Here’s an excellent column: Stephanie Coontz explains how marriage has evolved in the last forty years into something that is equally suited for same-sex couples. In brief, contraception, decoupling marriage from constant child-rearing, and the ideal of a high-companionship marriage have made it an equal-opportunity relationship.
Stephanie Coontz is the author of Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage.
From the publisher:
Marriage today is held up as a blissful haven of love and friendship, sex and stability. We long for the gold standard, the traditional marriage; but marriage turns out to have a checkered past-the “traditional marriage” was evanescent. This real look at what people think of as “traditional” finally explains why so many married people are so unsatisfied.
In this groundbreaking book, award-winning historian Stephanie Coontz takes us on an eye- opening journey from the marital intrigues of ancient Babylon to the sexual torments of Victorian lovers to the current debates over the meaning and future of marriage. She provides the definitive story of marriage’s evolution from the arranged unions common since the dawn of civilization into the intimate, sexually fulfilling but volatile relationships of today.
For most of our history, marriage was not a relationship based on mutual love between a breadwinning husband and an at-home wife, but an institution devoted to acquiring wealth, power, and property. Picking a mate on the basis of something as irrational as love would have been considered absurd. Only in the nineteenth century did marriage move to the center of people’s emotional lives, when the wife became the “angel of the home” and the husband the “provider.” Yet these Victorian ideals contain the seeds of today’s marriage crisis. As people began to expect romance and intimacy in their marriages, their unions became more fragile. The postwar era of the 1950s ushered in a brief “Golden Age” of marriage—the Ozzie and Harriet years—but the same advances in birth control, increased individual autonomy, and women’s equality that made marriage more satisfying than it had been in the past also undermined its stability.
Marriage has changed more in the last thirty years than in the previous five thousand, and few of the old “rules” for marriage still apply. In the courts, the op-ed pieces, and at the dinner table, battles rage over what marriage means, why people do it, and who can do it. Marriage, a History is the one book you need to understand not only the vicissitudes of modern marriage but also gay marriage, “living together” and divorce. Stephanie Coontz shatters dozens of myths about the past and future of married life and shows us why marriage, though more fragile today, can be more rewarding than ever before.
See also “Same-sex marriage huff” and “Mounties get their men”.
Random Thoughts: If not now, when? 
Sunday, 6 July 2008 at 18:46
So, am I to conclude the Institution of Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with human beings (in objective, i.e., physical, reality) and human relations (in objective, i.e., physical, reality). That the Institution of Marriage concerns human beings and human relations only in human subjective reality, ( i.e., what human beings think, feel, believe, and human subjective reality of the law)? Question 1. Does the Institution of Marriage have anything to do with the perpetuation of the human species in objective i.e., physical reality? Question 2. Does the Institution of marriage have anything to do with mating heterosexual human relations in objective i.e., physical, reality? 3. Does the Institution of Marriage have anything to do with matingless opposite gender human relations in objective i.e., physical reality? And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated? So, am I to conclude same sex marriage advocates claim infallibility? There’s an old saying, “Be very careful what you ask for because you just might get it”. And there’s another old saying, “Getting something is one thing keeping it is another”.
Sunday, 6 July 2008 at 23:06
Au contraire. But we have marriage because people fall in love and want to have a permanent relationship, and who are you to dictate whom they can fall in love with if both are consenting adults. We don’t have matings because we have some platonic ideal Marriage; we have marriages and marriage customs because people fall in love and mate. And if you think marriage is only for breeding, then marriage between mutually infertile couples or between old fogeys should be illegal, too. Just butt out of other people’s lives.
Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 17:35
The Institution of Marriage and the Perpetuation of the Human Species both involve human relations. As far as human relations are concerned the Perpetuation of the Human Species is mating heterosexual relations–mating heterosexual relations is mating the Perpetuation of the Human Species. If the Perpetuation of the Human Species has nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage then how can a man and a woman be married as heterosexual relations? If the Perpetuation of the Human species has nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage then a man and a woman can only be married as matingless relations. Mating is heterosexual relations the Perpetuation of the human species. The Perpetuation of the Human Species is mating heterosexual relations. Trying to split up mating and heterosexual relations as being two different terms with two different meanings for two different human relations is an evil thing to do.
Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 21:19
So you insist that only mutually fertile couples be allowed to marry?
Wednesday, 16 July 2008 at 15:55
Compromise: The official legal definition of marriage will be, “A union of a man and a woman mating heterosexual relations, and, intimate human relations involving two adult human beings”. Homosexual Marriage advocates want to cut, “A union of a man and a woman mating heterosexual relations…” completely out of the official legal definition of marriage and REPLACE it with, “…intimate human relations involving two adult human beings”. But, what happened to “EXPANDING” the Institution of Marriage TO ALLOW homosexual relations to be marriage? What Homosexual Marriage advocates are doing is called Bait and Switch and is one of the very oldest tricks in the book. Only what THE LAW does or does not say determines what human relations are or are not marriage. Homosexual Marriage advocates MUST accept this compromise definition of marriage to have ANY credibility. Then the discussion can turn to what if any relationship exists between the Perpetuation of the Human Species and the Institution of Marriage. AIR TIGHT!
Thursday, 17 July 2008 at 21:48
Why? Why should you tell other people whom they can marry, any more than you tell them whom they can do business with?
Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 12:46
Why what? In order for people to LEGALLY marry there must be a LEGAL definition of marriage. Only what the law says or does not say determines which human relations are or are not marriage. Why should you tell a man and a woman they can not be married as heterosexual relations, that they can only be married as matingless opposite sex relations, i.e., married as matingless human relations?
Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 14:23
What???!
Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 15:02
The Perpetuation of the Human Species and the Institution of Marriage both involve human relations. Would Homosexual Marriage advocates please explain exactly and precisely which human relations does have something to do with the Perpetuation of the Human Species so that everybody will know exactly and precisely which human relations have absolutely nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage? As far as the Perpetuation of the Human Species is concerned baby is a SECONDARY consideration! First and foremost heterosexual relations MUST occur in order for there to be baby. Which is why as far as human relations relations are concerned heterosexual relations ARE the Perpetuation of the Human Species! Homosexual Marriage advocates INSIST the human relations of the Institution of Marriage have nothing to with the human relations of the Perpetuation of the Human Species, i.e., heterosexual relations. If this is true then a man and a woman can only be married as matingless opposite sex relations, i.e., matingless human relations.
Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 08:06
So if I plant flowers in my garden, that means that your vegetable garden isn’t producing food? Or isn’t a proper vegetable garden? That’s what you’re saying. You’re telling me that if I plant a flower garden, I’m destroying the definition of your vegetable garden and it must be a flower garden, too. But they are still both gardens–still a refuge of peace.
Whether a marriage is productive or not is unknown when the couple marry. Heterosexuals may be infertile or invirile. Is their marriage then invalid? Are they officially parents because they are of different sexes? Do we have to force them to adopt? No.
At the same time, homosexual couples may have children through adoption or artificial insemination. It is not up to the law to define in advance the result of something that starts out as a partnership between two people. Marriage in this society at this time gives the partners certain legal rights — to inheritance, to support, to speak for each other in a medical emergency. It is unfair of us to deny those rights to a committed couple.
How would you like to grow up knowing that you could never marry no matter how much you loved someone? How would you like to be forbidden to say goodbye to your life partner on their deathbed because you had no legal status and their birth family forbade you? Or not to know where they were buried? Or to share a house with someone for twenty years but to be kicked out of it when they died? All of those things have happened.
Back off one step and stop trying to control the definition of a marriage or of a garden and let the people doing them define them.
Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 10:30
Vlad, you’re so busy ranting that you’re being incoherent. It’s not enough for you to know what you’re talking about – you need to make sure that you are actually communicating it too.
No one is saying that mating has nothing to do with marriage – in many cases it obviously does. But why does that mean that it must be the be-all and end-all of marriage? There are many childless marriages between heterosexual couples, and not just because of infertility. There are people who just don’t want children – would they be allowed to marry under your scheme? If not, why not? If so, why not homosexuals?
Also, read your host’s last comment very carefully – it is brilliant. What harm does someone else’s marriage, gay or otherwise, do to that of another person’s?
Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 10:30
“Homosexual Marriage advocates INSIST the human relations of the Institution of Marriage have nothing to with the human relations of the Perpetuation of the Human Species, i.e., heterosexual relations. If this is true then a man and a woman can only be married as matingless opposite sex relations, i.e., matingless human relations.”
No….we don’t…The perpetuation of the human species will exist with or without the institution of marriage. Couples of diverse backgrounds, as well as single people will have children and perpetuate the species, with or without marriage. The perpetuation of the species argument against equality is nothing but a mask for the underlying hatred against gay people. The lack of honesty around that issue is so frustrating. There is absolutely nothing negative that will change in the lives of homophobes or any church, anywhere if gay people marry. The only people who should be concerned about it is the couple themselves. It”s really nobody’s business. Do you really think that denying marriage equality is going to snuff us out of society? All homophobes are really doing is denying equality in the many hundreds of Federal rights associated with marriage in the US. Nothing they could do will ever stop gay people from having relationships, legally recognized or not.
Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 10:32
Also, the perpetuation of the human species (note the lack of ostentatious capitalisation…) has often involved rape, not marriage. Does that make rape desirable?
Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 15:36
Question: Why can’t homosexual relations be marriage if the Perpetuation of the Human Species does have something to do with the Institution of Marriage? Any particular heterosexual relations that is marriage may or may not perpetuate the human species. Homosexual relations that are marriage would be in the may not category along with many heterosexual relations that are marriage. That homosexual relations that are marriage would never make it into the may category well so what? There would be many heterosexual relations that are marriage that would never make it into the may category either. All that needs to be done is to change the legal definition of marriage to something like, “A union of a man and a woman mating heterosexual relations, and, intimate human relations involving two adult human beings”, and homosexual relations would be marriage. Whether the Perpetuation of the Human Species does or does not have anything to do with the Institution of Marriage is totally irrelvant to the ability of homosexual relations to be marriage. What is relevant is what the law does or does not say that determines which human relations are or are not marriage. So, why do Homosexual Marriage advocates INSIST the Perpetuation of the Human Species has nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage when homosexual relations can be marriage either way?
Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 15:48
“So, why do Homosexual Marriage advocates INSIST the Perpetuation of the Human Species has nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage when homosexual relations can be marriage either way?”
Who’s INSISTING? Nothing wrong with perpetuation of species being part of marriage, as I said earlier, it will happen with or without marriage. Homosexual or heterosexual. Thing is, families lead by homosexual couples are treated differently than those lead by heterosexual couples. It’s a simple situation of taxation without representation and tyranny of the majority with state-wide voting on amending constitutions to hurt gay and lesbian families, not the lie about protecting the institution of marriage. Protect it from what? Your own family members and friends who happen to be gay or lesbian? Are people that threatened by us? Who is insisting that marriage has nothing to do with perpetuation of species? Don’t think that’s been brought by anyone other than churches who think it’s their business to butt into legal issues.
Monday, 21 July 2008 at 16:13
There are four options: 1. Abolish the Institution of Marriage. 2. Heterosexual relations are legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. 3. Homosexual relations are legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. 4. Heterosexual relations and homosexual relations are both legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. First and foremost this is what the Institution of Marriage is, this is what the Institution of Marriage does. Perhaps heterosexuals should start an Institution of Mating that does have something to do with the Perpetuation of the Human Species. Although heterosexuals would have to be careful not to let any criteria get to lax or homosexuals will start making claims. I wonder if marriage is an euphemism for mating? You may not have any qualms with heterosexual relations and homosexual relations both legally being the Perpetuation of the Human Species , but I do. It would start a continuous battle across the entire spectrum of humanity, socially, culturally, societally, civilizationally, over which relations IS the Perpetuation of the Human Species. Option four is a very bad idea and option three is pure black vile evil.
Tuesday, 22 July 2008 at 00:19
Oh for goodness sake…
Try to get this idea in your head, Vlad – Marriage is NOT ONLY ABOUT the perpetuation of the species. Your silly and repetitive attempts to define it as such are ridiculous and carry no weight. Who exactly are you to define what such a generalised ‘institution’ must mean for everyone? Get over yourself.
Obviously, homosexual marriage has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the species. So what? Not everybody has or wants children, including heterosexual married couples.
Option 4 is not ‘a very bad idea’ because it is barely an idea at all – neither heterosexual or homosexual relations are legally defined anywhere as ‘the perpetuation of the species’. Option 3 is not ‘pure vile black evil’ either, it is simply stupid – homosexual sex does not lead to children. Duh! Tell us something new. But again, so what? Marriage is not only about children.
Get yourself another bigotted hobbyhorse, this one’s got woodworm.
Tuesday, 22 July 2008 at 22:10
Vlad, you’re just minding everybody else’s business. With anti-abortion activists, that’s often a way to
salivateobsess over someone else’s sex lives. I suspect you have the same problem. Why don’t you take up golf, or something? Help the homeless? Campaign for the return of the death penalty for adultery?Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 13:30
Human beings can legally acknowledge heterosexual relations as being rape, incest, prostution, but, according to Homosexual Marriage advocates it is IMPOSSIBLE for human beings to legally acknowledge heterosexual relations as being the Perpetuation of the Human Species! That any particular heterosexual relations may or may not perpetuate the human species does not make it impossible to legally acknowledge that as far as human relations are concerned the Perpetuation of the Human Species IS heterosexual relations, i.e., the Institution of Marriage, or, give ANYONE the so called “right” that homosexual relations are legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. Homosexual Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with so called “rights”, or, so called “equality”. Homosexual Marriage is a power play, pure, plain, and simple. A power play that homosexuals can only lose in the end.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 20:46
Vlad – there is absolutely no point in anyone responding to the content of your latest comment because it is the same as all of your previous comments and has been answered several times already.
Have you ever heard of ‘reading for comprehension’? It’s when people read something and actually pay attention to it, attempting to understand its points and arguments. This leads either to agreement or decent counter arguments – arguments that actually respond to what has been said.
It’s what honest people do.
So far, you haven’t done this. You keep repeating the same tired points over and over, slightly reworded, perhaps, but each time reliant on the same false assumptions. What you are doing is called trolling, whether you’re doing it on purpose for shits and giggles, or just out of base stupidity or perhaps deep in-the-bone dishonesty. Either do better or give away your computer so that someone with a trace of intellectual honesty can benefit from it.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 22:28
Vlad, no it isn’t – no they don’t – I call Straw Man! You’re not representing reality. You can create a ridiculous scenario in your head and claim that it’s illogical–which is true, but it’s not what’s going on in the real world.
I can do it, too: Christians worship donkeys on sticks and expect to get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. What idiots they are! What’s so great about donkeys? And then every time you say, “It’s not like that,” I say, “Where’s your pot of gold, huh?” It doesn’t get anyone anywhere.