;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Sociology 300 Research Paper follow Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands in granting federal recognition to same-sex marriage For Better or Worse: (Coontz, 2005). In 1993, the HawaiÔi Supreme Court decided that the Equal Protection Clause of the The Rocky Road of State Constitution protected the right of same-sex couples to marry (Kindregan, 2007). Following this Same-Sex Marriage in decision, a constitutional amendment was enacted to explicitly deÞne marriage as only between a man the United States and a woman. President Clinton introduced the Defense of Marriage Act to similarly deÞne marriage Kylie Alexandra as heterosexual for the purpose of federal law. The

HawaiÔi State Legislature then became the Þrst in the The concept of marriage as a Þxed, unchanging nation to recognize domestic partnerships, where institution represents a common misperception born same-sex couples receive similar legal beneÞts to from oneÕs own subjective experience, which is then married heterosexual couples (Kindregan, 2007). projected back throughout human history (Haeverle, Presently, ten states and the District of Columbia1 1983; Kindregan 2007). However, as Stephanie offer same-sex couples legal recognition via registered Coontz (2005) points out, marriage as an institution domestic partnerships or civil unions. Massachusetts steadily evolves and manifests itself in multiple forms and Connecticut are currently the only two states to suit a variety of functions in all recorded human that grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. societies, except one. The pace of change increased On May 15th, 2008, the California Supreme Court from the mid-eighteenth century onwards, when overturned the stateÕs ban on same-sex marriages, Victorian marital ideals began to reßect the belief that citing constitutional protections surrounding the right love between two partners represented the idyllic to marry (Dolan, 2008). This ruling was subsequently foundation for marriage. This presented a radical nulliÞed by the ballot measure known as Proposition shift away from the practice of arranged marriages 8, which amended the state constitution to deÞne where love formed a potential consequence of the marriage as between a man and a woman. California partnership, but not the motivating cause (Coontz, voters narrowly approved Proposition 8 during the 2005). Today, men and women access greater freedom November election (Garrison et al, 2008). than ever before to make individual choices about Ms. DeGeneres and Ms. de Rossi took their marital future. The array of decisions includes advantage of the narrow window of opportunity whom one should marry, if one should marry at all, to get married after having been together for four what the best age to marry is, and if they should years (Belge, 2008a; Kort, 2008). Ms. DeGeneres is have children (Coontz, 2005). It should come as little a popular television talk-show host who has won surprise then, that into this mix, the sex of oneÕs life- several daytime Emmy awards. Ms. de Rossi was long partner is also no longer constrained by strict born Amanda Rogers in Melbourne, Australia, societal norms. and changed her name at the age of Þfteen after a The marriage of Ellen DeGeneres and character in ShakespeareÕs The Merchant of Venice. Portia de Rossi on August 16th, 2008, in Los Angeles, She has appeared in the television shows, Ally California, is one example of the growing number of McBeal, and Arrested Development. They Þrst met in legally wed same-sex couples in the United States. 2000, but in 2004, when both attended the VH1 ÒBig Nonetheless, same-sex couples still face signiÞcant in Ô04Ó awards show, their attraction to each other was legal and cultural obstacles in their quest for full apparent (Belge, 2008a; Kort, 2005). marital rights. This paper reviews same-sex marriage The endogamous nature of homosexual as the latest frontier in the evolution of marriage, with relations contrasts with expected, and some would the marriage of Ms. DeGeneres and Ms. de Rossi as say, preferred norms of sexual orientation in the lens through which we can view the shifting legal and social status of married gay and lesbian couples 1 The ten states include New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington in the United States. State, Maryland, Connecticut, HawaiÔi, California, New Jersey, It is unlikely that the United States will soon Oregon, and Maine. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Civil_union#References. 117 American society. Nonetheless, strong ethnic and in the English ecclesiastical courts, which held class endogamy persists, which is often internalized jurisdiction over marriage and associated marital and outwardly expressed through assortative law. However, American colonies expressed a mating (Rauch et al, 2003). Ms. de Rossi and Ms. more diverse set of views regarding the authority DeGeneres share similar characteristics regarding over marriage, with New England proclaiming it ethnicity and social economic status, and both are a purely civil issue (Kindregan, 2007). Around the members of the Hollywood elite (Kort, 2008). These same time, idealized constructions of potential mates facts reinforce the propinquity that is a common began to include more affectionate terms, such as feature of many relationships, regardless of sexual mutual support and companionship, in addition to orientation. Propinquity denotes the tendency for the desired ÒindustriousnessÓ (Coontz, 2005:147). individuals to live near their potential partners, and to Moreover, America diverged from religious views that live near individuals that share similar demographic forbade divorce on the Biblically-inspired grounds characteristics; hence, partners usually mirror similar that husband and wife are irrevocable joined and demographic characteristics (Rauch et al, 2003). established divorce provisions in Massachusetts In addition, cultural norms dictate that seventy-Þve years before England (Kindregan, 2007). weddings typically involve large public rituals where The absence of a monarchy and the the couple announces their shared commitment establishment of a representative government paved (Rauch et al, 2003). The DeGeneres Ð de Rossi the way for more equitable forms of marriage to wedding reßected many of these elements. Writing appear; in England, the monarchical hierarchy, with for the popular LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and the King at the helm, appeared on a smaller scale Transgender) magazine, The Advocate, Michele Kort within each family, with the husband as the head called their wedding an ÒarchetypalÓ celebrity of the household (Coontz, 2005). Enlightenment wedding similar to those often seen on the cover of ideals combined with feminist principles to promote People magazine (2008). Kort (2008) contrasts the equality between the sexes, but this was somewhat lack of media ÒbacklashÓ at their wedding with the tempered by the Òcult of female purityÓ which treatment Ellen DeGeneres received after her public emerged during the nineteenth century (Coontz, Òcoming outÓ on the cover of Time magazine in 2005:159). The cult of female purity sought to 1997. Subsequent to her public acknowledgement of stabilize changing relations between men and women homosexuality, Ms. DeGeneresÕ television character, by delineating separate spheres of male and female which was loosely based on her life, also became a activity and by reigning in womenÕs sexuality. lesbian. After protests from conservative religious However, this was only a temporary reprieve. The groups, the ABC network cancelled the show, and subordination of women inside the home gradually Ms. DeGeneres experienced difÞculty Þnding work led to the sexualization of marriage and Þnally, (Kort, 2008). Kort (2008) uses Ellen DeGeneres as a the positioning of marriage as a highly intimate barometer for how attitudes towards homosexuality arrangement that nurtured individual fulÞllment have changed over the past ten years, and the (Coontz, 2005). DeGeneres Ð de Rossi wedding as an express signal The loosening of marital norms engendered of how great that shift has been. Unfortunately, that multiple ramiÞcations for same-sex relationships. forecast turned out to be premature, as Proposition 8 In 1915, writer Margaret Anderson declared that has thrown into doubt the legal status of all same-sex homosexual love was no different from heterosexual weddings performed from May through November love. Gay communities existed in many cities 2008 in California (Garrison et al, 2008). around the country. Nonetheless, the emphasis on Conßicting arguments exist about how marital intimacy decreased social acceptance of close ßexible the institution of marriage truly is. Erwin J. relationships between women, which earlier had Haeberle (1983) points out that any discussion about provided many women an important avenue for marriage is fraught with difÞculties, owing to its affectionate self-expression (Coontz, 2005). various cultural forms and functions. For that reason, Two twentieth century U.S. Supreme Court the following discussion will focus on the institution decisions concerning racial miscegenation are of marriage as it has appeared within the United important in the journey towards federally-recognized States. same-sex marriages. In 1923, the Supreme Court Undoubtedly, marriage in the United decided that marriage formed an essential part of the States exhibits a certain amount of Judeo-Christian pursuit of happiness. In 1967, the Court designated inßuence (Kindregan, 2007). The marital system marriage as a Òbasic civil rightÓ underlying the introduced into the American colonies has its roots survival of American civilization (cited in Coontz,

2005:256). These arguments can be interpreted in two, different sexual habits than straight men and women, mutually-exclusive ways: Þrstly, as a guarantee of the and that in a homosexual partnership with children right of all people to marry, regardless of personal at least one partner does not maintain a biological traits (e.g. race, sexual orientation); or alternately, as connection to the child, the incentives to either enter an indicator of the need to keep marriage, and thus or exit a marriage will be different than heterosexual marriage law, pertaining solely to heterosexual unions incentives. This warrants an entirely separate body of lest the introduction of same-sex marriage upset the marital law, or no law at all. stability of this fundamental institution. Nonetheless, Not withstanding AllenÕs suspect procreation- by the end of the twentieth century, marriage typically oriented basis of marriage, and his reliance on represented the union of two people who have chosen stereotypes of gay and lesbian sexual activity, the to spend their life together, and if fertile or if desired, evidence he introduces is debatable. Allen (2006) uses to raise and care for their children. With procreation the perceived ramiÞcations of the introduction of no- now a matter of choice, love, companionship, and fault divorce law as an example of the unintended joint Þnancial security form preeminent marital values consequences of changes to marital law. He cites (Haeberle, 1983). one study which shows that women who live in no- From this vantage point, the evolution fault divorce states work on average 4.5 hours more of marriage away from its religious foundation per week than women who live in states where fault towards a civil-sanctioned entity, and the loosening must be determined in order to obtain a divorce (973). of expectations that the purpose of marriage is to Hence, the reasoning goes, no-fault divorce causes have children, appears to predicate acceptance of increased married womenÕs labor-force participation same-sex marriage. Certainly, love, companionship, rate because they are protecting themselves against and Þnancial security are not solely the domain of abandonment, and this ultimately detriments the heterosexual unions (Haeberle, 1983). Coontz (2005) quality of life for the entire family. Allen (2006) observes that the acceptance of alternative forms of accords the phenomenon of Òsuper-mom burnoutÓ marriage, like same-sex marriage, is correlated with to no-fault divorce (273), when other causes, such the emergence of positive features like intimacy, as the cost of living, inßexible work schedules, and mutual trust and support, and economic equity in inequitable distribution of household labor, also heterosexual arrangements. When men and women warrant consideration. are no longer polar opposites, trained to occupy The bottom line for Allen (2006) is that same- different ends of the productive spectrum, but instead sex marriage will result in a range of unforeseen mix more freely with overlapping spheres of activity, changes to marital law, which will make marriage less there is less impetus for them to come together in appealing to heterosexuals. The number of single- some sort of gendered complimentarity. Indeed, parent households will substantially increase, with Coontz (2005) believes that the turmoil surrounding impacts on the next generation signiÞcant enough to the issue of same-sex marriage is rather like trying affect the overall quality of civilization. to Òlock the barn door after the horses have already This paints quite a drastic picture, and as goneÓ (274). However, resistance to same-sex Ms. DeGeneres states, ÒItÕs not like Portia and I remains high. One of the arguments that obtained the staying home and watching Dancing with the Stars greatest traction is that of the Òslippery-slope,Ó where is affecting anybodyÓ (cited in Belge, 2008b). Of legalized same-sex marriage will unwittingly unleash course, there is more to marriage than that, but in a host of other consequences. Western culture, marriage is the highest expression Douglas W. Allen (2006) is one such of commitment a couple can make, and it usually proponent of this viewpoint. Allen (2006) promotes involves a greater degree of responsibility, intimacy, a ÒDarwinianÓ view of marriage based on the and Þdelity than other arrangements (Coontz, 2005). belief that marriage has evolved into a highly So while Allen (2006) portrays only the negative efÞcient institution - for heterosexuals Ð and that consequences of same-sex marriage, there will any tampering with marital law to accommodate undoubtedly be many positive consequences as well homosexuals will negatively impact the law as it as a result of enfranchising same-sex couples with pertains to straight couples (256). The underlying the status and respect accorded to married couples in theory is that marriage is designed to regulate the American society (Coontz, 2005). sexual behavior of men and women so that they While Ms. DeGeneres has long advocated produce and invest in their offspring, and thus ensure for same-sex marriage, she is not supported by the the continuity of the society. Since, according to entire gay and lesbian community. John DÕEmilio Allen (2006), gay and lesbian individuals maintain (2006) calls the pursuit of marriage an Òunmitigated

119 disasterÓ because the conservative backlash has Instead of rushing to deÞne marriage along produced new anti-gay laws (10). When the mayor sex and gender lines, a better solution might be of San Francisco allowed the issuance of marriage to Þrmly recognize marriage as a civil institution licenses to same-sex couples in 2004, four thousand subject to the progression and evolution of civil couples rushed to get married (Beck, 2005; Coontz, society (Kindregan, 2007). Undeniably, new legal 2005). In response, President Bush called for a issues that emerge from full recognition of same-sex constitutional amendment to deÞne marriage as marriages will need to be addressed, and there will between a man and a woman, and eleven states be a transitional period. Distinct divorce laws may introduced ballot box measures to ban gay marriage, arise that pertains speciÞcally to same-sex couples to all of which passed. The California Supreme Court facilitate matters concerning child custody. Existing subsequently voided the licenses issued in San laws relevant to heterosexual adoptive parents that Francisco (Beck, 2005). divorce may offer some guidance here. But these DÕEmilio (2006) advocates greater recognition issues are not substantial enough to warrant outright of the variety of alternative family structures in the rejection of the right of same-sex couples to marry. U.S., and that along with that, gays and lesbians Those who wish to enter marriage via a religious in domestic partnerships and civil unions will ritual can do so of their own accord, but this in no receive the respect and beneÞts they warrant and way impacts their civil obligations and entitlements deserve. For many, however, these arrangements are (Kindregan, 2007). irredeemably inferior to the status of institutionalized Perhaps then, the marriage of couples marriage (Coontz, 2005). The way forward is like Alison Beck and her female partner need not uncertain. Kindregan (2007) advises that in a country only occur on one day of mayoral-inspired civil in which people of diverse religious faiths are covered disobedience in San Francisco (Beck, 2005); and the by one body of law, it is important to separate legal status of marriages like that of Ellen DeGeneres religious beliefs from the civil institution of marriage. and Portia de Rossi would not be suddenly thrown The largely religiously-motivated supporters of into doubt based on the religious whims of a slim Proposition 8 described the measure as a Òmoral majority of individuals who turned up on election battleÓ (Dolan, 2008). When do we cross the line from day (Garrison et al, 2008). As a constitutional law enacting law based on religious beliefs, held by a slim professor at the University of Pennsylvania remarked, majority, to giving unconstitutional recognition to a Òthe majority is not always supposed to have its wayÓ particular religion? (cited in Dolan, 2008).

120 REFERENCES

Allen, Douglas W. ÒAn Economic Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage Laws.Ó Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 26(2006): 949-980. Beck, Alison. ÒTaking the Long View: Reßections on the Road to Marriage Equality.Ó Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law, and Justice 20(2005): 50-55. Belge, Kathy. ÒLesbian Life.Ó About.com. 2008a. 09 Dec 2008 http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/ famouslesbians/ig/Famous-Lesbian-Couples/Ellen---Portia.htm. Belge, Kathy. ÒLesbian Life.Ó About.com. 2008b. 13 Dec 2008 http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/ lesbianactors/p/EllenPortia.htm. ÒCivil Unions.Ó Wikipedia.org. 13 Dec 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union #References. Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Penguin Books, 2005. DÕEmilio, John. ÒThe Marriage Fight is Setting Us Back.Ó Gay and Lesbian Review 13(2006): 10-11. Haeberle, Erwin J. ÒMarriage.Ó The Sex Atlas: New Popular Reference Edition 1983. Kindregan, Jr., Charles P. ÒReligion, Polygamy, and Non-Traditional Families: Disparate Views in the Evolution of Marriage in History and in the Debate Over Same-Sex Unions.Ó Suffolk University Law Review XLI:1(2007) 19-48. Kort, Michele. ÒPortia Heart & Soul.Ó Advocate.com. 29 Aug 2005. The Advocate. 09 Dec 2008 http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid20037.asp.

Kort, Michele. ÒAs Ellen Goes, So Goes the Nation.Ó Advocate.com. 10 Sept 2008. The Advocate. 09 Dec 2008 http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid61030.asp. Rauch, Kristin Liv, Dr. Jeffrey Cohen, and Dr. Patricia L. Johnson. ÒHuman Mate Selection: An Exploration of Assortative Mating Preferences.Ó (2003) 13 Dec 2008 http://forms. gradsch.psu.eu/diversity/mcnair/2003/rauch.pdf.

121