As Justice Alito said to Solicitor General of the
United States Donald Verrilli:
Traditional
marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new.
There isn’t a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a good
thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition
8 apparently believe. But you want us to step in and render a decision based on
an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell
phones or the Internet?
From his line of questioning, Justice Alito clearly
seemed worried about replacing a venerable institution with a “newfangled” one
that could turn out to be bad for society. And he wasn’t the only one with
concerns. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, speaks for many Catholic leaders when he insists that marriage between
a man and a woman is God’s intention for humankind. The Mormon Church holds a
similar view, as do thousands of evangelicals and Orthodox rabbis. Even some
young conservatives, unlike most of their contemporaries, are standing up for
their belief that “traditional marriage” is inherently natural and good.
But here’s the problem: The notion of traditional
marriage that these conservatives are so vigorously defending is not
historically accurate. Pundit Bill Kristol recently fell into this trap when he
complained that supporters of marriage equality want to overthrow “thousands of
years of history and what the great religions teach” about marriage.
In actuality, traditional marriage—as it existed
centuries ago—is not worth defending.
Let’s start with concubines—also known as
mistresses—who were owned by husbands in ancient cultures and are mentioned
without disapproval throughout the Hebrew Bible. Then there’s the practice of
polygamy, which was the norm in biblical times. Back then, tradition forced
rape victims to marry their rapist. Tradition also called for victorious
soldiers to make female war prisoners their wives and concubines.
In the Middle Ages, marriages were arranged for
political and financial reasons, and girls could be forced to marry when they
were as young as 12 years old. British Common Law held a man to be “lord and
master” of his wife who was subject to “domestic chastisement.” Wife beating
was legal and common in England until the late 1800s.
In colonial America, wife beating was illegal, but
marriage equaled patriarchy. A wife had no legal rights or existence apart from
her husband. Any money or property she inherited belonged to him. Their
children were his as well. Wife abuse was not uncommon.
In 1864 a North Carolina court heard the case of a
woman abused by her husband because she had called him names. The court ruled
that:
A husband
is responsible for the acts of his wife, and he is required to govern his
household, and for that purpose the law permits him to use towards his wife
such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her
behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an
excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted
to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum, or
go behind the curtain.
It wasn’t until the 20th century—when women fought
for and won the right to vote, to sign contracts on their own, to obtain
financial credit, to have access to contraception, and more—that these earlier
notions of traditional marriage began to crumble, and something resembling the
institution we recognize today began to emerge.
But each of the advances for women’s equality was
fought by forces that considered them an invasion of the sacred private realm
of the home and an assault on the family. Even so, these advances became part
of law and culture and are now the norm. In fact, they are embedded in the
institution that conservatives are now so fiercely defending.
Marriage has always been dynamic. For the most part,
its evolution has been positive. Marriage today is far more mutually
supportive, egalitarian, and secure for children than it was centuries ago.
Take heart, conservatives. The institution of marriage does change and adapt
over the years, and that is what makes it endure.
About the author: Sally Steenland is Director of the
Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress.
Steenland, a best-selling author, former newspaper columnist, and teacher,
explores the role of religion and values in the public sphere.
This article was published by the Center for
American Progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment