Another year, another major court battle over the definition of marriage. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments to decide whether the Constitution grants the right for same-sex couples to wed.
But if history is a guide for the future, this won’t be the last battle over the definition of marriage. The Queerty column Science of Sin takes a look at the never ending battle over “traditional marriage”.
1. Fight for freedom to be yourself
Centuries ago in Western culture, parents had all the power over marriage. In the 1500s in Europe, if you got married and your parents didn’t approve, the government could imprison or banish you.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The Industrial Revolution in the 1700s changed this tradition. Men left home to make their own money and gained the power to choose wives of their own. However, while men wrestled away some marriage freedom, women were still considered the legal property of their husbands. In many parts of the world, parents still force their female children into arranged marriages, sometimes as early as teens.
2. Fight for equality
Even into the 20th century, husbands had complete legal control over their wives’ finances and employment. However, as women gained the right to vote, “traditional marriage” slowly changed again. It took awhile, but by 1979, American women finally gained full legal equality to men in a marriage.
3. Fight for love
For centuries, marrying for love was considered destructive to traditional marriage — people could easily fall out of love. However, as more people wanted to love the person they married, old traditions crumbled. Divorce became easier. People of different races could marry. Now, same-sex couples in love are fighting for the right to marry.
So as marriage is based more and more on love and equality, a new “traditional marriage” is emerging. The fight for gay marriage may be just one more battle in the struggle for the freedom to love.
See how traditional marriage has changed over the centuries in two minutes. If anyone says gay marriage destroys the definition of marriage, share this video and let them know that might be a good thing…
You can also see past Science of Sin posts on the evolution of homosexual men, the wonder of the penis, the science of weight loss, marijuana, your family jewels and prostate pleasure. Visit our YouTube channel for more sinful videos.
Sources: Abbott, Elizabeth. A history of marriage : from same sex unions to private vows and common law, the surprising diversity of a tradition. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2011.
Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a history : how love conquered marriage. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.
Cott, Nancy F. Public vows a history of marriage and the nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
Atrius
We need to stop the colloquial references to “gay marriage”, as if our marriages will have any substantive difference to anyone else’s marriage. What we want is marriage plain and simple.
Giancarlo85
While marriage equality is definitely a good thing, we need to keep focus on other issues in the community. Such as the lack of employment protections, the growing number of so called “religious freedom” bills that target the community, persistent homelessness and health issues (such as HIV).
It seems to me some rich gay men don’t really care about homelessness or racial and ethnic minorities within the community. Organizations like HRC only care about marriage.
James Reyes
Queery just induced vomit from me. The marriage battle is over bitches!!!
MarionPaige
Lawrence vs Texas is viewed as a significant movement in gay civil rights exactly because it established the right of gay people to NOT HAVE THE STATE IN THEIR BEDROOMs. The idiocy and brain damage of gay people seeking the right to marry is that seeking to have the State license a sexual relationship is 180 degrees away from where Lawrence vs Texas was heading.
Marriage has been a lot of things throughout history. But today, it is still a contract for sexual services sanctioned by THE STATE. Marriage is inviting the State into your sex life in exactly the same manner that a gay man invited the Police into his bedroom in re Lawrence vs Texas.
One thing never mentioned in the marriage equality struggle is that THE STATE has historically sought to regulate what kind of sex was acceptable between married couples.
Gay Marriage, gay people inviting the state into their sex lives is not the revolution. Gay Marriage in fact WILL go down in history as a marketing stunt, it will go down in history as that time when a bunch of brain dead homos actually were fighting to get THE STATE as a party to their sexual relationships.
AtticusBennett
the real reason it “will never end” is a financial one – in every country around the world, the political party that actively works against LGBT Equality ALSO promotes fiscal policies that utterly screw over the middle and working classes.
look at the GOP – tax breaks for the wealthy. attacks to healthcare. attacks on education.
middle-american mouth-breathers who don’t understand fiscal policies are emotional voters who care about enshrining their small-minded bigotry. the GOP NEEDS anti-gay hatred, to convince the majority of their base to vote against their own best economic interests.
quite simply – without anti-LGBT hatred, the GOP will have to eb upfront about their fiscal policies. “vote for me and you’ll still be broke, but at least Gays won’t turn your sons into stylists!”
MarionPaige
The State’s Regulation of Sexual Relationships
When The State of California’s Domestic Partnership Law was proposed, it looked like a revolutionary piece of legislation as it placed domestic partnerships under The State Secretary of State – the same entity that had jurisdiction over businesses (LLCs, Corporations, Partnerships). However, the minute that domestic partnership legislation DEFINED DOMESTIC PARTNERS as parties in an intimate sexual relation, the law became RETRO. Once the State defined domestic partners as parties in a sexual relationship (unlike parties to a business entity) THEN:
The State had to regulate that sexual relationship by, among other things, limiting the parties who could contract to be domestic partners to two people who were not in partnerships with any other people.
The existence of anti-polgamy laws is the proof that every state in the union still regulates what kind of sex is acceptable between married couples. Some states prohibit cousins from marrying.