Customer Reviews

What Is Marriage For?: The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I picked up this book when I was having doubts about my friends' upcoming nuptials - I had hoped it would give them something to think about before they made that major step. I examined it more closely and realized it was a much more interesting book than that! The author has throroughly researched the various reasons marriage has existed as an institution (in Western civilization) and presents a compelling case in favor of same sex marriage as well. I was already in favor of same sex marriage, but now I have ammunition! It's lively, amazingly researched, and also full of facts you just don't get in history class. A must-read for social history buffs, gay-rights advocates, or anyone who wonders about relationships today.

The historical overview Graff provides covers not only the institution of marriage itself, but also the wide spectrum of gender roles that have been standard in past Western culture. (For example, the idea that the wife should stay at home didn't occur to anyone until Victorian times brought along industry and 14-hour factory jobs!)

The author writes a fine history, quoting original sources and backing up her information, in a tone conversational and interesting enough for even a reader like myself, usually terrible at reading history books, to follow and enjoy.

Her overview of polygamy is the only thing in this book that fails. The overview is brief, and the only examples given are the Mormons and the Oneida commune. I might opine that she neglected this area on purpose. Part of this book's thrust (perhaps ten percent of the text is focused on it) is providing factual support for the idea that marriage between two people of any gender is simply the next natural consequence of the changes in our society and economy. The critics of this idea often use the negative media image of polygamy to their credit.

I'm guessing that she glanced over it in order to keep this argument at bay -- which is a pity, because the book could have been stronger with an actual refutation, citing historical and modern examples of polygamy in their societal context. But at least she is careful enough with her language that she does not tar all multi-person couples with the same brush.

Aside from this qualm, I'm quite satisfied with the text as a whole, and would recommend it to anyone who wants a better understanding of marriage and gender roles throughout the ages in their economic and social context.

This book is a wonderful read. It talks about the history of marriage in a way that is incredibly engaging, and also grounded in careful historical research. There is no other book which presents the history of marriage in the US and Europe in this way; most such books are quite dry but not this one. The author uses the wide variety of functions of marriage over the years to craft a persuasive argument in favor of allowing marriage by same-gender couples. But the book is much more than that! It discusses religion, economics, law, and a host of other social phenomena as they have related to marriage over the centuries, in a format that is brilliantly organized and eminently readable. This book makes a great wedding present or birthday present. It is timely and important. Marriage is the subject of much public policy discussion these days, and this book gives readers an informed, nuanced perspective on the institution. It is especially strong in pointing out the ways that what many of us think of as "traditional marriage" has changed over the years. The author shows, in her entertaining way, that many of the things we take for granted as part of "traditional" marriage (like Love, for example), actually are rather recent additions to the elements of marriage. I highly recommend this book.

Like Graff, my daughter is a lesbian in a committed relationship, and it angers me that she is prohibited from marrying the person she loves. I was delighted to find this book exploring the changing purpose of marriage in the western world from Roman times to the present and read Graff's case that the battle over same-sex marriage is just the next iteration in a centuries-old line of views of what marriage is for.

Graff never claims that her book is a balanced history; she lets readers know right up front that she is gay and that her purpose for doing all the research and writing was to present her argument that same-sex marriage should be legal. Anyone (like an earlier reviewer) who is surprised by that simply wasn't paying attention.

Graff's writing is both informative and lively, with plenty of facts interspersed with anecdotes and human interest. I already agreed with her premise so I didn't need to be persuaded, but she makes her case so well that it's hard to see how anyone could read this book and still believe gay people should be denied the right to marry. Even for those who are already believe that, the book is well worth reading. Now I can back up my assertion that same-sex marriage should be legal with a persuasive argument based on historical fact: What conservatives call "traditional marriage" is actually less than 100 years old, and this is the logical next step in its evolution.

This is an excellent book that belongs on the bookshelf of everyone who believes in human rights.

As the debate over same-sex couples' freedom to marry rolls from state to state, much of the discussion is framed in terms of the "purpose" and "definition" of marriage. Opponents claim that legally recognizing same-sex couplehood will somehow change the definition of marriage, while proponents say that civil marriage (as opposed to religious concepts of marriage) merely reflects centuries of change.

Lesbian-feminist author E.J. Graff tackles that issue head on in her new book, "What is Marriage For?: The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution," due for release in June by Beacon Press.

Graff's book is a welcome addition to the debate, which, on the proponents' side, has been advanced almost wholly by men. The most public voice has been that of Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic. Sullivan certainly has his own appeal. He serves as an effective foil to social conservatives, because he can counter them in their own language. But the other voices --primarily constitutional attorneys and social critics -- have also been male.

When I heard that Graff was writing a book, I was instinctively pleased that a woman's view was finally to be added to the conversation. My only exposure to Graff's work has been through her many fine op-ed pieces; I suspected that she'd do a reasonably good job. However, op-ed writing is a specialized craft, keyed to the pithy observation, made in 500 words or fewer. Thus, I wasn't prepared for the depth of scholarship that Graff deftly wields in this book. Nor was I prepared for her skilled interweave of the personal, the wry, and the scholarly.

This book seems to flow directly from Graff's regard for her partner, Madeline, with attendant curiosity about the "fit" of her relationship in today's society. It's unusual to find a book of this seriousness that so explicitly celebrates the challenges, the joys, and the hard work of couplehood. As such, this book should serve as an important touchpoint, and not only for participants in the debate over legally recognized same-sex marriages. Graff's book illustrates an important point: Much of the most incisive writing about marriage and couplehood is coming from gay and lesbian writers, who are adding much-needed clarity. One of the greatest ironies of the late 20th Century is that gay people are often the most impassioned advocates for committed couplehood.

E. J. Graff is one such voice.

Graff traces the history of marriage from the Old Testament Hebrews, to 19th Century Utopians, through to today. Though some critics may take fault with specific historical interpretations made by the author, the broader sweep of her inquiry will be much harder to challenge. Her conclusion is clear: marriage is a complex, shifting institution that has always reflected local understandings about things like money, sex, babies, kin, order, and, in Graff's final chapter, "heart."

Most tellingly, Graff finds that shifts in perceptions about marriage have often produced just the kind of tumult we're now witnessing over legal recognition of same-sex marriages. She writes that such past commotions have reflected rear-guard actions.

Graff writes:

"Disease, bestiality, incest, polygamy; a flagrant violation of the very definition of marriage; threats to children, family, society, and civilizations; God's coming punishment for sin: These same apocalypse-now charges are hurled in every marriage battle. Are such predictions any more true now than when they were, say, when early Christians advocated celibacy; when nineteenth-century women struggled to control their own wallets; or when twentieth-century feminists worked to legalize birth control? Such outcries are always a backlash against social and economic changes that have already taken place."

Graff's book is an unusual amalgam of scholarship and popular writing: just when the more casual reader is about to drown in a sea of historical fact, Graff throws a life vest. She applies a liberal sprinkling of "In other words . . .", and "To put it differently . . .", that takes a convoluted set of facts and adroitly compacts and clarifies them for the reader. What I had at first thought to be an annoying writer's tic became a signpost that I counted on.

This book is too centered, gentle and scholarly to be to be labeled a polemic. But "gentle" isn't a synonym for "timid" -- she directly engages feminist critics of marriage in a way that no male writer could hope to do. Her work should have a direct and salutary effect on the conversation amongst women.

"What Is Marriage For?" comes at a critical time, with an upcoming court decision in Vermont, and the expectation of a noisy electoral battle in California. This book is a must-read for many kinds of readers: marriage advocates, politicians, researchers, writers, feminists, couples, and, most surprisingly, non-gay people who may find their own understandings of marriage and family life reflected in this important book.

--John Wilkinson Co-founder and former Director of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington

I expected this book to be kind of dry and boring, but it turned out to be absolutely fabulous. It is funny and eye-opening. I never knew just how much the family structure has changed over the course of human history. It was a bit shocking at times to see just how different "family values" used to be. (And how fortunate I am that marriage continues to evolve!)

This is a great book. It is not only well-researched, but also witty, insightful, and a very engaging read. It's impressive how accessible Graff has made this material; there's a lot of very detailed information packed into a small book, but it's never dry or difficult to read. Her arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are thoughtful and very well-reasoned -- I now feel much better prepared for discussing same-sex marriage with family and friends.

What a pleasure to find a highly readable social history that's as illuminating as it is entertaining. Graff's lively book skillfully demolishes many long-held myths about marriage, and reveals a host of surprising anecdotes to show that this institution has changed considerably over the centuries -- and must keep evolving if it is to survive. A real eye-opener -- elegantly argued, and graced with wit and warmth.

This book is a well-researched, thorough treatment of the history of marriage in Western civilization. In addition, it is entertaining and witty, and makes an excellent case for marriage's continuing evolution.

E. J. Graff
What Is Marriage For?

(Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1999)
(ISBN: 0-8070-4114-9; hardcover)
(Library of Congress call number: HQ734.G716 1999)

This book is a careful study and critique of the roots and branches
of the institution of marriage as known in the Western world.
When we review the early patterns of traditional marriage,
we see how far we have already come.
Marriage has changed and it will continue to change.
The author is a lesbian in a long-term committed relationship,
which could be a marriage if same-sex partners were permitted to marry.

A computer search discloses that there are
over 1,000 references to marriage (spouse, husband, wife, marriage, etc.)
in US federal laws and regulations.
Graff argues it would be easier to give
all these rights, responsibilities, and privileges to same-sex couples
(if they choose to marry) as a package
than to re-write all the laws one by one to grant all or most of these rights.

Many Scandinavian countries have already granted the right to marry
to same-sex couples, sometimes with a few exceptions such as
the right to be married in the state church,
the right to adopt children, or to get tax-supported fertility services.
But even such exceptions are likely to be abolished.

The United States has not adopted same-sex unions
as readily as other advanced countries,
but even we are seeing the beginning of such rights in some states.
Wherever same-sex marriage has been allowed,
no noticeable or measurable effects
have been observed on heterosexual marriages.
Thus the federal "Defense of Marriage" Act is a complete misnomer.
It does not protect marriage in any sense.
It merely says that same-sex couples may not have their legal marriages
recognized by all states
if some states decide to grant such rights and responsibilities
without regard to the sexes of the partners.

Marriage was originally created as a cultural institution
because of the belief that sex ought to be registered and regulated
--in large part to protect the rights of children
who often resulted from sexual intercourse.
But now even the most conservative religious groups
recognize that sex and marriage can be for non-procreative purposes.
If marriages can legitimately be directed toward sexual fulfillment,
then lesbians and gays also qualify.

Every society ought to have laws protecting children.
But heterosexual marriage as the only context for raising children
has now largely become a pattern of the past.
Less than half of American children live with both of their biological parents.
Adoption is permitted by single people and increasingly by same-sex couples.
Children don't need fathers as much as they need
non-abusive, involved, caring parents.
And, of course, gay and lesbian people can be good parents.

If we are concerned about good parenting,
perhaps we should train and license all adults who wish to be parents.
Simply being a heterosexual couple
does not magically grant the ability to raise children.
Graff observes that many of her gay and lesbian friends are becoming parents
--by taking over the parenting of children born to one of them,
by adopting children already alive, or by artificial insemination.
Experience shows that these children of gay couples
do not become gay any more often than the general population.
And the quality of the parenting
shows the same range as for heterosexual couples.

The church and the state have long struggled over who controls marriage.
In the West the state has basically won the battle to register marriages.
But some churches still insist that their regulations are paramount.
However, in ever-increasing numbers even heterosexual couples
are deciding to avoid legal, state-defined marriage
and are creating their own more personal and flexible relationships.

In the Middle Ages--when the Church controlled the definition of marriage--
it sometimes took years to get a decision
about the validity of a particular purported 'marriage'.
In the meantime people kept having babies and changing their relationships.
To help clear up this chaos of private marriages,
beginning in the middle 1700s various governments in the West
established rules for the creation and registration of marriages.

In frontier America, it was hard to enforce rules about marriage,
so common-law marriage was also recognized:
If a couple held themselves out to the public as married,
by virtue of being together for a certain number of years,
legally they were the same as any other married couple.

In places like Ireland,
which only recently recognized divorce and remarriage
because of the eternal opposition from the Roman Catholic Church,
people were ending their unsatisfactory marriages
and going on to create new couples and new groups of children
without involving either the state or the church.

The first feminist movement in the United States
was very critical of the marriage laws of the time,
which granted all property rights
and control of the marriage to the husband.
These laws have largely been modified
to allow women to own property in their own names,
to run their own businesses,
to refuse to have sex with their husbands, to get divorced, etc.
Both in law and in practice,
couples are now able to create their own patterns of marriage.
And more and more couples are demi-married
because they do not fulfill all of the requirements
for an official legal marriage in their jurisdiction.
So why can't same-sex couples
define their committed relationships as marriage?

Given all the changes in marriage customs and laws
that have already happened,
it seems likely that soon same-sex couples will be allowed to marry.
Men and women are equal in most modern marriages.
The man no longer owns the woman.
So why should not two men or two women be permitted to marry?

Graff says that she falls in love with women
as easily as most women fall in love with men.
So it seems entirely natural to her to insist on all the rights of marriage,
not some watered-down version called "domestic partnership".

No history of marriage could be complete without an account of divorce.
The Roman Catholic Church has long tried to enforce
the one-marriage-for-life rule.
But most civil laws now recognize the possibility of changing partners.
Each jurisdiction has its own rules and regulations for divorce,
many focused on the rights of children
and the economic rights of the former partners.
When same-sex partners are permitted to marry,
they also will need the protection of divorce law.

What is marriage for?
It reflects the deep commitment of two adult persons.
If so, two adult persons of the same sex can qualify.

If you are looking for other books supportive of same-sex marriage,
search the Internet for this bibliography:
"SAME-SEX MARRIAGE--FIRST BOOKS".

You will find some other books challenging marriage here on the Internet:
"The Best Books Critical of Traditional Marriage".

James Leonard Park, author of
New Ways of Loving: How Authenticity Transforms Relationships.