No, we DON'T want to defend "traditional marriage"

[2xx1xy1JD]

Libby Anne makes a good point: www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2 ... riage.html

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg put it quite well.

"Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court's decision in 1982, when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?"

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/04 ... hallengers (link unbroken, liberal news site)

For those of you who aren't familiar with it, this was what the Head and Master Rule was all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchberg_v._Feenstra

Until 1979 in Louisiana, husbands had final say over all property matters, even if the property was jointly owned. You know that dystopian fundie fantasy where all husbands get the final word and total control, and don't have to bother even telling their wives that they are mortgaging the house? Well, that was the state of the law.

[NachosFlandersStyle]

Yes, this! I think a lot of opposition to same-sex marriage comes from people who see marriage as dependent on unequal gender roles, with the man at the head. The prospect of two people of the same sex being married challenges the idea that a man must dominate.

While we're on the topic, I'm so tired of hearing about "traditional gender roles" as if this Angel in the House idea is anything but a Victorian invention. Women have been doing hard manual labor since the dawn of time-- chopping wood, hauling water, farming, often while their husband's sat around waiting for the next hunt. Before the industrial age there isn't such a sharp delineation between men's and women's spheres. They may be doing different tasks but they are generally working together on a farm or in a cottage industry. Nuclear family living arrangements were not the historical standard in most places. Employment was not the same concept we have today. Both men and women worked hard to subsist, it's not like one had a "career" and the other didn't. And even after industrialization, a solid portion of women were always in the workforce, many of them doing grunt work that nobody else wanted. Go check out Lewis Hine's photographs of factory workers. Hell, both of my grandmothers worked their whole lives. Don't tell me that's some sort of perverted modernism.

Sorry to get off track, I just get so frustrated about ahistorical nonsense and the mischacterization of labor!

[Terrie]

And in many non-Western societies, the roles of men and women do not map to Western concepts in the slightest. In one culture in Papua New Guinea, traditionally, women literally make money. They use specially made bundles of banana leaves as a unit of exchange, which are made by women. Now watch fundie heads explode.

[Imrlgoddess]

Libby Anne makes a good point: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... riage.html

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg put it quite well.

"Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court's decision in 1982, when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?"

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/04 ... hallengers (link unbroken, liberal news site)

For those of you who aren't familiar with it, this was what the Head and Master Rule was all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchberg_v._Feenstra

Until 1979 in Louisiana, husbands had final say over all property matters, even if the property was jointly owned. You know that dystopian fundie fantasy where all husbands get the final word and total control, and don't have to bother even telling their wives that they are mortgaging the house? Well, that was the state of the law.

I can't begin to express how much I love this. Louisiana with its Napoleanic Code was one of the first states to institute covenant marriage. (I almost got one first time around- dodged that bullet). I live in a more diverse town than where I was raised, it's been an eye opening last 20 years. My hardcore Catholic friends use the line: "as long as my kids don't see it & they're not pushing it on me, I have no problem with gay people" & the gem "I don't care if they have a union, just don't call it a marriage, that's not what marriage is". Thus saith the mom of soon to be 5 with the husband who works at least 80 hours a week to keep up.

Again when the "love"..... love the sinner, hate the sin. Heard it a thousand times growing up. Never mind that in my not so little primarily Catholic town.... It's easier for me to count those who don't come from divorced families than those who do.

[sparkles]

In my head, all I can hear is Marlon Brando's Stanley Kowalski yammering on about the Napoleonic Code.

How about a few more details on that subject... Let's cop a gander at the bill of sale... What do you mean? She didn't show you no papers, no deed of sale or nothin' like that?... Well then, what was it then? Given away to charity?... Oh I don't care if she hears me. Now let's see the papers... Now listen. Did you ever hear of the Napoleonic code, Stella?... Now just let me enlighten you on a point or two... Now we got here in the state of Louisiana what's known as the Napoleonic code. You see, now according to that, what belongs to the wife belongs to the husband also, and vice versa... It looks to me like you've been swindled baby. And when you get swindled under Napoleonic code, I get swindled too and I don't like to get swindled... Where's the money if the place was sold?

It's a shame that there are still so many Stanley Kowalskis who wish laws like this were still in place. STELLA!

[ILoveJellybeans]

Traditional marriage? I can certainly support someone choosing to marry more than one person....but not so much on the arranged marriage, its better now its changed so we marry for love.

[sunshine]

Libby Anne makes a good point: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... riage.html

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg put it quite well.

"Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court's decision in 1982, when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?"

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/04 ... hallengers (link unbroken, liberal news site)

For those of you who aren't familiar with it, this was what the Head and Master Rule was all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchberg_v._Feenstra

Until 1979 in Louisiana, husbands had final say over all property matters, even if the property was jointly owned. You know that dystopian fundie fantasy where all husbands get the final word and total control, and don't have to bother even telling their wives that they are mortgaging the house? Well, that was the state of the law.

If this is her position, why not get rid of marriage instead of "redefining" it? Oh, yeah because of the revenue that marriages and divorces create.

[formergothardite]

If this is her position, why not get rid of marriage instead of "redefining" it? Oh, yeah because of the revenue that marriages and divorces create.

What is the problem with redefining marriage? Things are redefined all the time.

[Georgiana]

Personally, I think it is EGREGIOUS that traditional marriage is not upheld. I mean, what is the point of birthing, feeding, and educating children if I don't have the option to essentially sell them in marriage to cement friendships, form alliances, increase my assets, or otherwise further my own interests.

What IS it with people waiting until maturity for marriage?!? Some of THE MOST SUCCESSFUL marriages in history were forged between young teenagers!!! Or one teenager and a much older groom. Speaking of that, I just want to point out that it is MUCH easier to make it until "death do you part" if one party has a high chance of dying before the other reaches an independent age.

Ah yes, things were simpler back then.

[salsa]

What is the problem with redefining marriage? Things are redefined all the time.

What astounds me is that this Head and Master rule wasn't called into accountability until 1981!

[alatariel]

Yes, this! I think a lot of opposition to same-sex marriage comes from people who see marriage as dependent on unequal gender roles, with the man at the head. The prospect of two people of the same sex being married challenges the idea that a man must dominate.

While we're on the topic, I'm so tired of hearing about "traditional gender roles" as if this Angel in the House idea is anything but a Victorian invention. Women have been doing hard manual labor since the dawn of time-- chopping wood, hauling water, farming, often while their husband's sat around waiting for the next hunt. Before the industrial age there isn't such a sharp delineation between men's and women's spheres. They may be doing different tasks but they are generally working together on a farm or in a cottage industry. Nuclear family living arrangements were not the historical standard in most places. Employment was not the same concept we have today. Both men and women worked hard to subsist, it's not like one had a "career" and the other didn't. And even after industrialization, a solid portion of women were always in the workforce, many of them doing grunt work that nobody else wanted. Go check out Lewis Hine's photographs of factory workers. Hell, both of my grandmothers worked their whole lives. Don't tell me that's some sort of perverted modernism.

Sorry to get off track, I just get so frustrated about ahistorical nonsense and the mischacterization of labor!

On top of all of that, the so-called "cult of domesticity," with women staying at home and being mothers, has always only been a privilege afforded to the wealthy. Poor women have never had the luxury of saying home and not working--they needed her income in addition to her husband's or else they wouldn't have had enough to survive on. A lot of the time they didn't, even with husband and wife and any able children working. So like you said, women have always been working. It's just that these women didn't get to write history, so they've been erased. (here's more on the cult of domesticity, if anyone's interested. not breaking the link because it's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Domesticity)

In regards to redefining marriage: we've done that a million times over already and marriage isn't the same in every culture anyway, so to be honest, I don't really feel like it should even be a point in the debate. The world isn't going to explode if we make it more inclusive. :roll:

[Imrlgoddess]

What astounds me is that this Head and Master rule wasn't called into accountability until 1981!

That's Louisiana 'chere. We're lucky it was thrown out when it was!

[NachosFlandersStyle]

On top of all of that, the so-called "cult of domesticity," with women staying at home and being mothers, has always only been a privilege afforded to the wealthy. Poor women have never had the luxury of saying home and not working--they needed her income in addition to her husband's or else they wouldn't have had enough to survive on. A lot of the time they didn't, even with husband and wife and any able children working. So like you said, women have always been working. It's just that these women didn't get to write history, so they've been erased. (here's more on the cult of domesticity, if anyone's interested. not breaking the link because it's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Domesticity)

In regards to redefining marriage: we've done that a million times over already and marriage isn't the same in every culture anyway, so to be honest, I don't really feel like it should even be a point in the debate. The world isn't going to explode if we make it more inclusive. :roll:

And their work was (and is) even erased in their own time. "Women's work" is just like any other work except that it goes uncompensated. And then we decide that work only counts if you get paid.

[lawlifelgbt]

I love RBG! She spoke at my school last fall, and told us about her journey fighting for women's rights and how even her own family discouraged her from being a high-profile lawyer as a woman.

AND I GOT TO ASK HER A QUESTION ABOUT LGBTQ RIGHTS! *excited keysmashing*.

She's the best ever. When my wife and I get a good photo of ourselves, I'd like to write to her and thank her for standing up for my family.