WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS AT ALL?
STEPHANIE COONTZ, NY TIMES - Why do people - gay or straight - need the state's permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn't, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. . .
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.
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a "mental defect." Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.
In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were "fit" to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.
But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors' benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees' dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.
In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice were very rare.
Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people's interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America's children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.
3 Comments:
Why am I not surprised to discover that the American government first started sticking its nose into marriage in order to perpetuate various forms of discrimination? The more history I learn, the more I realize the idea of "The Land of the Free" was never anything but an attractive lie used, much like religion, to keep the serfs docile and deluded.
FoE
wow. what a breathtakingly ignorant piece!
Apparently Ms. Coontz never heard of established churches or how they handled the functions of the state well into the 19th century (e.g. baptismal roles serving the purpose of census roles etc.) In case you've forgotten, historically the only legitimate marriage was a church marriage. The civil authorities thereafter stood by at the ready to regulate the relations of man and wife, just as it would his children, slaves and other chattel (hence in Tudor england were allowed to displine their wives but only if the stick in question was no thicker than their thumb--the original "rule of thumb"). Likewise, civil or church authorities were available to enforce the terms of contracts and even oral agreements (e.g. "breach of promise"). The exceptions like english common law merely prove the rule, a "common law wife" had some standing in court to make claims on her husband's property. Nowhere will one find a society where marriage was just a private matter between two cosenting adults--an adult form of exchanging promise rings. The larger civil society is always involved either by extended family, church, or civil or religious courts. Deal with it.
It seems Ms Coontz when to the late James Boswells graduate school of cultural historiography by wishful thinking...and took it a few steps forward.
only if the stick in question was no thicker than their thumb--the original "rule of thumb"). ... The exceptions like english common law merely prove the rule... Nowhere will one find a society where marriage was just a private matter between two cosenting adults--an adult form of exchanging promise rings. The larger civil society is always involved either by extended family, church, or civil or religious courts. Deal with it.
Pretty good - three errors in one paragraph:
- the "rule of thumb" story is an urban myth. The actual meaning comes from the fact that people used their body parts to measure things with (cf. the rule that the English yard was set as being the distance from a particular (I can't remember which one, Richard II maybe) king's nose to the end of his outstretched arm). So "rule of thumb" was a way of saying "approximation".
- "the exception proves the rule" means that an exception TESTS the rule, not confirms it.
- there are societies all over the world in which marriages are a private matter, needing nobody's approval. One example is the "common law" marriage in English-speaking countries, in which one becomes married by living with someone and asserting the existence of marriage. Family, church, and government have nothing to say about it. Another is "handfasting", imported into Scotland, Ireland, and Northumberland by the Vikings: a couple recites a vow after cooperatively tying their hands together.
Post a Comment
<< Home