R Conrad

Marriage: A Poor Little State and Church-Beggoten Weed

Filed By R Conrad | August 07, 2010 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Emma Goldman, gay marriage, LGBT history

From Emma Goldman's 1911 essay Marriage and Love:

emma_goldman_seated.jpgLove, the strongest and deepest element in all life, the harbinger of hope, of joy, of ecstasy; love, the defier of all laws, of all conventions; love, the freest, the most powerful moulder of human destiny; how can such an all-compelling force be synonymous with that poor little State and Church-begotten weed, marriage?

Just a friendly reminder that queer and feminist critiques of marriage are nothing new and those of us presently critiquing gay marriage will not succumb to historical amnesia or the seductive promises of neoliberalism.

To read all of Emma Goldman's Essay Marriage and Love check out her archived writing online!

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I just came across this this morning (no, not a pic of a dude):


Only homophobes want to ban marriage! It's a good institution that helps kids, because kids raised outside of marriage are bastards.

Haven't you heard the news? Marriage no longer has defined gender roles. We haven't the faintest clue what feminists of yesteryear would think of this new genderless secular marriage.

The sexual division of roles of spouses began to shift in the late nineteenth century and came fully to an end under the law in the 1970s. Currently, the state’s assignment of marital roles is gender-neutral.
As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

This decision was a win for gays, a win for women and a win for gender equality.

You should really read the decision. Especially the section titled: THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER

She was also an outspoken opponent of homophobia in the 1920s.