The Marriage Book (42 page)

FREDERICK DOUGLASS

FINSBURY CHAPEL SPEECH, 1846

Since America’s colonial days, slave marriages had been prohibited, and even when they occurred, they were rarely taken into consideration by owners. It was not until the end of the Civil War, when the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, that marriage between African-Americans was legally recognized by the United States. Twenty years before—in the midst of his improbable, eloquent, and hugely influential career as an abolitionist—the former slave Frederick Douglass (circa 1818–1895) made this argument in a speech at Finsbury Chapel in England.

Interracial marriage was not legally protected throughout the United States until the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in
Loving v. Virginia
.

The marriage institution cannot exist among slaves, and one sixth of the population of democratic America is denied its privileges by the law of the land. What is to be thought of a nation boasting of its liberty, boasting of its humanity, boasting of its christianity, boasting of its love of justice and purity, and yet having within its own borders three millions of persons denied by law the right of marriage? . . . If any of those three million find for themselves companions, and prove themselves honest, upright, virtuous persons to each other, yet in these cases—few as I am bound to confess they are—the virtuous live in constant apprehension of being torn asunder by the merciless man-stealers that claim them as their property.

HENRY BLACKWELL AND LUCY STONE

MARRIAGE PROTEST, 1855

Suffragist Lucy Stone (1818–1893) kept her name when she married abolitionist Henry Blackwell (1825–1909), and in the marriage ceremony they created, they gave voice both to their mutual devotion and to their shared rejection of the marital laws that still deprived women of so much freedom and financial equality. Heartily endorsing the unconventional contract, Unitarian minister Thomas Wentworth Higginson presided over the wedding, later stating: “I never perform the marriage ceremony without a renewed sense of the iniquity of our present system of laws, in respect to marriage;—a system by which ‘man and wife are one, and that one is the husband.’ It was with my hearty concurrence, therefore, that the following protest was read and signed, as part of the nuptial ceremony.”

While we acknowledge our mutual affection, by publicly assuming the sacred relationship of husband and wife, yet in justice to ourselves and a great principle, we deem it a duty to declare that this act on our part implies no sanction of, nor promise of voluntary obedience to, such of the present laws of marriage as refuse to recognize the wife as an independent rational being, while they confer upon the husband an injurious and unnatural superiority, investing him with legal powers which no honorable man would exercise, and which no man should possess.

We protest especially against the laws which give to the husband

1. The custody of his wife’s person.

2. The exclusive control and guardianship of their children.

3. The sole ownership of her personal, and use of her real[,] estate, unless previously settled upon her, or placed in the hands of trustees, as in the case of minors, lunatics, and idiots.

4. The absolute right to the product of her industry.

5. Also against laws which give to the widower so much larger and more permanent an interest in the property of his deceased wife, than they give to the widow in that of her deceased husband.

6. Finally, against the whole system by which “the legal existence of the wife is suspended during marriage,” so that in most States she neither has a legal part in the choice of her residence, nor can she make a will, nor sue or be sued in her own name, nor inherit property.

We
believe the personal independence and equal human rights can never be forfeited, except for crime; that marriage should be an equal and permanent partnership, and so recognized by law; that until it is so recognized, married partners should provide against the radical injustice of present laws, by every means in their power.

We believe that where domestic difficulties arise, no appeal should be made to legal tribunals under existing laws, but that all difficulties should be submitted to the equitable adjustment of arbitrators mutually chosen.

Thus reverencing Law, we enter our earnest protest against rules and customs which are unworthy of the name, since they violate justice, the essence of all Law.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

LETTER TO MILEVA MARIĆ, 1914

Unquestionably the most famous and influential scientist of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein (1879–1955) was considerably less impressive as a husband. He married a fellow scientist named Mileva Marić in 1903 despite his parents’ objections. But after a decade in which he composed some of his most brilliant papers and moved from a Swiss patent office to increasingly prestigious academic posts, their marriage foundered. In Berlin, Einstein began an affair with a cousin, Elsa Löwenthal, to whom he wrote in 1913: “I treat my wife as an employee whom I cannot fire.” After persuading Mileva to move their family to Berlin, he laid down the following conditions for continuing the marriage. She agreed at first, but a few months later, they separated and later divorced.

Marić and Einstein had two sons, and also had a daughter, Lieserl, before their marriage; she is said to have had scarlet fever, but whether she died or was put up for adoption remains unknown.

CONDITIONS.

A. You will make sure

1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;

2. that I will receive my three meals regularly
in my room
;

3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for
my use only
.

B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, you will forego 1. my sitting at home with you;

2. my going out or traveling with you.

C. You
will obey the following points in your relations with me:

1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;

2. you will stop talking to me if I request it;

3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.

D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior.

ISADORA DUNCAN

MY LIFE
, 1927

The renowned dancer Isadora Duncan (1877–1927) was as unconventional in her private life as she was in her approach to ballet. Rejecting the idea of marriage, she had two children (by two different men) out of wedlock. In 1922, she did marry Russian poet Sergei Yesenin so that he could legally come to the United States.

Both of Duncan’s children died with their nanny in a 1913 car accident. Three years after their marriage, Yesenin returned to the Soviet Union, where he committed suicide.

Any intelligent woman who reads the marriage contract, and then goes into it, deserves all the consequences.

MARGARET MARSHALL

MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DECISION, 2003

The case was
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
; the venue was the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The ruling, written for the 4–3 majority by Chief Justice Margaret Hilary Marshall (1944–), was the first of its kind in the United States and held it unconstitutional for the state to deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. The arguments were many, some harking back to the
Loving v. Virginia
ruling that protected interracial marriage, but at the heart of the decision were several paragraphs that have frequently been used since in wedding ceremonies—both gay and straight.

As of this writing, thirty-six other states and the District of Columbia had legalized same-sex marriage, and in June of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5–4, had struck down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, meaning that the federal government must acknowledge and protect the rights and benefits of same-sex couples legally married in their states.

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. . . .

Without question, civil marriage enhances the “welfare of the community.” It is a “social institution of the highest importance.” French v. McAnarney, supra. Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, ensures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds, and tracks important epidemiological and demographic data.

Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.

JONATHAN RAUCH

“GAY MARRIAGE IS GOOD FOR AMERICA,” 2008

Conservative columnist Jonathan Rauch (1960–) published this argument for same-sex marriage the week that California’s state supreme court first allowed the marriage of gay couples. Rauch, a longtime contributor to
National Journal
and
The Atlantic
, went on to write a memoir about growing up gay,
Denial: My 25 Years Without a Soul
.

The AIDS quilt, conceived in 1985, commemorates victims of the disease with hand-sewn panels from friends and family. By 1996, the last time it could be displayed in one place, the quilt was large enough to cover the National Mall in Washington, DC.

More ceremonies will follow, at least until November, when gay marriage will go before California’s voters. They should choose to keep it. To understand why, imagine your life without marriage. Meaning, not merely your life if you didn’t happen to get married. What I am asking you to imagine is life without even the possibility of marriage.

Re-enter your childhood, but imagine your first crush, first kiss, first date and first sexual encounter, all bereft of any hope of marriage as a destination for your feelings. Re-enter your first serious relationship, but think about it knowing that marrying the person is out of the question.

Imagine that in the law’s eyes you and your soul mate will never be more than acquaintances. And now add even more strangeness. Imagine coming of age into a whole community, a whole culture, without marriage and the bonds of mutuality and kinship that go with it.

What is this weird world like? It has more sex and less commitment than a world with marriage. It is a world of fragile families living on the shadowy outskirts of the law; a world marked by heightened fear of loneliness or abandonment in crisis or old age; a world in some respects not even civilized, because marriage is the foundation of civilization.

This was the world I grew up in. The AIDS quilt is its monument.

Few heterosexuals can imagine living in such an upside-down world, where love separates you from marriage instead of connecting you with it. Many don’t bother to try. Instead, they say same-sex couples can get the equivalent of a marriage by going to a lawyer and drawing up paperwork—as if heterosexual couples would settle for anything of the sort.

Even a moment’s reflection shows the fatuousness of “Let them eat contracts.” No private transaction excuses you from testifying in court against your partner, or entitles you to Social Security survivor benefits, or authorizes joint tax filing, or secures U.S. residency for your partner if he or she is a foreigner. I could go on and on.

Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community—which is why there is always a witness.
Two people can’t go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn’t have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties.