Free to Marry

By Sally Raskoff

The May 2008 California Supreme Court decision effectively adds a second state to the (short) list of states that do not prohibit marriage for consenting adults of the same gender. The ruling reflects the result of many years of social change that has pressured our country to live up to its ideals of freedom, equality, and justice for all. The Civil Rights Movement was the most visible event in recent history, as many radical changes occurred in a relatively short period of time. At that time, we effectively identified how race, ethnicity, and gender issues are rife with inequality and thus problematic for our country.

Social change does not move quickly or steadily. In stops and starts, forward towards new practices and backward to known traditions, society resists change at every step. Some refer to this dynamic as a dialectic process in which whatever exists creates its own contradictions, creating struggles which eventually “resolve” or morph into a new reality. Marx described the life span of capitalism as a dialectic process, for example. 

While societies do not change quickly, they are always changing. Things today are certainly not the same as they were fifty years ago, or even five years ago. With technological changes and resource pressures, the way we live our lives has changed and will continue to change. Younger generations grow up in altogether different circumstances than previous generations thus their ways of thinking and expressing themselves sets them apart from others.

With regard to marriage laws, it is clear that we have seen some changes and we’ll continue to do so.

Marriage has long been a relationship defined by property and resources. Marriage based on love, emotional ties, and individual choice is a relatively recent social invention. That notwithstanding, marriage still is a legal contract that involves ownership and property rights. At the same time marriage effectively gives people license to have sex – although that, too, is tied to ownership and property since our societal norms of marital sex assume subsequent procreation and offspring – with appropriate naming and rights of inheritance. 

Our heterosexual norms are tied to male dominance – clearly seen when looking at marital laws. Historically, brides are women or property transferred from fathers to husbands. One look at a traditional marriage ceremony confirms this symbolism when the parents hand over the bride to the groom at the start of the ritual. 

Since men marry women – and give them their name (identifying one’s property!) – the power relations are clearly defined. Men had not been able to marry other men (and women to marry women) because that would tamper with the power structure based on gender. Homophobia helps to maintain this structure since it makes people afraid of both the idea of and the people who may be participating in same-sex couplings. 

Seen in this light, allowing same-sex marriage is progress towards gender equality.

American society’s marriage laws have always reflected its evolving attitudes toward race, ethnicity, sex/gender, and sexual orientation.

Prior to the civil rights era, anti-miscegenation laws outlawed marriage between white and non-white people thus protecting the property rights and inheritance patterns that kept the dominant group white and all other groups, well, not-white. 

While the U.S. Supreme Court deemed those laws unconstitutional in the late 1960s, it took until 1999 for all fifty states to vote those laws off their books. After being sued by inter-racial couples having trouble getting the paperwork to legally wed, Alabama finally asked their voters in 1999 to weigh in on eliminating or keeping their state anti-miscegenation laws, even as the law had been unconstitutional for over thirty years. (It passed, 60/40.)

While most marriages are still endogamous – people still tend to marry people like themselves – in contemporary American society we have the right to marry whomever we choose no matter their ethnicity or racial identity—as long as they are they opposite sex ( unless you live in California or Massachusetts).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only two percent of marriage partnerships are inter-racial. This does vary by state and region, of course, but nationwide it is only two percent. In spite of the Supreme Court decision, most marriages are intra-racial. 

This is all part of the inevitable social changes that come about since we live in a country with an elective affinity between love-based marriages and a strong belief in individual freedoms. We socialize people to grow up and fall in love, marry their sweetheart, and settle down to create a family. Those norms have long been informed by norms of heterosexuality and cultural heterogeneity although the latter is not as strong a norm as it once was.

When states make their marriage laws based on sex or gender definitions, they often complicate things further. For example, Texas defines their marriage laws on chromosomes, thus an XX female can marry an XY female because they do have the expected chromosomal pairing. One wonders if someone with X₀ and other variations can marry in Texas at all!

Add to this transgender issues and we see that our culture has some distance to travel before we really do embrace equality and justice for all. It’s not just a matter of saying that people should be able to love whomever they want. It’s more a matter of equalizing our social categories and dismantling the privileges and barriers based on sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

From the 1960s U.S. Supreme Court to the 2008 California State Supreme Court decisions, the highest bodies in our legal system have so far demonstrated that we still do strive for these goals.

Comments

[Laura S]

It is true that marriages in America are continually changing. They used to be male-dominated, patrilineal, patriarchal, patrilocal unions, but have become bilateral, equalitarian, neolocal unions. It is no surprise that now homosexual marriages are coming more and more popular. As the male dominance diminishes, and as females become as powerful as men, the idea of homosexual marriages becomes less strange, and more acceptable.

[meenchi]

Marriage is not solely about passing on property, sex, and children. Property can be passed on to anyone if a will is written properly. I strongly resent anyone who tries to link the Civil Rights Movement to this move to try and have mainstream America accept someone's lifestyle choice. The piggybacking of the Gay Rights on to the Civil Rights movement has many people confused. I cannot change my skin color it is something that I must live with. One is not born homosexual that is a series of choices (whether made consciously or unconsciously) that lead to a lifestyle choice that no one should be forced to accept quietly.

[Dawson]

Marriage is about a man and a woman who love each other and don't marry to exchange or claim property. Being gay is a choice you make yourself with you knowing the consequences. If we were born gay then everyone would be born gay because god would have made it that way;but he didn't. People who are gay should be protected against violence because no one deserves to live a life in fear, but we shouldn't baby them and say we need to be more open minded. It's ok for gays to make fun of straights, but not for straights to make fun of gays? No one should be making fun of anybody. Interacial marriages isn't healthy for the child because they will be confused about their background, and could have health problems down the road. Not allowing interacial marriages isn't racist, even though some portray it that way. I'm not racist or homophobic, I just believe what god created.

[Heather Chapman]

This is sad enough that there are people who have to argue over whether we let people marry someone of the same gender as themselves or make them live a life through suffering and not being able to receive their guaranteed freedoms. Marriage should be the peoples' choice, not something that the government can control. Homosexuals are just the same as any other person except for the gender that they are interested in, so why aren't they treated just like everyone else? If people are going to treat them in this way, then we are practically bringing back discrimination against them just as we had with African Americans. It shouldn't be a fear for homosexuals to walk down a street with their loved one and be stared at by other people just because they are different from them. This new social invention that people have today against homosexuals is extremely sad and does not allow some to have the rights that is guaranteed to them as a citizen.

[Abigail]

I agree that same-sex marriage is a leap toward equality as a whole (not just gender equality). In the United States, it is very controversial and a taboo to be homosexual. I strongly believe that this take roots in religion - especially Christianity. The majority of Christians seem to think that they are the foundations of our society and that their church and the state should be combined. The disproving of homosexuality is sick and immoral, and should be eradicated from the minds of our youth. We need to move forward and evolve as a society.

[ty]

Equal rights means equal rights. I agree with you completely. No one would choose homosexuality. They are normal people who are attracted to the same sex. If something that someone has no choice about is the reason that they cannot be happy and live comfortable fulfilling lives, and we as americans are the ones making it that way, then we don't really stand for equality.