Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T02:46:18.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Civil Rites

The Gay Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2011

By
Joanna L. Grossman
Edited by
Robert W. Gordon  and
Morton J. Horwitz
Joanna L. Grossman
Affiliation:
Hofstra University
Robert W. Gordon
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Morton J. Horwitz
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Family law throughout American history has developed amidst controversy. Although the work of many family lawyers today is routine – uncontested divorces and formulaic claims for child support are the “bread and butter for thousands of lawyers” – family law, writ large, has been the locus of hard-fought battles over morality, privacy, state control over private life, civil rights, and federalism.

The most trenchant battle in family law today is over the ability of same-sex couples to marry. This chapter considers the modern same-sex marriage controversy through the lens of history. As researcher, shrewd observer, and storyteller, Lawrence Friedman is one of the original and best contributors to our collective understanding of family law history. His work provides both overarching themes and ground-level observations that are useful for reflecting on the ongoing controversy about same-sex marriage.

THE MODERN PROBLEM

The legalization of same-sex marriage by first one state and then four more and the District of Columbia – and the express condemnation of it by more than forty others – has reintroduced the age-old problem of non-uniform marriage laws and interaction among states with different laws regulating family creation and dissolution. Massachusetts launched the same-sex marriage revolution with the landmark ruling of its highest court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in 2003. The state's highest court held that a ban on same-sex marriages “works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason” and violates the state constitution's guarantees of both equality and due process.

Type
Chapter
Information
Law, Society, and History
Themes in the Legal Sociology and Legal History of Lawrence M. Friedman
 , pp. 253 - 270
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker v. State (1999). 744 A.2d 864 (Vt.).
Bishop, Joel Prentiss (1851). Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and Divorce. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
Blake, Nelson Manfred (1977). The Road to Reno: A History of Divorce in the United States. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Chambers v. Ormiston (2007) 935 A. 2d (R.I.).
Degler, Carl N. (1980). At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
,Estin v. Estin (1948) 334 U.S. 541.
Foderaro, Lisa W. (2009). Gay New Yorkers Head to Greenwich for Weddings. New York Times, June 10.
Friedman, Lawrence M. (1984). Two Faces of Law, 1984 Wis. L. Rev. 13.
Friedman, Lawrence M.. (1991). Crimes of Mobility, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M.. (2002). American Law in the 20th Century. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M.. (2004). Private Lives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M.. (2005). A History of American Law. 3d edition. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Godfrey v. Spano (2009). 892 N.Y.S.2d 272.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003). 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass.).
Griswold, Robert (1982). Family and Divorce in California, 1850–1890: Victorian Illusions and Everyday Realities. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, Joanna L. (2001). Separated Spouses, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Joanna L.. (2004). Fear and Loathing in Massachusetts: Some Lessons from the History of Marriage and Divorce, 14 Bost. Pub. Int. L.J. 88.Google Scholar
Grossman, Joanna L.. (2005). Resurrecting Comity: Revisiting the Problem of Non-Uniform Marriage Laws, Or. L. Rev. 101.Google Scholar
Grossman, Joanna L.. (2009). When Same-Sex Couples Adopt: Problems of Interstate Recognition. Available at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090609.html.
Grossman, Joanna and McClain, Linda (2006). “Desperate Feminist Wives”: Does the Quest for Marital Equality Doom Marital Happiness. Available at http://writ.findlaw.com/commentary/20060404_mcclain.html
Grossman, Joanna L. and Stein, Edward (2009). The State of the Same-Sex Union. Available at http://writ.findlaw.com/grossman/20090721.html
Haddock v. Haddock (1906). 201 U.S. 581.
Hartog, Hendrik (2000). Man and Wife in America: A History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
In re Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G. (2010). Fla. App. LEXIS 14014.
In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. (2010) Tex. App. LEXIS 7127.
In re Marriage Cases (2008). 183 P.3d 384 (Cal.).
Jacob, Herbert (1988). Silent Revolution: The Transformation of Divorce Law in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Public Health (2008). 957 A.2d 407 (Conn.).
K.M. v. E.G. (2005). 117 P.3d 673 (Cal.).
Knight v. Schwarzenegger (2005). 128 Cal. App. 4th 14.
Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005). 115 P.3d 1212 (Cal.).
Lofton v. Sec'y Dep't of Children & Family Servs. (2004). 377 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.) (en banc).
May, Elaine Tyler (1980). Great Expectations: Marriage and Divorce in Post-Victorian America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McClain, Linda C. (2008). Red versus Blue (and Purple) States and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate: From Values Polarization to Common Ground, 77 U.K. L. Rev. 415.
O'Neill, William L. (1967). Divorce in the Progressive Era. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010). 704 F. Supp. 2d. 921.
Proposition 8, § 2 (effective Nov. 5, 2008), codified in Cal. Const., Art. I § 7.5 (2009).
Simmons, Tavis and O'Connell, Martin (2003). Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000 (Census 2000 Special Reports). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
Stein, Edward (2004). Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution Regarding Marriage, 82 Wash. U. L Q. 611.Google Scholar
Strauss v. Horton (2008). 207 P.3d 48 (Cal.).
Williams v. North Carolina (1942). 317 U.S. 287.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×