American Daily letter slaps at immorality of straight men

[kevinbgoode]

Ok. . .this is wordy, and I'm not sure why I was so disjointed in writing this, but I sent this in to an online conservative forum as a rant against still another "homosexual activists are trying to destroy marriage" article. . .it's a little long and overworded, but . . .well, tell me what ya'll think:

One wonders where the "NoDNC.com staff" comes up with their rather selective understanding of the concept of "marriage," and even more why they seem to believe that heterosexuals are so insecure and unreliable at making commitments that both the states and the federal government must provide thousands of special rights and benefits exclusively to their families as a bribe to honor their own commitments. After all, the "staff" is so convinced that the homosexual alliance is so bent on "attacking" marriage that one wonders where all the Rightwing was when such common hetero offenses as adultery, rape, child abuse, and wifebeating inside marriage took their toll on an everchanging institution.

Instead, they try to focus on creating a "history" of American marriage, as if the institution was created exclusively on our soil and there weren't variances in different states. Why, one of the most protective marriage laws in the land exists in places like Georgia, where a 13 or 14 year old may certainly marry without parental permission as long as the woman/girl in the relationship is pregnant. In Illinois, along with several other states, first cousins have been accessing those cushy little family rights for decades, as long as the woman is over fifty and can't bear children. Murderers, rapists, child abusers, adulterers, divorcees are all granted automatic access (and reaccess) to the special rights laws reserved for promoting the "stability" of heterosexual supremacists and their relationships.

If we look at the history of marriage, the "staff" rather skips over the evolution of the American family, one which was most influenced by economic changes, industrialization and post-industrialization. It is rare for whole families to remain on the family farm (a time when most of the family statutes were created) and yet conservatives seem more concerned about preserving outdated regulations than in recognizing that families, whether gay Americans were around or not, have both changed and evolved over the years. Most households in this nation are no longer based on the patriarchal model, where the wife is property and the children are slave labor. And even if this seems to make conservative males pine for the good old days when their peepee exerted both political and real power, no amount of scapegoating the gays is likely going to restore that era.

http://www.americandaily.com/page/letters

[meegbear]

1. Bravo!!

Excellent writeup! :applause:

[BeeBee]

2. Excellent!!!! n/t

[BR_Parkway]

3. K&R - and I'm gonna keep kicking it, this is exactly what we need

to keep saying.

If they really worry about 'protecting marriage', they should worry about the real problems with the institution.

[xchrom]

4. ''And even if this seems to make conservative males

pine for the good old days when their peepee exerted both political and real power, no amount of scapegoating the gays is likely going to restore that era.''

indeed!

i guess i fear a violent backlash as a result of the of power of the straight male peepee.

[mzteris]

5. The History of Marriage as an Institution

The History of Marriage as an Institution
by Larry R. Peterson, PhD
© 1997, Larry R. Peterson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtually all scholars agree that we have witnessed a major transition in the
meaning of marriage in the years from 1600 to 1995. In 1600, marriage for
almost all Europeans and Europeans in America was primarily an economic
arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of
status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important
considerations in selecting a potential spouse. By 1995, most Americans
consider the primary purpose of marriage to be a commitment to emotional and
psychological support between two individuals.

Here are historical notations about some of the dramatic changes in the legal
structure of marriage in Western Europe and the United States.

1.From the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted
special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for
those to bless heterosexual unions. At the very least, these were spiritual, if
not sexual, unions.

2.In 1076, Pope Alexander II issued a decree prohibiting marriages between
couples who were more closely related than 6th cousins.

3.In the 16th century, servants and day laborers were not allowed to marry in
Bavaria and Austria unless they had the permission of local political
authorities. This law was not finally abolished in Austria until 1921.

4.From the 1690s to the 1870s, "wife sale" was common in rural and small-town
England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around
her neck in a public sale to another man.

5.Marriage was strictly a civil and not an ecclesiastical ceremony for the
Puritans in Massachusetts Bay until 1686.

6.The Pilgrims outlawed courtship of a daughter or a female servant unless
consent was first obtained from parents or master.

7.Until 1662, there was no penalty for interracial marriages in any of the
British colonies in North America. In 1662, Virginia doubled the fine for
fornication between interracial couples. In 1664, Maryland became the first
colony to ban interracial marriages. By 1750, all southern colonies, plus
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania outlawed interracial marriages.

8.Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the
middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not
own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.

9.In 1848, New York became the first state to pass a Married Womans Property
Act, guaranteeing the right of married women to own property.

10.Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual
intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7
years.

11.As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as
young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).

12.As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in
twelve states.

13.In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in
Loving v. Virginia.

As a result of the decision, Virginia and fifteen other states had their
anti-miscegenation laws declared unconstitutional. Those states were: Alabama,
Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West
Virginia.

In the fifteen years prior to the decision, fourteen states had repealed their
anti-miscegenation laws. Those fourteen states were: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

14.In 1978, New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. By
1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. In thirty-six
states rape in marriage was a crime only in certain circumstances. In four
states, rape in marriage was never a crime.

These examples, and there are more, clearly document that marriage has not
been an unchanging institution with unchanging definitions of who can marry and
under what circumstances. Those who claim otherwise distort the historical
record.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
For the opening paragraphs:
Edward Shorter, The Making of the Modern Family, (New York: Basic Books, 1975); Carl N. Degler, At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980); Michael Mitterauer and Reinhard Sieder, The European Family: Patriarchy to Partnership from the Middle Ages to the Present (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg, Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family Life, (New York: MacMillan, 1988); John D'Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, (New York: Harper & Row, 1988).
1.John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, (New York: Villard Books, 1994).
2.Jack Goody, The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983) pp. 136-138.
3.Mitterauer and Sieder, p. 123.
4. John R. Gillis, For Better, For Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) pp. 211-217.
5.Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Family: Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeenth Century New England. rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) p. 32.
6.John Demos, A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970) p. 154.
7.D'Emilio and Freedman, pp. 34-36.
8.Sara M. Evans, Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America, (New York: Free Press, 1989), p 22.
9.Evans, p. 94.
10.Morton Keller, Affairs of State: Public Life in Late Nineteenth Century America. (Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 465.
11.Mintz and Kellogg, p. 126.
12.Degler, p. 333.
13.Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1, 18 L ed 2d, United States Supreme Court Reports, October Term, 1966, Lawyers' Edition, Second Series, Volume 18 (Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company, 1968) p.1014n.
14.Jane Sherron De Hart and Linda K. Kerber, "Gender and The New Women's History," in Linda K. Kerber and Jane Sherron De Hart, eds. Women's America: Refocusing the Past, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) p. 13.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article (C) 1997, Larry R. Peterson, PhD
Larry R. Peterson is a full professor, chairs the Dept. of History and may be reached at:
Minard Hall 412J, Box 5075, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105-5075;
701-231-8824; fax [phone]; [e-mail]


copied with the permisson from Larry R. Peterson