Imagine sitting in the rows of family and friends, surrounded by white flowers, ribbons, tassels, and then the music begins. The words “here comes the bride” echo in your mind, even though it is an orchestral procession. This song is common knowledge to most people, even though no one could ever tell you the first time that they had ever heard the melody. This whole surreal ritual of marriage in America is incredibly romanticized by the media, by our peers, our family, but the source of it all is hard to recognize. I never really thought about marriage until all of my friends started getting married and talking about marriage. The benefits from marriage are outrageous compared to that of a single individual. The State, bound by the constitution of the United States of America, promotes the act of marriage (a ceremony performed by a religious institution) by giving benefits to married couples. America sticks by their constitution, except when it comes to separation of Church and State. Marriage reflects the patriarchy of America in that it is controlled by a man and the woman is supposed be submissive. Mary Lyndon Shanley promotes the idea that the act of marriage should be completely reformed and discusses contractual marriage as a start, but not an answer. The complete reform of marriage could wipe out patriarchy but the way that America sticks with tradition, as do many other countries, it is hard to see the future for what it can hold in the eyes of equality. I contend that the rhetoric surrounding marriage, as well as the ritual itself needs to be changed, and can be changed with new vocabulary to promote the equality. The universal understanding of what marriage is differs greatly in all cultures and societies. “Equality must be a central attribute of any marital regime based on considerations of justice” (Shanley 18). One thing is certain and that is that the majority of acts and ideas surrounding marriage are laced with a patriarchal understanding of female submission and male dominance.
Separation of Church and State is a way to keep America a democracy, yet the country rewards married couples. Among the benefits includes the right of “Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility… obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer… receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses… [and] Living in neighborhoods zoned for ‘families only’…” (NOLO Law for All 1). The neighborhood designation is extremely condescending because it implies that you can’t be a single parent with three children and be considered a “family;” or an unwed homosexual couple raising their child and be considered a “family.” In 1996 the creators of the Welfare Reform Act inserted “a provision requiring mothers who receive welfare to identify the biological fathers of their children. The state could then go after the father for child support” (23). This had seemingly good intentions, but “the sponsors hoped that if the woman identified the father the state might induce them to marry” (24), and I completely agree with Shanley in that “marriage is not an effective antipoverty program, nor is it appropriate to use it as such” (24). This idea is wrought with this patriarchal slime, oozing the idea that women can’t be successful single parents and they need a man in their lives in order to sustain themselves emotionally and financially. Inducing a woman to marry the father of their child in order to save them financially is ignoring so many factors, including the possibilities that the father is abusive to the mother and the child, or the father doesn’t have the money to support the mother and child. This idea of “addressing women’s poverty by attaching them to men who can support them reinforces inequality and vulnerability within marriages” (24). Sponsors who had hoped for the women to marry the fathers of their children were walking the fine line of separation of church and state. A bill generated by the United States Senate or Congress should not even have an inkling of religious lining to it and this one seems like it was teetering in that direction. There are several states that recognize domestic partnerships of over a certain number of years which give the same benefits as a married couple, but this is also a way for the state to view a couple as “married” even though the couple may not be or may never plan to be. The idea of the church not involved in the unification of love is extremely appealing to me because I don’t see it as joining together “under God,” I see it as a presentation to your loved ones that this is the person that you are going to be with for the rest of your life because you have love, happiness, trust, respect and equality. Removing the state from marriage and having a strictly contractual agreement of terms is interesting because it holds to completely separate the Church and the State.
“Contractualism suggests that each marriage is a particular agreement between individuals not a relationship in which the public has a legitimate interest” (16). Advocate of contract marriage, Martha Fineman, argues that “abolishing marriage as a legal category is a step necessary for gender equality” (19) and I would have to agree with her. Chad Brand is a southern Baptist and explains that the nation needs strong men and “the price women pay for marriage and morals is submission to the husband as leader within the family” (19). That disgusting quote alone proves the parallel that exists between this patriarchal nation and the institution of marriage. Marriage by contract helps to replace the gender stereotyping of traditional marriage and recognizes the “individuality and equal agency of the partners” (19). I agree with this as a beginning to abolish inequality within marriage, but I also agree with Shanley in that contract “is not adequate to defeat the legacy of patriarchy” (20). There needs to be more. The State needs to step in and promote spousal equality. Shanley argues that “marriage law and public policy must work to ensure that neither partner is precluded from participating in social and political life or rendered unable to provide care to family members” (20). This is how equality is going to come ahead and our nation is going to take a step away from traditionalism and patriarchy.
I want to explore a way to still have the institution of marriage, but change to vocabulary to promote gender equality and remove heteronormativity as well. The rhetoric surrounding marriage is extremely sexist and focuses a lot on the woman serving the man and being faithful to the man, but not the other way around. When the religious leader conducting the marriage ritual says, ‘I now pronounce you man and wife, you may kiss the bride,’ it bothers me and it is the specific words used that I have a problem with. ‘Man and wife.’ This phrase shows me that the man is a man before he is a husband, yet the woman is a wife before she is an individual. This phrase is also completely heteronormative, assuming the identities of the people getting married are hetero identities. The union of two people under love is something to be celebrated but the entire vocabulary in doing so from the weddings that I’ve attended has just been unsettling. I was the ‘maid of honor’ for my best high school friend’s wedding last June and listening to their preacher recite the ceremonial script was bizarre to me because he focused almost all of his intentions on my friend being faithful to her husband and serving him as his wife but failed to mention anything regarding him and his “duties” as a husband. The kind of wedding that would promote equality to both parties would be equal vows, promising that they will love each other forever, take care of each other and respect each other. Shanley quotes Chad Brand explaining the Southern Baptist Convention’s position on marriage equality, “while the Bible teaches full equality, it does not affirm egalitarianism or interchangeability in all things… male-female equality and male headship may seem paradoxical, but they are both taught in Scripture, much like a thread of two strands” (19). These literal translations from the Bible are hurting the women’s movement for equality. The Bible is used for religious marriages and it may seem “traditional” to some, but since when is tradition more important than autonomy, individuality or equality? It should not be that way. There needs to be a way to promote gender equality within a marriage and it needs to start with the ceremony itself. Religious people need to see that they can still have a religious ceremony without the direct sexist quotes from the Bible, that in this day and age would never even be uttered out loud unless out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich.
Parents and teachers are always telling children, ‘you never know what the future has in store for you!’ and it’s always with a positive inflection. I hope the future has gender equality in store for all of us. Not just the ideas of equality, but the actions taken in order to promote and fulfill equality. The actual separation of Church and State, the exploration of contractual marriage and reformation of marriage law and the reform of the marriage ceremony would all promote the ideal movement towards the removal of the patriarchal understanding of female submission and male dominance surrounding the institution of marriage.
Works Cited
Shanley, Mary Lyndon. Just Marriage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Print.
Print.
"Marriage Rights and Benefits." NOLO: Law for All. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2011.
<http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html>.
<http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment