Marriage

The institution of marriage experienced considerable change during the last three decades of the 20th century and into the 21st century. In U. S. law, “marriage” refers to the legal action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union between a single man and a single woman is formed. In addition, many states accepted “common law” marriage, in which couples lived together for an extended period of time without having been “joined” together in a civil or religious ceremony. Though the legal definition of marriage remained relatively constant, the practices of cohabitation, premarital and extramarital relations, and out-of-wedlock childbirth reflect the changing standards of sexual morality in the United States.

In 1967 the U. S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, overturned state laws barring racial intermarriage (antimiscegenation), concluding that states that bar marriages solely on the basis of race violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Beyond these civil rights considerations, the application requirements for marriage and divorce have remained under the discretion of state governments.

In 1969 California passed a “no-fault” divorce law. Prior to this, all states except Oklahoma and Maryland required proof of cruelty, desertion, or adultery before granting legal divorce. Women’s rights advocates argued such stringent divorce laws favored abusive husbands and restricted women’s freedoms by binding them to unsatisfactory marriages.

The new “no fault” law in California was heralded as an advance for women’s rights, and a movement to enact more lenient divorce laws spread like a wave throughout state legislatures; within five years, 44 states passed similar laws granting divorce on the basis of “incompatibility” or “irreconcilable differences” alone. The number of divorces sharply increased in the early 1970s, and opponents feared permissive divorce laws encouraged divorce as a solution for marital difficulties; many predicted that the rise in the divorce rate in the 1970s would continue, destroying the institution of the traditional two-parent family. However, the divorce rate, defined as the proportion of marriages taking place right now that will eventually divorce, is a controversial statistic. The Census Bureau in 2000 calculated the divorce rate at 52 percent. The National Center for Health Statistics revised this number down to 43 percent, but it was then moved back up to 50 percent by the Census Bureau in 2002. In 2005 the Census Bureau revised the rate downward again to just more than 40 percent. These statistics suggest the biggest change in society came not from married people getting divorced but rather from single people not marrying at all.

The most significant impact on the traditional definition of marriage came after the SEXUAL revolution of the 1960s and early 1970s, when the number of premarital relationships and out-of-wedlock births increased dramatically. In 1970, 72 percent of the U. S. population was married. By 1990 the percentage was down to 62 percent, and by 1997 the percentage had dropped to 59 percent. According to an article in the New York Times, in 2005, 51 percent of women were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000. Marriage rates among black women were particularly low, with only about 30 percent of black women living with a spouse. For Hispanic women, 49 percent were living with a spouse, while the percentages were 55 percent for non-Hispanic white women and 60 percent for Asian women.

One reason for this has been the rise in cohabitation. In 1960 there was only one cohabitating couple for every 90 married couples, but by 1995 that ratio had increased to 1:12, with 50 percent of young adults in their twenties and thirties cohabitating. In 1990 the Census Bureau counted 2.8 percent of all households as unmarried couples of the opposite sex. By 1997 that percentage was up to 4.2 percent. The proportion of young married people has seen the most precipitous decline. In 1950, 42 percent of women aged 15 to 24 were married; by 2000 that percentage was down to 16 percent. Of women aged 25 to 34, the percentage of married women dropped from 82 percent in 1950 to 58 percent in 2000.

Likewise, a number of university studies revealed that the number of children engaging in sexual activity before 15 years of age rose from 4 percent in 1950 to 20 percent in 2001. The 2000 census showed that the number of out-of-wedlock births increased from 4 percent in 1950 to 35 percent in 2000. As a result of these changing patterns of sexual relations, marriage no longer served as the primary institution by which children are brought into the world and socialized in the United States. The 2000 census showed six out of 10 children were born into homes in which the parents were either unmarried or divorced.

These changes in the patterns of marriage and sexual mores precipitated a scholarly debate and spilled over into politics. Princeton University sociologist Kristin Luker argues out-of-wedlock births should be seen as a common historical phenomenon and in itself not a social problem. Out-of-wedlock births, Luker maintains, reflect the changing nature of the family in the contemporary United States that allows women greater freedom to produce children outside the bounds of marriage. The problem of out-ofwedlock births is not a problem in itself, she concludes, but the real issue is poverty and society’s commitment to taking care of the poor.

Others argue, however, that the breakdown of the traditional family and the increase in single-parent families has led to a social crisis in contemporary America that perpetuates poverty, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependency, child abuse, and other problems. Sociologist David Popenoe maintains that a divorce rate of 50 percent in first marriages, the rapid rise of nonmarital cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock births has eroded traditional family values and has led to social disaster. Citing a large body of social science evidence, he finds that children who grow up in single-parent homes are disadvantaged economically, educationally, and socially. Children from such families, he argues, are twice as likely to drop out of high school, 2.5 times as likely to become teen mothers, and 1.4 times as likely to become unemployed.

Social conservatives, such as Popenoe, maintained that sexual promiscuity resulted in out-of-wedlock births and higher rates of abortion. Social conservatives saw the

Gay rights protesters demonstrate for the right to obtain a marriage license. (Tim Boyle/Newsmakers)

Institution of marriage as the sole legitimate vehicle for the reproduction and education of the next generation and argued that sexual activity outside the marriage contract risks depriving future children of the social framework necessary for proper development. Such arguments found expression in the Republican Party, where social conservatives constituted an important faction within the party, although not a dominant force. As a consequence, the Republican Party was the first to include “family values” among its campaign issues, which encouraged abstinence education and condemned public funding for abortion counseling.

Opponents of this use of “family values” argued that this was only political rhetoric that failed to address the problem of poverty in American society. Such critics maintained further that the idealization of the traditional two-parent family only strengthened the ability of abusive husbands to maintain control over their wives. These critics, who began to call themselves “progressives,” embraced a different concept of “family values” infused with the principle of moral tolerance, and not restricted to a two-parent home with children. This view defined the family as including childless couples caring for elderly relatives, single parents, nonmarried cohabiting parents, or any adult providing primary care for dependents.

The Democratic Party incorporated this version of family values into its campaign issues, emphasizing social ideals, rather than moral or religious values. Democrats promoted increased government funding for contraception and abortion counseling to ensure proper family planning and resisted laws requiring parental notification and consent for abortion services. Democrats also used the family values slogan to urge increased funding for day care, preschool, and after-school activities to help relieve working parents and assist them with some of their child-care responsibilities.

The conflict between moral conservatives and moral liberals over the redefinition of marriage often followed partisan lines with regard to the leadership of each party. Popular elections, however, indicate that the general constituency of each party tended to share more in common with each other than was typically represented by the political debates of their leaders. Nonetheless, sharp differences arose over same-sex marriages.

A public debate erupted during the 1990s over whether the legal definition of marriage should be changed to include noncontractual and same-sex unions. The first attempt to legalize same-sex marriages arose in 1972, after voters in the state of Hawaii passed a state-based Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. In 1990 three same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied. They then sued the state of Hawaii, arguing that the state constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex, and therefore prohibited the state from denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In Baehr v. Miike (1993), the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered that licenses be granted to the couples unless the state could show a compelling interest in banning such marriages. The state legislature responded the following year with a bill explicitly stating that marriages could only be formed between a man and a woman. For five years, the state legislature and the state courts wrestled with the issue, while the public debated it on both the state and national levels.

Advocates for same-sex unions argued that the choice of a spouse was a fundamental human right of all persons, that homosexuality was determined by genetic predisposition, and that the prohibition of same-sex marriages discriminates against a recognized minority. More specifically, they argued that homosexual couples were denied the rights and benefits that heterosexual couples received from health and insurance beneficiary clauses.

Opponents argued in response that same-sex marriages would remove all obstacles to the adoption of children by homosexual couples, which they believed would have a negative impact on normal childhood development. Moreover, if same-sex unions are legalized on the basis of nondiscrimination, without considering traditional standards of morality, then other groups might also want legal protection, including prostitutes, polygamists, and incestuous marriages.

In 1998, after five years of debate, the voters of Hawaii formally amended their state constitution, allowing the state legislature to explicitly forbid same-sex marriages.

The debate in Hawaii stimulated similar lawsuits in Alaska and Vermont. Between 1995 and 2000, widely publicized battles over this issue were fought through the ballot box in these and 29 other states. With the exception of Vermont, each state that voted on the issue eventually passed with overwhelming majorities laws barring more liberal definitions of marriage. In 1995, in an attempt to prevent similar suits in their state, Utah passed the first of what became a series of Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA), which explicitly forbid same-sex marriages. Fourteen other states passed similar laws that year, and within five years, 31 states followed suit.

In 1996 Representative Steve Largent (R-Okla.) and Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.) introduced the Defense of Marriage Act in the U. S. Congress, which was passed with an overwhelming majority, and William J. Clinton signed it into law, despite voicing opposition to it.

In 1998 Vermont became the only state to reject a Defense of Marriage Act. The Vermont Supreme Court ruled, in Baker v. Vermont (1999), that the state legislature had to either allow same-sex marriages or create a new form of government-recognized relationship that permitted same-sex couples to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples. In April 2000 the Vermont legislature passed by seven votes a law defining marriage as a legal union between a man and a wife but which included a second classification allowing state-recognized “unions” between same-sex couples. As of 2001 Vermont had issued more than 2,600 licenses for same-sex unions.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals could marry, making Massachusetts the first state to recognize same-sex marriages. The California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that a ban against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and Connecticut legalized same-sex marriage in October 2008. In the November 2008 election, the voters of California approved a constitutional amendment, known as Proposition 8, to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The passage of Proposition 8 set off a firestorm of protests, attacks on churches, and lawsuits against the amendment by homosexual rights activists. In 2009 both Iowa and Vermont made same-sex marriage legal, the former decided in the state supeme court and the latter in the state legislature.

During the 1990s, legislators in five states introduced bills intended to eliminate the no-fault divorce. Advocates of the bill argued that no-fault divorce destroys family more than any other factor. Since 80 percent of divorces are prompted unilaterally, they argued, the no-fault divorce laws unfairly favor the spouse intent on leaving the marriage. They further argued that divorce had a disproportionate impact on poor and minority communities, stranding many children in poverty. None of these measures came close to passing, however.

As Americans entered the 21st century, family structure was undergoing significant changes. The end result of these changes, however, remained unforeseen, and the social consequences unclear. Nonetheless, change was apparent, whether welcomed or not.

See also BIRTH control; birthrates; conservative movement; EAMILY LIEE; EEMINIsM; GAY AND LEsbian rights movement; Moral Majority; religion; women’s rights and status.

Further reading: Edward O. Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); Kristin Luker, Dubious Conception: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997); David Popenoe, Life without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of the Child and Society (New York: Free Press, 1996); Judith Wallerstein, et al., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000).

—Aharon W. Zorea and Stephen E. Randoll

McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005) This pair of U. S. Supreme Court cases tested the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government property. They were the first Ten Commandments cases the Court had agreed to hear in 25 years. The Court probably accepted the cases in order to offer guidance to the lower courts, which were seeing a rising number of cases testing the limits of the First Amendment’s clause prohibiting the establishment of religion. However, the Court’s decisions, which ruled the McCreary County display illegal but permitted the display in Texas, did little to clarify the law, according to most legal experts.

In 1999 McCreary and Pulaski Counties in Kentucky hung copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. Almost immediately, the ACLU sued, requesting that the displays be removed. Instead, the counties modified the displays to include other historical and legal documents and retitled it “Foundations of American Law and Government.” The lower courts ruled the display unconstitutional because, in its original form, it endorsed religion and because the changes did not alter the religious message. The U. S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

The circumstances surrounding the Texas display at issue in Van Orden v. Perry produced a different decision. A civic organization donated the Ten Commandments monument to the state in 1961. The state added it to a collection of monuments between the capitol and supreme court buildings in Austin. The Court ruled this display constitutional because the collection of monuments, taken as a whole, did not convey a religious message.

These decisions reaffirmed the Court’s previous position on religious displays. The Court restated that such displays must have a secular purpose, cannot advance or inhibit religion, and cannot foster excessive government entanglement with religion. The Court also reiterated that the government cannot erect displays that symbolically endorse religion. Moreover, in determining whether a display symbolically endorses religion, courts must look at the display’s history and its context, meaning that each religious display on government property will have to be evaluated based on its unique circumstances. This last criteria was the distinguishing factor for Justice Stephen Breyer, the deciding vote in these cases, who argued that the Texas display was constitutional because its overall purpose was secular and because it had stood for more than 40 years without creating controversy, while the ACLU challenged the Kentucky display immediately.

—Amy Wallhermfechtel

McGovern, George S. (1922- ) U. S. senator George Stanley McGovern served in the U. S. Senate from 1965 to 1981 and was the Democratic Party’s presidential

Candidate in 1972. Born in Avon, South Dakota, in 1922, McGovern served as an air force pilot during World War II and as a history teacher at Dakota Wesleyan University (1949-53). He was active in Americans for Democratic Action. In 1956 he was elected to the U. S. House OF Representatives from South Dakota (1957-63), and, after a failed run for the Senate in 1960, he became director of the Food for Peace foreign aid program in the Kennedy administration from 1961 to 1964. He was elected to the U. S. Senate in 1964, where he emerged as an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War.

McGovern played an important role in reforming the party national convention system, allowing more female and minority delegate representation, and weakening the influence of local party bosses. These reforms set the stage for his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972. In the primaries, he was challenged by the former vice president, Hubert Humphrey, and Alabama governor George Wallace. Calling for an immediate end of the war in Vietnam, McGovern attracted support in the left wing of the party, as well as among youth. He proclaimed that the war against communism was over and that it was time to peacefully coexist with the Soviet Union. While focusing primarily on the war in Vietnam, he also proposed heavy cuts in defense spending, increased spending for social programs, and a more progressive tax code. He also called for a $1,000-per-citizen tax rebate to stimulate the economy, which caused opponents to label his domestic program a “thousand-dollar giveaway.” In addition, he called for amnesty for those young people who had evaded the military draft, state liberalization of abortion laws, and the reduction of penalties for marijuana drug use.

This liberal program drew heavy criticism from Humphrey. Although Humphrey lost the party nomination, his attacks damaged McGovern in the general campaign. Further difficulties emerged when it was revealed that McGovern’s vice presidential running mate, Senator Thomas F. Eagleton (D-Mo.), had undergone electric shock treatment for mental depression. McGovern then selected Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr., as his running mate.

McGovern’s poll numbers began to fall immediately after the convention. They continued to fall as the Republican candidate, Richard M. Nixon, attacked McGovern for his proposals. On election day, Nixon won 60.7 percent of the popular vote, and McGovern only 37.5 percent. McGovern only carried the state of Massachusetts. Following his defeat, McGovern returned to the U. S. Senate, where he served until January 1981. During his many years in Congress, he served as the chairman of the Select Committee on Unmet Basic Needs (90th Congress) and on the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs (91st through 95th Congress). McGovern unsuccessfully ran for reelection to the Senate in 1980, and then he made an unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984. He currently resides in Washington, D. C., where he spends his time lecturing and teaching.

—Leah Blakey