Recently in Marriage Category

A petition filed by an anti-same-sex marriage coalition led by Bishop Harry Jackson was rejected today by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics. The petition called for DC to recognize "only marriage between a man and a woman [a]s valid."

[T]he Board held that such ballot measures do 'not present a proper subject of initiative because it would authorize discrimination prohibited under the Human Rights Act ("HRA").'

The Board's reasoning in today's decision also turns on the existing law established by the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, the one that allows the District to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Council member David Catania said of the decision, "The proposed initiative would have stripped legally married same-sex couples of their vows. Those who proposed the initiative were attempting to write discrimination into our law, and I am pleased that the Board rejected this effort as an impermissible trespass on the human rights of District residents."

Via CNN:

The government of Argentina's capital will not appeal a court decision this week that legalizes same-sex marriage, Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri said Friday.

The court ruled that two articles in the city's civil code that say only people of different sexes can get married are illegal. The court decision applies only to Buenos Aires. Same-sex unions in most of the rest of Argentina remain illegal.

You know, a common misconception people have about my work - especially when they see the book title The Purity Myth - is that because I argue that women shouldn't be held up to some bizarre virginal ideal, I must be promoting promiscuity. Of course, this line of thinking is incredibly telling - too many people are only able to see women's sexuality within the virgin/whore binary, so a sexuality or identity that's nuanced or complex is beyond them. Because of this misconception, I spend a lot of time during clarifying that of course I don't think virginity is bad thing, and naturally if people want to wait for marriage to have sex (assuming it's legal for them to do so), they should.

But the thing is, that's not entirely true. While I do believe that virginity is all well and good - my concern is really how women's worth is tied to the concept, not whether or not people have sex - I also think there something to be said for arguing strongly for pre-marital sex.

Because, let's face it - if you're going to commit yourself to someone for (presumably) the rest of your life, it's probably best if you know that you're sexually compatible. I don't think this is particularly radical thing to say; in fact, it seems quite logical to me. But somehow, if you suggest that pre-marital sex is a good and maybe even necessary thing (especially if you say those things while being a feminist) you are an evil, evil whoremaker.

Do I think that people can have perfectly wonderful satisfying relationships without having had sex before making a commitment? Sure, I'm positive that happens often. But considering what a huge role sexuality plays in our lives and relationships...well, I'd rather be super duper positive.

Picture via the Abstinence Clearinghouse.

A number of you have rejected this weekend's profile of the Obamas' marriage (and accompanying slideshow) as yawn-inducing celebitician/politicity pop-love drivel. Alas, I have the will power of a goldfish, and so I was possessed not only to read the big long Presidential love exposé but to write about it. Here. Now!

Fortunately for you, I was much less interested in the intimate details of the Obamas' marriage than I was in the idea of the presidency as it was overwhelmingly, if inadvertently, presented throughout the article- as a partnership.

While I enjoy a juicy detail as much as the next, and yes, Presidential date night = cute, I couldn't help but notice this surprising theme woven throughout the article.

Since getting married, a lot of people have asked me if I feel "different." I always say no. While my relationship feels a bit different, I am the same person I was before getting hitched. Yes, down to my name.

As I've written before, changing my name - even to a hyphenated last name - was never really an option for me. Didn't want to do it. (So you can imagine my annoyance when I received this in the mail) I feel the same way about the 'Ms.' title. I've always used it, always will.

I'm thinking about this after reading Judy Berman at Broadsheet, who writes about how Time's Nancy Gibbs thinks that the "Miss, Ms. Mrs." debate isn't really necessary anymore.

Whether my children's friends call me Ms. Gibbs or Mrs. May or any combination of the two, I view it as a sign of respect and don't worry about the particulars. My husband never remotely suggested that he was bothered by my not taking his name; in fact, he's accustomed to occasionally answering to Mr. Gibbs. My late father, a fine writer, thrilled to see that name in the pages of this magazine. All these identities are me: Ms. when I'm out slaying dragons, Mrs. when I'm in the company of those I love most, Miss when I want to stay home under the covers and daydream. Feminists a generation ago fought for the title and dreamed of Freedom and Choice and Opportunity; maybe the surest sign that they've won is not which title we pick, but that we can have them all at once.

But isn't this the problem? That each title announces something specific about who we are, when the truth is every woman is more than the sum of her married or unmarried parts? Men are always 'Mr.', and in that way they're always themselves. I understand the inclination to embrace all parts of yourself - but language matters, and titles that exist to categorize women by marriage don't do women - or men! - any favors.

Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell has an amazing piece up at the Nation about marriage. If you don't know Harris-Lacewell's work, you should. Check out our recent interview with her.

As someone who also feels critical of the institution of marriage, it makes me really happy to see a straight feminist ally so thoughtfully reflect many of my feelings about the work ahead of us.

You can read the entire piece here.

So what are we to make of marriage? It is both a deeply personal relationship for which people will make almost unthinkable sacrifices, and it is a declining social institution offering little security for most who enter it.

As a black, feminist, marriage-equality advocate I reside at an important intersection in this struggle. This movement must acknowledge the unique history of racial oppression, while still revealing the interconnections of all marriage exclusion. This work must reflect the feminist critique of marriage, while still acknowledging the ancient, cross cultural, human attachment to marriage. This work must be staunchly supportive of same-sex marriage, while rejecting a marriage-normative framework that silences the contributions of queer life.

Typically advocates of marriage equality try to reassure the voting public the same-sex marriage will not change the institution itself. "Don't worry," we say, "allowing gay men and lesbians to marry will not threaten the established norms; it will simply assimilate new groups into old practices."

This is a pragmatic, political strategy, but I hope it is not true. I hope same-sex marriage changes marriage itself. I hope it changes marriage the way that no-fault divorce changed it. I hope it changes marriage the way that allowing women to own their own property and seek their own credit changed marriage. I hope it changes marriage the way laws against spousal abuse and child neglect changed marriage. I hope marriage equality results more equal marriages. I also hope it offers more opportunities for building meaningful adult lives outside of marriage.

I know from personal experience that a bad marriage is enough to rid you of the fear of death. But this experiences allows me suspect that a good marriage must be among the most powerful, life-affirming, emotionally fulfilling experiences available to human beings. I support marriage equality not only because it is unfair, in a legal sense, to deny people the privileges of marriage based on their identity; but also because it also seems immoral to forbid some human beings from opting into this emotional experience.

We must do more than simply integrate new groups into an old system. Let's use this moment to re-imagine marriage and marriage-free options for building families, rearing children, crafting communities, and distributing public goods.

No. Just no.

Via Amanda Terkel at Think Progress, we find that a Louisiana justice of the peace has denied a marriage license to an interracial couple, his reasoning being for the children's sake. From AP:

"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

He also added, "I try to treat everyone equally," and when he says "equally" he means he lets his black friends use his bathroom:

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way. . . I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Angry Asian Man says it right, "Well, that is great. I was mistakenly under the impression that he was one of those racists who makes his black friends pee in the backyard. Turns out, he treats them 'just like everyone else.' Except when it comes to letting interracial couples get married."

Pam and Racialicious have more.

My childhood friend Mollie sent me not one, but two copies of her former professor's book, when she noticed that I was thinking and writing a lot about work/family balance issues (thanks Mollie!). Getting to 50/50: How Working Couples Can Have it All by Sharing it All by Joanna Strober and Sharon Meers is a deeply-researched, very practical guide to getting real about some of the most critical unfinished business of contemporary feminism.

Unlike Linda Hirshman's Get to Work, which leaves many readers feeling judged and misunderstood, or Leslie Bennett's The Feminine Mistake, which leaves many readers thinking doomsday thoughts, Strober and Meers approach the subject with healthy doses of both realism and optimism. They are women who have been through it, and lived to tell the tale. (Both are heterosexual, and so their own life examples are from this perspective. Unfortunately they didn't do much to look at non-hetero couples or non-marrying types).

After reviewing all the research that proves that dual working families are actually healthier, happier, and more economically viable, they go on to talk about some of the roadblocks to making it work and their suggestions for getting past those roadblocks.

One of the insights that really struck a personal chord was that women have to truly let go of the notion that they are inherently more fit to parent, that they can simply do it better, by virtue of being women.

In its August 2009 California Opinion Index, California's Field Poll looked at how California's electorate has evolved since the 1970's. Some trends are expected; in both 1978 and 2009, women comprised 53% of registered California voters. Compared to 1978, there are fewer white non-Hispanics, more homeowners, fewer Protestants, and more non-Christians registered to vote.

Finally, the poll evaluated support and opposition to same-sex marriage between 1977 and 2009, with distressing results: California Republicans are 7% more opposed to same-sex marriage now than 32 years ago.

"As the demographic profile of the state's voters has changed, so too have voter opinions on a number of important social issues. Republicans, on the other hand, have not changed their views on this issue, and if anything, are now more opposed than they were thirty years ago. A nearly three to one majority of Republicans (68% to 23%) currently opposes allowing same-sex marriage in California. This is marginally greater than their 65% to 30% opposition found in a 1977 Field Poll."

As a lot of you already know, I'm getting married (this Saturday, eek). And I'm not going to lie, while there was definitely a lot of feminist-minded thought behind my planning process, there was also a lot of...well, other stuff. I succumbed to buying wedding magazines despite their gross consumerism, bought a pair of nearly-unwearable - though fabulous looking - shoes, and decided to have flower girls even though I didn't want a wedding party simply because I think my cousins' kids are adorable. It doesn't surprise me that I bought into some wedding culture stuff - after all, some of it is fun - but it was wedding blogs that did me in. Truly.

I've always been a bit of a dork over design, and wedding blogs were just the thing to bring my love of things aesthetically pleasing together with my control freak planning side. Whether it's "wedding porn" (yes, people call it that) shots of brides and table settings or DIY madness, I wanted it all. My Google Reader nearly collapsed under the weight of my bridal RSSness.

And though there's no doubt that some of the blogs I've been frequenting buy into the wedding industrial complex in a way that makes me massively uncomfortable (Martha Stewart Weddings, I'm looking at you!), I also found some sites along the way that we're amazingly helpful not just from a planning point-of-view, but from a feminist one as well. Like A Practical Wedding, Offbeat Bride, and IndieBride (no blog, but the forum is great) - these sites helped me keep my sanity with their sage advice and senses of humor.

When the wedding is over and my planning all finished, there's no doubt that I'll have to leave some of these blogs behind - after all, how many wedding cake shots can one look at? But there are a few that I'll keep reading, because the women who run them are funny and smart and remind me why I love the internet. Also, because I like pretty pictures.

Another guilty pleasure - wedding flowers! The picture above is a sample centerpiece from my dope florist, Sarah of Saipua - who incidentally has a really great and hilarious blog herself. Pretty, no?

"Wedlock or Deadlock" is a 2-month-old show on Fox featuring Dr. Michelle Callahan. Couples who are considering marriage seek her counsel on national TV to explore whether they should be married or break up. I could list a million things wrong with this show. But to name a few: It's on Fox. Dr. Callahan has only counseled hetero couples. And the show reinforces the idea that marriage is the only option for long term fulfilling partnership.

The show features many people of color and even an inter-minority relationship here and there. This is both one of its strengths and one of its drawbacks. In a television environment where couples of color are more likely to be seen on court TV shows waging war against each other, Dr. Callahan is a woman of color whose show takes on a community problem-solving approach to relationship disputes. Instead of being portrayed as inherently pathological, couples of color are presented as conflict-resolution oriented. However, because of the emphasis on marriage, the show reeks of the marriage-promotion mantra that reigned during the Bush years. These policies, and Callahan's show, prioritize marriage between people of color over self-sustainability and evaluating a range of long term relationship options outside of marriage.

The one thing I do think is feminist about the show is the way she incorporates compatibility tests. She poses important questions that invite everyday people to examine their assumptions about gender roles in relationships. From division of labor in the household, head of the household, having children and money savvy, it is a rare moment in reality TV where men and women have to grapple with these issues.

This weekend I attended the first wedding reception I have gone to among my peers. They skipped out on a formal wedding to have a private ceremony in Hawaii, courtesy of their parents. They used the money that would otherwise be spent on a lofty wedding to put a down payment on a house. I couldn't be happier for them. I just wish that it wasn't just people of relative means, and heterosexual privilege, that could make this choice.

A September 16 Research 2000 poll reports 48% of Maine voters support taking away marriage rights from same-sex couples, 46% oppose, and 6% remain undecided. This close race merits some media analysis.

One nefarious aspect of the Yes on Proposition 1 effort is its similarity to the Yes on 8 effort in California. Here is a radio ad in support of Proposition 1:

"The chair recognizes the representative from Brunswick."

(Narrator) Special interest groups got the legislature to approve homosexual marriage and tried to prevent Mainers from voting on it.

(Representative Charlie Priest) "We ought not to send it out to referendum."

(Narrator) But Question 1 gives us our vote.

(Scott Fitzgibbon, professor of law from Boston College Law School) "Unless Question 1 passes there will be real consequences for Mainers. It will no longer be live and let live. Homosexual marriage will be the law whether Mainers like it or not."

"Dear Governor Baldacci, we write to provide you with an analysis of the effects..."

(Narrator) Distinguished legal scholars wrote the Governor warning of the flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses and religious groups. Church organizations could lose their tax exemption. And in Massachusetts, homosexual marriage is taught in public schools. Federal courts have ruled that parents have no right to notice, or to pull their children out of this instruction. Vote Yes on Question 1 to preserve traditional marriage between one man and one woman. 

Compare that to this TV ad in support of Proposition 8:

I am a few weeks late to this, but that doesn't take away the gag factor one bit. It is amazing to me as I have done research for my book, which is a feminist intervention on dating, how many of the terrible books that support antiquated ideas of how women should behave in pursuit of their romantic lives, are supported BY women. The newest in line by another woman that clearly hates women, Jordan Christy, is a book about how women can find love. How to Be a Hepburn in a Hilton World, is a nice dive into history when women were slut shamed for being sexual and chastised for their wanton lust for men. There is an excerpt from her book on MSNBC and I have picked two paragraphs here that give a little context to the "type" of woman she is talking about.

It's no secret that we girls start fantasizing about a fairy-tale wedding and happily-ever-after love story around the same time we start teething (I still have a wedding book that I compiled at age six!). Relationships are a big deal to us. We want to hear all about our roommate's new boyfriend, have to get every detail of our coworker's upcoming nuptials, and lament right along with Jennifer Aniston over Brad Pitt as if he cheated on us. We love to watch TLC's A Wedding Story, feverishly scan Us Weekly for the latest blossoming celebrity romance, and sob every time we see Sleepless in Seattle. We spend hours prepping ourselves for a date and even more time obsessing about what our potential children will look like and whether or not our initials mesh nicely. Conclusion: girls love love.

So why would you subconsciously sabotage all those efforts through your modern-day attempts at ?nding true love? This question baffles me daily. I'd like to think that it's out of sheer naiveté -- most girls don't appear to be in a lucid mental state when they're throwing themselves at some circus clown off the street and clearly aren't aware that they are actually driving that poor boy further away. But luckily, you will no longer have to be the victim of such careless ways in love, because we're going to start doing things the right way -- the old-fashioned way! And it starts by not messing with nature.

That is right ladies, not only is dreaming about perfect weddings natural, so is patriarchy and male dominance over your feelings, love life and dating choices. And if you act on how you feel, you are ruining your own chances at finding love (idiot!!!). It makes you wonder who is really being naive.

As I have talked to people about my project, I have come across the shame that women feel for wanting to ask men out, but feel like they can't because of myths such as those portrayed in the book above that make them feel stifled. And men, time and time again say, they like it when women ask them out. Now, I suppose any empirical evidence Christy or myself have collected is subjective since clearly she hangs around girls (not women incidentally as she continually refers to women as "girls,") that dream about weddings when they are "teething" (huh?) and I hang around people that have highly politicized and/or queer weddings, even if they may still be somewhat traditional. So naturally our evidence will be skewed by this subjectivity. That is the thing with love and dating, everyone has a different idea of what works for them, whether it is along or against the grain or somewhere in-between.

I guess what baffles me is not so much that many women feel pressured to follow these restrictive rules that ultimately make them unhappy. It is that we live in a culture that rewards this type of behavior. On some level they are right, there are some men that may prefer to ask women out because they want all the control--but is that the type of men we want to be with? Cultural norms around dating change with us and if we want egalitarian partnerships, our only hope is to do as we please with little regard to what we "should" do.

Similar to sentiments voiced in He's Just Not that Into You, and Why Men Love Bitches, many of these dating books only make sense if you believe that women are inferior to men. I am sure the authors of all of these books would say I am kidding myself, after all, I am 31 and unmarried, but I would much rather hold out for someone that recognizes me as a fully realized human being, rather than a possession that must play inferior and passive to get someone to like me and be with me. Just saying.

This is pretty distressing:

Tens of thousands of people in Mali's capital, Bamako, have been protesting against a new law which gives women equal rights in marriage.

The law, passed earlier this month, also strengthens inheritance rights for women and children born out of wedlock.

Sigh. Perhaps even more depression-inducing is this quote from Hadja Sapiato Dembele of the National Union of Muslim Women's Associations: "A man must protect his wife, a wife must obey her husband...It's a tiny minority of women here that wants this new law - the intellectuals. The poor and illiterate women of this country - the real Muslims - are against it."

A new post on Akimbo displays this graph of women's attitudes towards domestic violence. As you can see, in many cases a disturbingly high percentage of women say it is sometimes OK for their husbands to hit them.

The graph depicts figures as high as 90% (Jordan) of women aged 15-49 responding in the affirmative when asked if a husband or partner is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances.

The information in the graph comes from the UNICEF site Child Info: Monitoring the Situation of Women and Children and was collected between 2001 and 2007. There's no info on attitudes of women in the U.S. in the study, but I'd be really interested to know if the U.S. figures were very different (based on the amount of "she deserved it" that went on during the whole Chris Brown/Rihanna escapade, I somehow doubt it).

You can view a chart with more country info and sources here.

Spencer Jones and Tyler Barrick were married at San Francisco City Hall on June 17, 2008, the first day California gay couples were legally allowed to do so.

Happily ever after? Well, sort of. But now their hometown paper, The Spectrum, in St. George, Utah, refuses to publish their wedding announcement. An excerpt from the gladd blog:

At first, the paper said they could run the announcement in the "celebrations" section of the paper - but only if there was no picture.

Jones and Barrick objected to being told their picture would be excluded, and in response president and publisher Donnie Welch decided that no announcement would run at all. He told the couple, "As our policy is to run marriage announcements recognized by Utah Law, I have made the decision to not run this announcement."

They are trying to get as many people as possible to email and call the publisher over the next few days, so do your part if you've got an extra minute:
Donnie Welch, President/Publisher, The Spectrum
435-674-6222
dwelch@thespectrum.com

A new study presented at the American Sociological Association's annual meeting in San Francisco today shows that about 70% of Americans believe that women should take their husband's last names when they get married and 50% think it should be a legal requirement.* Say what?

I knew that the majority of American women who marry men take their husbands last names - but shit is just shocking. Not to mention depressing.

Now as many of you know, I'm getting hitched (in like 7 weeks, craziness). The thought of taking Andrew's last name never even occurred to me - not once. Why not? Because it's not my name. Why would I change it? It's not like it's easier - it's actively going out of my way to adopt someone else's identity. (To be clear, I'm not hating on women who do decide to go this route - it's just not for me, and I don't get it.)

What's really distressing about this news - Laura Hamilton, the study's lead author says that when respondents were asked why they thought women should change their last names, "they told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family."

"This was a reason given by many," Hamilton said. Really? Things like this - deeply ingrained sexism - rarely shock me. But I am actually astounded that such an antiquated notion could be held onto by so many. (Though I'm still holding out hope that this study is proven to be bunk. Sigh.)

*And for those of you think the legal requirement thing is too out there to worry about, consider that it was not so long ago that a couple in Washington, DC was denied a birth certificate for their child because they wanted to give the baby the mother's last name. Also, in 2004 a Pennsylvania court denied a petition from a woman who wanted her daughter to have a hyphenated last name; they said it was "in the best interests of the child" to have only her father's last name.

Related: Two years and a lawsuit later, CA man gets his wife's last name
What's in a name?

Via Broadsheet.

The NY Times writes last week about marriage, infidelity and Mark Sanford,

Despite strong social riptides working against it -- the liberalization of divorce laws, the vanishing stigma of divorce, the continual online temptations of social sites like MySpace or Facebook -- the marriage bond is far stronger in 21st-century America than many may assume. Infidelity is one of the most common reasons cited by people who divorce. But surveys find the majority of people who discover a cheating spouse remain married to that person for years afterward. Many millions more shrug off, or work through, strong suspicions or evidence of infidelity. And recent trends in marriage suggest that the institution itself has become more resilient in recent years, not less so.

The article looks at statistics and finds that since more people are staying married, despite the temptations to get divorced or cheat, marriage is working. It ignores one key fact, that perhaps less people are actually getting married, but more often just live together. The article does acknowledge that since people get married older, they are more clear about what they want and are better equipped at "making it work."

Firstly, if it is true, that people stay together after infidelity, looking at examples of public officials is not a good gauge of this since public couples have more at stake to stay together and not be destroyed by the public eye and the news media. They want to make an example of how they can overcome obstacle in their relationships, even if it is at great personal cost.

Secondly, if people are staying together despite infidelity, it could be for a variety of reasons. One, the pressure of marriage, culturally and financially doesn't allow for all the transgressions we think our "free" society allows and second, our view of monogamy has shifted and we can accept when someone falls off the path of heteronormative monogamy. I am sure there are more open marriages now than there were say 30 years ago.

But that doesn't change the main argument in the article which is really about how marriage is a resilient social institution. And I think it is safe to say the fact that marriage has become a booming industry, increasing cultural norm in almost retrograde terms and the government's re-commitment to keep it between a man and a woman are not innocent players in this supposed resiliency. So I guess the question is, has anything really changed? Has feminism helped at all in helping women not buy into the industry of marriage?

Well, interestingly, it seems that feminism is part of what is keeping marriage working.

Some of the same social changes that have unsettled traditional 1950s-era marriages have seemingly deepened them in the 1990s and 2000s. Today women are contributing more financially to relationships than earlier generations, and men are contributing more to the domestic duties. Compared with earlier generations, men and women today are more likely to marry someone like themselves, with a similar educational background, experts say. The relationship is less about dividing economic and domestic duties and more about shared interests and mutual happiness.

That is something I can buy, but I still take issue with the "who" of these articles. Only a handful of my friends are actually getting married. Many of them may want to, but many of them are having kids without husbands and they are not getting married. Some because they don't want to, or they haven't found someone to marry or they don't have access to the means to have a wedding. I am over studies that are just about how middle class people stay married and cheat or do not cheat. What are the relationship habits of people that don't marry, that try alternatives, that don't have social access to marriage (the queer community, poor people, etc), what are they doing? Their behavior will tell us much more about the institution of marriage than just looking at statistics of how many people are staying married.

Shoulder-baring brides with jaunty hats are clearly strumpets.

Calling young women who are getting married "MySpace generation brides," Newsweek complains that brides today are "like a virgin no more." (I'd be outraged, but this is just too fun for me to post about to be all that angry.)

Two decades ago, when young girls wondered how brides were supposed to look and behave, they'd most likely conclude--with some prompting from Cinderella--that on their big day they'd be a princess. They'd be blushing, virginal and wrapped from head to toe in tulle and lace.

So why is it that these days, some brides seem to be taking their cues more from Jessica Rabbit than Cinderella? More vamp than virgin, they're having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés' sendoffs. They're selecting cleavage- or lower-back-baring bridal gowns that might get a gasp from conservative relatives.

Are we seriously supposed to be scandalized by back-bearing dresses and cheesy bachelorette parties with penis straws? Come on now. But apparently this article is less about how immodest brides are, and more about moral panic over women in general.

This is, after all, is a generation that is comfortable with "sexting" and posting provocative pictures of themselves on Facebook and MySpace.

Wow, MySpace and sexting in one sentence - impressive! The article goes on to point out (smugly) that women are getting married later, having raunchier bachelorette parties, having their ceremonies in locations other than churches, and living with their significant others before getting married. And we're supposed to think, I guess, that these are all bad things.

What's really interesting to me is how the media is able to frame anything as women being slutty. Fun.

(Naturally, you can find out more what I think about sex and sexism in The Purity Myth.)

TaraK on the Community blog has more.

There's an interesting article in this month's Atlantic by the notoriously pithy and unsentimental Sandra Tsing Loh called "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off." In it, she reveals that she is getting a divorce from her husband of 20 years, over an affair, but even more it seems, because the passion had just petered out of the marriage and Loh didn't feel inspired to work to get it back. She springs off from her own predicament, however, and examines this country's paradoxical relationship with marriage:

Americans hold two values at once: a culture of marriage and a culture of individualism. Or is it an American spirit of optimism wedded, if you will, to Tocquevillian spirit of restlessness that inspires three out of four Americans to say they believe marriage is for life, while only one in four agreed with the notion that even if a marriage is unhappy, one should stay put for the sake of the children. If America is a 'divorce culture,' it may be partly because we are a 'marriage culture,' since we both divorce and marry (a projected 90 percent of us) at some of the highest rates anywhere on the globe.

She goes on to explain how The-Marriage-Go-Round, Andrew J. Cherlin's new book, argues that it isn't divorce that's bad for kids, it's our constantly changing family dynamics. In other words, if one, two, or heck fifteen people raises a stable family, it doesn't matter whether they're married or divorced, just that they provide consistency. She explains, "Hence Cherlin's cautionary advice consists of two words--'Slow down'--his chief worry about our frenetic marriage-go-round being its negative impact on our children."

Setting Loh's TMI style aside, which I find kind of grating, I think that she touches on a lot of really important points in this piece--starting with her analysis of Cherlin's smart book. One of the reasons I've resisted marriage, besides solidarity with friends who can't legally participate in the institution (becoming more and more hazy), is this sense of hypocrisy. We pressure young people--especially women--to get married, then act shocked when they jump into promises they can't keep; the allure of being "princess for a day" and/or having the false security of a marriage certificate pushes so many people into marriages that won't last. Even worse, the disintegration of these marriages is framed as a failure, even when it's the best thing for everyone involved (including kids).

Where Loh and I part ways is in her analysis of changing gender roles and their effect on the longevity of people's marriages. In essence, she argues that husbands who cook and care take end up neglecting their wives' sexual needs, causing even more distance, leading to divorce. Of course this is based on her two best friends, not some sort of sample size, so it comes off as baseless albeit titillating. It also sounds eerily similar to a lot of anti-feminist blather. Part of why I like Loh is she's such a bold writer, unafraid of saying unpopular things. Part of why she annoys me is that she sometimes misses the wider context for her claims. In truth, men who take responsibility for raising their kids and cooking a meal now and again have happier wives and more functional marriages, as so many studies have proven.

We've been mulling over the idea of doing a forum on marriage here at feministing, since so many of us editors have different takes on the issue. Stay tuned for that...

Back in the good old days when no one - we swear! - had pre-marital sex.

I'm used to seeing moral panic "hook up" stories on Good Morning America (Is Oral Sex the New Goodnight Kiss?!) and Newsweek, but NPR?!

Sex Without Intimacy: No Dating, No Relationships

The hookup -- that meeting and mating ritual that started among high school and college students -- is becoming a trend among young people who have entered the workaday world. For the many who are delaying the responsibilities of marriage and child-rearing, hooking up has virtually replaced dating.

Here we go. Shit, there's even the obligatory Sex and the City reference! The radio segment takes a more complex perspective, of course, than your run-of-the-mill sex scare stories. But I was still disappointed to see the myth that young folks only just started having pre-marital funtime perpetuated by NPR.

As I've written before, 95% of Americans have premarital sex, and this has been true for decades. Even for women who were born in the 1940s, nine out of ten had sex before marriage. This is not something new, it doesn't come from the internet or texting (sorry, sexting!). What was also irritating is this thinly-veiled fear that young people are waiting too long to get married (the article is accompanied by marriage rate graphs) - yet another anti-feminist talking point.

But what struck me the most about the article that accompanied the radio segment was the poll they had at the end:

Talk about removing nuance from sexuality! As if "hooking up" was some sort of monolith. I imagine people's sexual experiences run the gamut from "fun" to "degrading" to - gasp! - feelings not easily explained by an online poll.

Related posts: Moral panic visualized
Girls aren't "going wild" after all
Spitting Game: A film about "hook up" culture
What's wrong with casual sex?

After finally gaining control of the New York Senate, two Democrats have defected from the Democrats in the New York State Senate to join the Republican caucus, giving the Republicans a majority again. The two Senators, Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada are still technically Democrats but will be joining the Republicans and some key votes.

Republicans reclaimed control of the New York state Senate with help from two Democrats, who rebelled against a $131.8 billion budget they said was negotiated in secret.

Pedro Espada from the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate from Queens sided with 30 Republicans on key votes to change the Senate's leadership. Democrats immediately challenged the claim and described the action as illegal. Governor David Paterson called it "despicable."

The maneuver, just two weeks before the Legislature's scheduled June 22 adjournment, leaves in doubt the outcome of bills to allow gay marriage, create a new money-saving pension category for future state and city workers and approve taxes to balance New York City's budget.

So what does this mean for gay marriage? According to Queerty it is not a good look,

• If Republicans do take control over the Senate, they will certainly not allow a bill to reach the floor for a full vote. Which means even if Sen. Thomas Duane had locked up the 32 votes necessary to pass the bill, it's now dead in the water.

• If this mess is not sorted out immediately and power not officially maintained by either party, you can expect the rest of the legislative session to be tied up with turmoil, and the same-sex marriage issue pushed to the back of the bus in terms of priorities.

• If Democrats do maintain control, we're still not out of the water. Sens. Espada Jr. was marked in the "yes" column while Monserrate was "undecided" on supporting marriage equality; it's unclear how the team up with Republicans would impact that vote. Moreover, if Smith retains his leadership post, he may still not permit the same-sex marriage bill to come up for a vote, since he's requiring 32 votes to pass it.

Thanks guys!

I suppose it would follow that, after a byproduct of anal sex has been named after you because you do things like group together gay sex with incest, you would shut up and never open your stupid mouth about anything that has to do with copulation, dating, or really anything. You would think that, but that is not the way of Rick Santorum. Only this time it is about how black men don't like to get married and if the Obamas want to be a role model they better stick to some more normal and regular dating rituals.

via Salon quoting Santorum,

Number one, I think it's great that the president has a date night with his wife. He's a role model.He's a role model in particular, whether he likes it or not, in the African-American community.

And you have an African-American community, particularly in the poor inner city areas, we're looking at out of wedlock birthrates in three quarters to 75 percent (sic) of children being born out of wedlock. Marriage is an institution that's a bridge too far for too many African-American woman and is not desirable among African-American males

Um, what? Conservative logic is baffling and will stop at nothing to demean, since it is not just gays that are destroying the institution of marriage it is those "welfare queens and deadbeat dads too." Santorum has to play off every stereotype he can find.

But he continues,

Here we have a president of the United States who says that marriage is cool. You have respect for your wife, and you treat her with the respect and dignity that she deserves. And she is part of this team. And it's not just part of professional team, but it's also part of a personal, romantic team. I think that's all great. So I think it's important that he keeps having his date night.

I think he has to realize that flying to New York is self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot and a beer. It does not matter where you go with your wife, is that it's with your wife. That's really the point... I would make the argument, the simpler the date, the more normal it is.

Santorum is so glad that Obama is being an Upstanding Black Man, but lest he get too showy, Santorum must put the Obamas on notice, since he knows how to be "normal."

I know it is hard to deconstruct something that is so devoid of logic, you start to feel like you are talking in circles. It is not just an insult to the black community that they are "looking at out of wedlock birthrates in three quarters to 75 percent (sic) of children being born out of wedlock." That is not just offensive but it is inaccurate. Statistically more women are choosing to have children out of the institution of marriage. It is certainly not a sign of a crumbling world and a crumbling community, but instead showing us that marriage is not something that should be the backbone of our society as would have it.

Personally, I think the date thing was not something to get all in a fit over, but I also didn't fall for the "oooh ahhh they love each other so much, marriage is so great and the Obamas have shown me why!" Great, people are excited that the First Lady and her dude have a great thing going, but the bigger issue of what constitutes as normal marriage and not hasn't changed. The Obamas have to play up their marriage as stable and normal so they can fight every ignorant stereotype about black people and marriage, along with reinforce that fundamental to the American dream is getting married, being "normal," staying married and having some babies within the sanctity of that marriage. It is quite a conundrum.

Via Bilerico.

This is a really huge blow to the fight in California for same sex marriage. One positive note, according to Bilerico, the marriages that already took place will be upheld.

Bilerico has a great round-up of responses here, but here's one snippet response from the LA Gay and Lesbian Center.

Today, our Supreme Court sent a mixed and troubling message. While upholding the legal marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California, the ruling establishes that all Californians are NOT entitled to equal protection of the law. This is a sad day for our state and a setback for the cause of freedom and fairness.

But it's also important to keep this in perspective. Every noble struggle known to man or woman has been filled with losses--temporary defeats that people had to endure and overcome. We must pick ourselves up and move forward, knowing that justice ultimately will prevail and the right to marry will one day be ours forever.

Fortunately, this loss comes amidst a veritable tide of progress in many other state supreme courts and legislatures--a tide that cannot be turned back, no matter today's decision. Not only are courts and legislatures recognizing that it's wrong to discriminate against any group of people by denying them the fundamental freedom to marry the one they love, but now even a majority of Americans agree. Most people in the nation now believe that same-sex couples should be treated equally under the law.

That is enormous progress and we e cannot let one election, one court case, one defeat - or even many defeats - stop us. And we must not let such challenges limit our dreams. Those who came before us and who could never imagine our successes did not give up. We owe the same dedication to those who are yet to follow.

Most importantly, we cannot afford to lose sight of the bigger picture. Ours is not a fight simply for the freedom to marry. Ours is a fight for full equality; full equality and nothing less.

While this is a huge and disappointing step backwards, I appreciate this more positive perspective on the bigger picture of this fight.

Woot!

Maine's governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region.

...The Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday.

I heart D.C. today.

Yesterday, the Washington D.C. Council voted overwhelmingly (in a 12-1 vote!) to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere.

From the Associated Press:

The city council vote is considered the first step toward eventually allowing gay marriages to be performed in Washington. Congress, which has final say over the city's laws, has 30 days to review the bill, assuming Democratic Mayor Adrian Fenty, a supporter, signs it.

If Congress takes no action, the bill will become law automatically.

Pam's House Blend has more.

Pic via Scubaben at Flickr.

We're a bit late getting to this; on Wednesday, the New Hampshire Senate passed (with a narrow margin) to allow same-sex couples to marry.

It was passed with a 13-11 vote, and only after language in the bill was amended granting religious groups and organizations legal protections who do not want to perform same-sex marriages. (Could this be due to a recent kerfuffle in Iowa over judges giving up their rights to perform marriages altogether to avoid marrying gay folks?)

The House, who passed the bill just a month ago, now has to approve those changes and place the final bill in the hands of Governor John Lynch, who made this statement on its passage:

"I recognize that the issue of same-sex marriage is intensely passionate and personal, and raises strong emotions on all sides.

"I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples. This was accomplished through the passage of the civil unions law two years ago. To achieve further real progress, the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions."

This doesn't sound super hopeful, so sign a petition or contact the governor's office directly; there's no time to waste.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, while marriage equality matters to the Senate, transgender anti-discrimination laws aren't up for discussion. (As it wasn't in the House either. What a disappointment.)

This is rich. Mark Regnerus at The Washington Post argues that people shouldn't wait long to get married. And by people, he means women.

Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion. Meanwhile, women's fertility is more or less fixed, yet they largely suppress it during their 20s -- their most fertile years -- only to have to beg, pray, borrow and pay to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s.

Countless studies? Endless anecdotes? Well color me convinced. *Eye roll*

I guess telling women that they better stop with all that work nonsense and get to the baby-making never gets old for some people.

Regnerus, author of Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, is also miffed that the age difference between couples is closing:

The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years.

...Most young women are mature enough to handle marriage. According to data from the government's National Survey of Family Growth, women who marry at 18 have a better shot at making a marriage work than men who marry at 21. There is wisdom in having an age gap between spouses. For women, age is (unfortunately) a debit, decreasing fertility. For men, age can be a credit, increasing their access to resources and improving their maturity, thus making them more attractive to women.

I have to say, outside of how problematic the anecdotes and sweeping generalizations are, this article simply skeeves me out.

Get your giant gay repellent umbrella today!

I love this star-studded hilarity!

via Shakesville.

Also, check out the first in this series and last week's video with some great comedians parodying the same concept.

It's about damn time:

Gov. David A. Paterson on Thursday announced that he would introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, drawing on the soaring oratory of the civil rights movement to call on the Legislature to add New York to the four states that have already authorized such unions.

Comparing the status of gay men and lesbians with that of blacks, Jews, women, disabled people and other groups who were historically excluded from full political and social equality, Mr. Paterson said he would lead the movement to authorize same-sex marriage in the Empire State. "We have a crisis of leadership today," he declared. "We're going to fill that vacuum today."

More on his announcement here.

Making issues out of non-issues...

Because sometimes the best way to understand wing-nuttery is to make fun of it.

via Shoot The Messenger NYC.

Thanks to Baratunde for the heads up (he's the dude at the end).

Today the state legislature overrode the governor's veto of a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and so Vermont became the first state to legislatively guarantee all couples the right to marry.

Go Vermont!

UPDATE: Good news outta DC, too!

Photo originally uploaded to Flickr by user worldwidewandering

When I was growing up in Iowa, the state's marketing slogan was "Iowa, you make me smile." As disgruntled high schoolers, my friends and I would use the phrase sarcastically... But today, it's totally appropriate. Because this morning the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality!

For 10 years, Iowa has had a law on the books defining marriage as "between a man and a woman," and the court unanimously ruled that that statute violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. The Supreme Court decision comes after a district court ruled the marriage ban unconstitutional in 2007, the same year the state legislature passed a law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, said today's decision could set the stage for other states. Socarides was was a senior political assistant for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin in the early 1990s.

"I think it's significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought," Socarides said. "Unlike states on the coasts, there's nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, 'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.'"

This is exactly what the right wing is afraid of. I'm tentatively betting on a bigger national anti-gay uproar in response to the Iowa decision than there was after California or Massachusetts. After all, it's a bit more difficult for conservatives to spin this as crazy decision by "activist judges" in an outlier, coastal, liberal state. Unsurprisingly, the lobbying for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution has already begun.

Today, though, it's nice to be from Iowa. Go middle America! I am gonna put on some Leslie Hall and do a little Midwest Diva dance to celebrate.

UPDATE: More from Jezebel, Shakesville, Harpyness, Feministe, Yglesias, Pandagon, and Bilerico.

Ampersand has a post up about some statistics indicating that despite the fear that same-sex marriage will alter the meaning of marriage, the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are the same ones that are on the forefront of banning same-sex marriage. Ampersand writes,

So which 9 states are projected to see 1 in 4 teenage girls become mothers? Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Tennessee. All of those states are well-known hotbeds of marriage equality.

So in contrast, how did Connecticut and Massachusetts -- where same-sex marraige is legal -- rank? In the entire country, only Vermont and New Hampshire have lower projected teen motherhood rates. Oh, and by the way, Vermont's senate just voted for legalizing gay marriage.

The apt conclusion Ampersand points out is that you can have same-sex marriage and low teen pregnancy rates.

*insert duh noise*

It is also helpful to look at race and class as a factor in the rate at which people support gay marriages and the rate of teen pregnancy. Evidence indicates that access to education decreases the rate at which women have kids early. As we know well, the interpolation of being against same-sex marriage and abstinence-only education is part of the same story. That story where men own your sexuality and we must do nothing to disrupt the sanctity of sexism, I mean marriage.

The bigger issue this has gotten me thinking about is the role of single moms in the fight against heteronormativity. In order to appeal to the elitist common denominator, the mainstream GLBT (sometimes Q, but I am talking mainstream here) has made gay marriage look like a very white and normal thing. Hey, we want the same big wedding you want, we are just gay. Politically it makes sense if you are of the reform minded set and even from a radical perspective it holds water, as most civil rights legislation started strategic and mainstream.

But I think the bigger question of whether the mainstream gay movement is going to look at the role of single mothers, often villianized by news, often women of color, often poor, as in some way disrupting straightness and heteronormativity, goes unasked.

Are single mothers proof that heteronormativity is total bullshit?

As Andrew Sullivan writes, "This is how you do it."

Which naturally made me sing and dance to this. Dance with me.

As many of you already know, I'm getting hitched. Deciding to get married brought up a lot of issues for me - politically and personally. Folks had a bunch of questions in comments, so I thought I would use these as a jumping off point to talk about issues of feminism, marriage, and - the current bane of my existence - weddings.

Hara says, "I hope that if you are considering changing your name it is one you both create for the two of you to change to (like a combo, but shorter) otherwise, I suggest not making your name change to his last name."

I'm keeping my last name. I think hyphenation is nice - and that's probably the route we'll go with kids - but I like my last name. A bunch. I've even considered adding in my mother's last name as well, as a little "fuck you" to the patriarchy, but I think Jessica Michelucci Valenti is too much of a mouthful, even for one with as big a mouth as me.

On the issue of same sex marriage, frye886 says, "It seems to me a more powerful action by many couples would be to refuse to get married and publicly state the reasons why not."

Andrew and I discussed not getting married until everyone could, and we think that's an understandable choice. Instead, we're trying use our impending marriage as a pro-active way to talk about same sex marriage among our friends and family, and being mindful of the inequity in every step our process. (For example, in our engagement announcement we asked anyone considering getting us a gift to instead donate to an organization fighting for same sex marriage rights; we're planning on saying something about it as part of our ceremony; and we've taken the advice of several commenters and will have cards indicating we've made a donation to said orgs instead of favors.)

Several of you also got into it about dresses - whether the traditional white dress actually did signify "purity," etc. I'm kind of ambivalent about it, but I ended up getting a not-quite white dress (don't want to give too much away in case the boy is reading!) that I bought from a place where all the money goes to charity.

So that's where I'm at so far. I'm sure things will continue to come up and that I'll continue to try and find ways to subvert them or add a little dash of feminism.

In the meantime, does anyone have any feminist wedding planning tips they'd like to share?

I am always very critical of videos that try and show "other" ways of being, but I actually found this to be extremely interesting and a solid example of how matriarchal traditions allow for a type of freedom that modernization believes it invented. As feminist thinkers we have parsed this hegemony of dialog that somehow equates women's liberation with colonization and modernization, but it still gets lost when it makes it to the mainstream.

Check it out.

Thanks to Heather for the link and pointing out that the Wikipedia entry for Matriarchy calls them "hypothetical."

I am generally not a crier -- it takes a lot to make me tear up at movies. And while I am an ardent supporter of equal marriage rights, a wedding is never something I've wanted for myself.

Yet I cried like a baby at this:

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

There's something this video does for me that witnessing protests and pounding out blog posts and reading op-eds just doesn't do. This isn't a political football. This isn't an abstract debate. This is about people.

What can I say? Melissa issued a "major blub warning."

UPDATE: Here's a link to sign the petition and/or donate.

So, I'm getting married. To this guy. There, I said it. I've been putting off writing about this for a while now (as somewhat explained by the hilarious someecard that Amanda sent to me above).

Being that most of us here blog about our personal lives quite a bit - from birth control and Spanx to body image and pets - it seems only natural that I would write about getting married. Especially given how political marriage is, especially right now.

But there was something nice about having this be private and not for public blogging, flickring, Facebooking or commenting. (After all, you don't have to be a blogger to have your personal life on display!) And I was feeling all romantical, certainly not like debating and politicizing my relationship decisions. But shit, that's what I kind of signed up for, right? Well...maybe.

I think that blogging about your life as a way to talk about politics can be a powerful tool; it's one I've used often and find effective. It humanizes experiences that are so often talked about as statistics and develops a sense of community that can be powerful when called to action. But political and media strategies aside, I like that when I meet readers in person they feel as if they know me and other editors on the site (and if they're a commenter, I feel as if I know them!). It's a lovely feeling of connectedness and solidarity that's unlike anything else, and I value it deeply.

But I also think that what we - as bloggers, writers or just folks with an online presence - put out into the public sphere should be up to us. I don't want to feel that I must blog about getting married because it relates to the work that I do. I want to be able to have things that are just for me and not be judged poorly because of that. (Whether or not these are realistic wants remains to be seen!)

After thinking about this for a while, I realized that I don't feel like I had to blog about getting married - I wanted to. I wanted to share some good news with a community that I love and am proud to have had a hand in creating.

I'm positive you'll be hearing more from me on the marriage front: Like how to do it while shirking patriarchal tradition? Or why I decided to participate in an institution that still (for the most part) excludes same-sex couples. And I'd love to hear back from you as well - what your experiences are with marriage, not-being-married, etc. I think it could be a great conversation.

But for right now, I'm just going to be glad that I've finally shared this news with all of you, and start to think about subversive wedding favors...or something.