82%, 11-20 7%,5-10 6%,< 5 = 6%.

Education : Highschool 6% , college 46%, masters 35% , doctorate 13%.

Religion : protestant : 60% , Catholics 20.8% , Jewish 6.8%.

So i think there is a favourable corelation in america that religious influence has been positive for success in life & martial happiness.

May be the book is 20 years old & society could have increased its percapita income but not the divorce rate due to lesser belief in god.

Unfortunately in India we may have been invaded physically but we were never subjugated at a philosophical level, our culture today is threatened not by military but by MTV culture where materialism is at logger head with spirtualism. Many centuries ago our society had its tiff with materialism but spirtuality had triumphed then.

Married.

Gena Haskett — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:07:21 -0600

The word does not have to change. A civil union is a joining of two people. You can have a civil marriage ceremony even with the current license.

So why not have a civil license for your civil marriage ceremony? After the ceremony, you are married.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Answers To Your Questions About Divorce Rates

Gena Haskett — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:01:13 -0600

From the U.S. Census Bureau this is a chart that shows the marriage and divorce rates from 1980 to 2005 for the U.S. and select Western Countries.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s1302.pdf

This is not from a U.S. agency but for faith based divorces
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The Barna Group Report - A Christian research organizations states that there is little difference in divorce rate among the faithful, the bail out just like everybody else.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=...

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Civil Union License Issue

BookLady Alison — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:41:52 -0600

I like the suggestion of issuing civil union licenses to all types of couples, rather than marriage licenses. Now, I wonder what we should call two people who are in a civil union on medical forms etc. where it currently says Married. How about: Joined, Committed (that could have some interesting connotations), Legally Partnered (might make people think more seriously about it)? Got any other suggestions on this?

BookLady Alison

I Will Not Ridicule Your Opinions and Beliefs

Gena Haskett — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:27:23 -0600

That is not what we are trying to accomplish here. We are trying to inform, understand and put into context a very important topic that affects each person in America, whether you are married or not.

I do not agree with some of your opinions and beliefs. In my sex education classes I was taught that human sexuality is a continuum. You have people who are Asexual, in this case meaning they have no sexual desires for either gender, heterosexual, bisexual and gay. Within those grouping is a range of behaviors. Two sexual definitions does not fit all. Being Straight is not wrong. Being Gay is not wrong. Being Bi-Sexual? Not a problem. This is the reality of having 6 billion+ people on the planet. There is sexual gender and behavioral diversity.

I will not support the idea of having a cultural "Sex Police." We need gay people in this society as much as we need straight people, bisexuals and transgendered. All of those people contributed in one way or another in creating this country and have added to the various cultures of the world. You may feel differently.

Now as to your question about the divorce rate in America and what are the statistics between those that have "religion" and those that don't that will take me a bit of time to find out. I want to get the most authoritative source possible and not anecdotal. I will respond to that as soon as I find the answer.

In general, the divorce rate in the U.S. is high. So one of my questions that I haven't really asked anyone that is married and a supporter of Proposition 8 is "If it so great and wonderful why are half the straight people who are married getting a divorce? What indeed are you trying to protect?"

Gena - Out On The Stoop

I Know my post here

tab69 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:52:23 -0600

I Know my post here is going to be Ridiculed by Everyone here & some of you are going to Question whether i am a barbarian hailing from the 10th century. The fact of the matter is laws are evolved based on customs & traditions. For a civil society to prosper & progress it is very essential that some conventions passed by traditions dating back to ancient periods are honored.The best way to demonstrate that is incentives of tax or legal relief are built from that parameter.That is only way to make sure

"Marriages are that which upholds, nourishes or supports the stability of the society, maintains the social order and secures the general well-being and progress of man-kind".

It is important for society to check the sexual orientation of Gays or Lesbians. These are abberations than norms.Just as one can't fathom a sister marrying a brother so too should be position on Gay/Lesbian tendency.A sexual orientation won't promote incest between brothers & sisters when both can claim as consenting individual.Is that not an infringement of Right ??.

The church, the temples or the Mosques have some evils & some good.The purity of marriage in a brahmanical custom which i hail from completes a martial Conjugation by taking 7 steps invoking the gods for their support. These steps are belief that wisdom be granted by God in various volatile circumstances of a man & women's life.As such an harmony passes from generation to generation it is essential that the books of law have that opening to confirm something as sacred & celebrated moments of people's life be recognized. Just illustrating the 7 steps

May the first step lead to food that is both nourishing and pure.May the second step lead to strength (at the physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual levels).May the third step lead to prosperity.May the fourth step lead to all round happiness.May the fifth step lead to progeny (noble and virtuous children).May the sixth step lead to long life.

May the seventh step lead to friendship (through harmony, understanding).

Faith should override all other consideration in marriage & hence the influence & involvement of religious institution in framing of laws is to be respected & admired.

Author Comment.

Since women were considered property the Father or the family tried to get the most for the investment of raising a girl child. In certain parts of the world that is still the case.

I am sure 2 mythologies followed by 2 billion + people in the world would tell you that Troy ( Helen) or the Mahabharat ( Indian Epic) were fought for

protecting the honor of women.

I sincerely want to know from you in the divorce rate in America can u please let me know what the percentages of this divorce is between people who follow religion & those who do not.. I am sure enlightened couples also need to rely on the hands of God.

Just side stepping on this issue from marriage , the worst calamity facing this world of a nuclear holacust can only be prevented not by UN resolution but only by hardened belief that there does exist god. Just to reproduce the words & thoughts of

Robert Oppenheimer after he triggered the Nuke Bomb, It is told he had a great liking for the sanskrit language.

as the explosion went off, he was reminded of a passage from the Bhagvad Gita:If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst into the sky,that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One A little later as the cloud rose up in the sky, Oppenheimer thought of another line from the same source:

I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds.

One of the Nobel prize winner Sartre displays his inconsistency

1943

During his life, Sartre tried to draw all possible conclusions from the idea that there is no God. "Man," he wrote in 1943, "is a useless passion." He also wrote "everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident."

1974 ( Closer to time of his death )

"I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God."

Freedom, Liberty & Equality also needs to come with some responsibility to progress mankind.It is difficult to lift that veil saying governments which are a collection of people & society can be divorced from religious belief. In "God we trust " is the currency for religious & government intercourse.. This helps meeting not only higher standard of living but also higher standard of life.

Actually, sanctioned

MLOKnitting — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:13:53 -0600

Actually, sanctioned marriages of ancient times were always from the temple of whatever religion in power. Most people forget that the idea of separation of Church and State is completely modern. Religion and government were completely intertwined in world history (and still is in many places) until the Enlightenment. To not understand how tendrils of religion are connected to the very concept of "marriage" is to deny history.

MLO / Melissa

As someone who has been

MLOKnitting — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:52:54 -0600

As someone who has been around the gay community, Muslim, Hindu, and the Evangelical communities (as well as a variety of other odd communities) for a very, very long time, I have to disagree with you from what I hear and see on the ground.

The visceral reaction from every single Conservative Religious person I have ever met is a fear of the gay community forcing their views on the church/temple/mosque. This fear is reinforced by the far right talk shows like Rush Limbaugh who go on and on how they (codeword for "them thar liberals, gays, insert somone perceived as forcing their beliefs") are going to make the very beliefs of various religious groups into crimes. There is a very real movement on the far right working to convince people that "them gays" are working to make you into a thought criminal.

I am always amazed at the disconnect most people have from their own neighborhoods. I was in California - specifically LA County - when Prop 8 passed. Anyone who actually looked at the changing demographics should have expected this response. It is not just Christians, but Moslems and Hindus who find the idea of gays using the word marriage very objectionable. This comes primarily from the religious viewpoint. Essentially, the Liberterian view that marriage should not be a state issue is the correct course of action for all - gay and straight - commitments.

MLO / Melissa

How Do We Define Marriage?

Gena Haskett — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:29:30 -0600

Because we have one word that means multiple concepts:

There is the legal contractual aspect.

There is the religious/spiritual ceremony required by certain faiths.

There is the concept of marriage as a form of anchoring a community and creating families that reinforce the concept of community.

And then there is "marriage" the commitment made by two people to love each other and unite as a public loving couple. Two for the road and that road is bumpy.

I think the objection goes deeper than the fear of Bob and Rob saying I do a house of faith. Gay marriages would have to consciously expand the concept of community. I think that is one of the underlying objections.

There were legal and often hostile community based objections to interracial marriages. It will take a while for attitudes to change.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

In the USA...

MLOKnitting — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:11:57 -0600

the primary reasons for licensure of marriage are racist in origin. It was a way in which (mostly) Southern States would prevent whites from marrying blacks. Prior to those laws, the majority of "marriages" in the USA were common law marriages that were only blessed once the circuit rider (a particular type of preacher) came and performed an en masse marriage ceremony.

Really, the primary issue here is that marriage is religious in it connotations. Marriage, in essence, is very complicated contract law that could be extended by creating a non-religious equivalent (take away those buzzwords) by calling it a Civil Union. Most of the people I know who most adamently oppose gay marriage are, in some cases rightly, afaid that their churches would be required to perform marriage ceremonies to gay couples. It is a real fear among the Church Going public.

MLO / Melissa

The Marriage of Community

Gena Haskett — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:36:27 -0600

is an unspoken fear that was laced the the Propositions. Married folk are a community. Between the 16th and 21st century that community was generally males and female from a religious/legal standpoint.

There were marriages that the society certainly recognized outside of the laws and organized religion but we have to remember that the notion of love came in around the 16th century but didn't take root until the 17th and 18th centuries.

You could be disowned for loving someone your family did not approve off. Jane Austin's Sense and Sensibilities comes to mind as a fictional example.

Marriage is a contract between two partners and a community. And just like other forms of integration there are people who cannot tolerate such a change.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Marriage

reginatgg — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:06:14 -0600

I've been thinking about this a lot. We had our own version of Prop 8 here in AZ, Prop 102, which passed. I have found that of the people knocking on my door asking me to support this, the reason they try to convince me with (perhaps because I have children) is that kids need a man and a woman to raise them.

So, let's make divorce illegal. How about if a woman's husband dies, she has one year to find a new one? If children need one of each that badly. I loved presenting this idea to my very righteous father, who is Catholic and divorced 3 times. If any one has defied marriage, it is him. Trust me. Yet he thinks having a gay couple down the street marry somehow affects him? I don't get it.

As long as we tie benefits (health, property, etc) to marriage, we should let anyone who has established a family, whether it is a couple with no kids or one with ten, have access to those benefits. People just want to take care of the people they love.

Gina

http://momwifeworkerbee.blogspot.com/ & http://forlorelai.blogspot.com/

Why do we have to have a label?

Laracolvin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:49:34 -0600

Gena, this is great. I love the history in this post and how you connect it to the present.

I guess I am wondering (and before I state it I'll disclose I'm in the middle of a divorce, so perhaps my perspective is skewed) why we even have to put a label on any of it. Civil union, legal contract, married, etc? Since we don't really know what any of it means, and societal norms are constantly in flux, what does it really matter? Sure, sure, I get that religious institutions have their own "issues" w/my idea, but personally I like the whole idea of a commitment ceremony more than that of a marriage anyway. Of course, I also think everyone should have the same legal rights regardless of whether they are married or not, and we know that isn't the case. So much of what is going on right now in our conversations labels so many groups as "others", and to be frank, it just downright pisses me off. We are all human beings w/minds, hearts, same color blood running through our veins, etc.

Sigh.

Thanks for letting me rant a bit.

As for the marriage license, I forgot to pick mine up before my wedding...a sign perhaps?:)

Notions of Identity

CIVIL UNIONS

DawgDadMB — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:22:58 -0600

I love this idea about handing out civil union liscenses instead of marriage ones!! My partner and myself live in SC ( Bible Belt Central) and we have been together in a solid monogamous relationship now for 4 yrs. We are both hard-working professional guys with great careers, we both pay our taxes, we own our home, and we both have the hope of one day being able to officially declare our commitment to one other like all other couples in the world!!

All of our married friends and neighbors accept us ( and us being together) without prejudice!!

Why is our love for one another different than a heterosexual couple?

IT'S NOT!!

Lucas in SC

Hopefully Civil Union

JC — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:00:27 -0600

"At least the the label "civil" union gives all of those who are thinking of getting hitched a hint as to what is expected during the course of the relationship."

That's funny :)

http://www.storyrhyme.com/jcsblog

Marriage – A Brief Historical Overview and Ideas On Going Forward

Gena Haskett — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:23:43 -0600

A long time ago I was a Deputy County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles. Part of my job was to issue marriage licenses. I think that was the best part of the job. There were specific tasks I had to perform, questions to ask and I watched as the couple swore or affirmed what they said was the truth.

Sometimes I looked at a couple and thought “For the love of humanity dude, run, do not marry this chick!” or maybe “Hell, they don’t need a license, they are already married in their hearts.”

I did have one lady who I think was working on marriage number 14. I like persistence but at some point you got to give it a rest. There was such a range of people. All with hope and expectations of what they thought marriage was or will do for them. One person loving the other more. Immigration marriages. Impulsive marriages. Love beyond measure so strong it was an honor to prepare the license for them.

Many people seem to conjure a culturally supported mythical image of what an American marriage looks like. I grew up on this particular version (in re-runs, I’m not that old.) of what a typical married household looked like when I was growing up.

This is the opening from The Donna Reed Show.

Definitions of Marriage

I’m going to start old school and open up my paper bound Webster new Explorer Desk Encyclopedia:

Legally and social sanctioned union between, usually, a man and one or more women that accords status to their offspring and is regulated by laws and customs that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners.(Page 759)

The online marriage'>marriage'>Merrian-Webster dictionary has a slightly different meaning:

(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

And to be fair let’s put up a gender neutral definition from Cultural Anthropology, The Human Challenge:

A non-ethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children and between them and their in-laws. (Page 208)

Not matching up to your definition? Yeah, I know. All I have been hearing for the past couple of weeks is one man, one woman. If I had know that I had options that I could marry more than one man at a time I might have been more open to the concept of matrimony. Go figure. Ignorance is definitely not bliss.

There is no one definition of marriage. It is dependent on the culture, the society and the needs of the community. Some of those needs are of commerce and business. In fact, that was the driving factors in early marriages. Love did not necessarily have anything to do with it.

In Ye Olden Days…

If people really want a traditional marriage you might have to start looking at your biological brother or sister in a new way. 2,000 years ago it was important for farm families to hold on to whatever resources they had. It was easier to marry within the family, the immediate family to maintain control over property.

There is an extensive historical article that goes in depth at the History of Marriage by the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology. In this passage is an explanation of how Greek and Roman marriages were designed. A Greek or Roman man could be married and still play both sides of the street:

A father arranged the most advantageous marriage for his son and then had a contract signed before witnesses. Shortly thereafter a wedding celebration was held and the young couple (who might never have met before) was escorted to bed. All marriages were monogamous. As a rule, the bridegroom was in his thirties and the bride was a teenager. In addition to this disparity in ages there also existed an inequality in education and political rights. Women were considered inferior to men and remained confined to the home. Their main function as wives was to produce children and to manage the household while their husbands tended to public affairs. For their erotic needs, men often turned to prostitutes and concubines. As Demosthenes, the orator, explained it: "We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring." Many men also cultivated intense emotional and sexual relationships with male adolescents (paiderastia).

In a 2005 Psychology Today there is a brief article on what some ancient marriages were like. For example:

6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.
12th-century Europe: Marriage is good for loving...someone else—Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.

Stephanie Coontz in a2007 article in the New York Times explains how the Catholic church recognized non-church marriages:

In 1215, the church decreed that a licit marriage must take place in church. But people who married illicitly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

I’ve only touched on a very brief look of monogamy type marriages. There certainly other kinds such as polygamy marriages that help to sustain cultures across the globe and endogamy, marriage within a certain group of individuals inside of a set community.

Contemporary Thoughts

Page at This Fragile Fortress

We questions its history of sexism and its emphasis on reproduction. We wonder why the state should even be involved in people's relationships in the first place, outside of the logistics of next-of-kin and that sort of thing. We believe in the importance of the ceremony, but question the relevance of insurance premiums or tax breaks. That being said, the reality is that we live in a culture where marriage - in that form - IS a part of our society. And if you, like us, are concerned with the values of marriage in this culture, than you should be very concerned about barring queer access to it.

Because queers can update this custom and infuse it with gender equality that will free men, women, and the rest of us from all of our historical attachments.

Misty at Saintless.com is wondering if government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Should there be a legal definition? And at Philosophy Sucks ask the lyrical question, why not split the difference?:

So I say we should formally distinguish these two aspects. Let marriage be a religious institution and let civil unions be a secular institution. Let the church govern marriage and define it as between one man and one woman. And let the state govern civil unions and define it as they want; a loving commitment to partnership and family between two persons. That way religious people would get marriages and secular people would get civil unions.

My point in sharing this information with you is that it is not true that there has been only one form of marriage sanctioned for X number of years. Humans are too diverse with different social and cultural needs. Marriage adapts to what the society requires. It is not a finite condition. It is an evolutionary one.

More Resources:

Talking History interviewed Stephanie Coontz author of Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. This is an audio mp3 presentation.

Over at Garbled Noise is a review of the book "Uncommon Arrangements by Kate Roiphe on how of some literary famous in London conducted their lives around the constrictions of matrimony.

Susan Squire author I Don’t A Contrarian History of Marriage gives an interview on the Leonard Lopate show on WNYC

CE Gena Haskett writes at Out On The Stoop and PCC LibTech.