By Jeff Goode
About a decade ago, as a young playwright, I was hired to write a script for the Renaissance Festival of Kansas City. It was a period piece about knights and jousts and intrigues of the court, building up to a lavish royal wedding between a prince and a princess, restoring peace to the troubled land.
This was one of my first professional writing assignments, so I was really excited about doing all the research and making sure that everything was historically accurate, especially the royal wedding which needed to follow all the traditions exactly.
Over a summer of research, I learned a lot of surprising facts about the history of marriage and weddings, but by far the most shocking discovery of all was that the tradition of marriage-as-we-know-it simply did not exist in those days. Almost everything we have come to associate with marriage and weddings — the white dress, the holy vows, the fancy cake and the birdseed — dates back a mere 50 or 100 years at the most. In many cases less.
And the handful of traditions that do go back farther than that are, frankly, horrifying. The tossing of the garter, for example, evolved from a 14th Century tradition of ripping the clothing off of the bride’s body as she left the ceremony in order to “loosen her up” for the wedding night. Wedding guests fought over the choicest bits of undergarment, with the garter being the greatest prize. Savvy brides got in the habit of carrying extra garters in their bodice to throw to the male guests in hopes of escaping the ceremony with some shred of modesty intact!
It turns out that marriage, in days of old, was a barbaric custom which was little more than a crude exchange of livestock at its most civilized, and a little less than ritualized abduction at its worst. That’s why you’ll find no reference to white weddings in the Bible, or the union of one man and one woman. Because up until fairly recently, there was nothing religious about it.
You will of course find plenty of biblical bigamy, practiced by even the most godly of heroes– Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon — because that’s what marriage was in those days. Even in more enlightened New Testament times, the only wedding worth mentioning (the one at Cana) is notable only for the miraculous amount of wine consumed.
In the 21st Century, we’ve heard a lot about the sanctity of marriage, as if that were something that has been around forever, but in reality the phrase was invented in 2004. Google it for yourself and see if you can find a single reference to the “sanctity of marriage” before the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions in that state. The proverbial Sanctity of Marriage sprang into being because opponents of gay marriage needed a logical reason to overturn an established legal precedent. And the only thing that trumps the Constitution is God himself.
Unfortunately, God is still pretty new to the whole marriage game (or he might have made an honest woman out of the Virgin Mary, am I right? Try the veal!)
The truth is that marriage has always been more a secular tradition rather than a religious one. Up until the early Renaissance, in fact, couples were traditionally married on the church’s front doorstep, because wedding ceremonies were considered too vulgar to be performed inside the building: After all, there was implied sex in the vows and shameless public displays of affection. No clergyman in his right mind would have allowed such an unholy abomination on the premises.
But as times changed, ideas and attitudes about marriage also changed. So when people became religious, matrimony became holy. When people became nudists, clothing became optional. And so on throughout history.
And the wonderful thing about the institution of marriage — the reason it has remained strong and relevant through thousands of years of ever-changing times — is its unique ability to change with those times.
Marriage is, and always has been, a constantly evolving tradition that never fails to incorporate the latest shifts in culture and climate, changing social habits, fashions and even fads. (Because, seriously, that chicken dance is not in the Bible.)
Thus, in the 1800s when the sole purpose of marriage was procreation and housekeeping, marriage between an older man and a hard-working tween girl was considered perfectly normal. Today we call it pedophilia.
For thousands of years marriage was essentially a business transaction between the parents of the bride and groom. But in the last century or so, we’ve finally seen the triumph of this new-fangled notion that marriage should be about a loving relationship between two consenting adults.
Followers of the Mormon faith can tell you that the traditions of their forefathers included a devout belief that polygamy was appropriate and sanctified. But modern Mormons generally don’t support that vision of happiness for their daughters.
And during the Civil Rights era, when opponents of interracial marriage tried to pass laws making such couples illegal, we came to realize that they, too, were wrong in trying to redefine marriage to prevent those newfound relationships.
Always marriage has triumphed by becoming a timely celebration of our society, rather than a backlash against it. It’s strange, then, to see “tradition” used as a weapon against change, when change is the source of all its greatest traditions.
Just ask the white dress: In 1840, Queen Victoria of England married Prince Albert wearing a beautiful white lace dress — in defiance of tradition — in order to promote the sale of English lace! The image was so powerful that practically overnight the white wedding gown became de rigueur for the well-heeled bride. And then it became de rigueur for every bride.
By the dawn of the 20th Century, the white dress had also inexplicably come to symbolize chastity. (Even though blue was traditionally the color of virginity –“something borrowed, something blue…”)
And the new equation of white with virginity eventually achieved such a rigid orthodoxy that older readers may remember a time when wedding guests who happened to know that the bride was not perfectly pure would have felt a moral obligation to demand that she change into something off-white before walking down the aisle.
Fortunately, as cultural norms eased during the Sexual Revolution, a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy took hold where all brides were required to wear white regardless of their virtue and the less said about it the better.
In recent years, as a generation of divorcees have remarried and a generation of young people have entered wedlock with some degree of “experience”, the pretense of a connection between literal virginity and the bridal gown has become entirely obsolete. A colorful journey for a custom which has always seemed iron clad, even as it was evolving over time.
And not all traditions have to do with changing sexual standards. The long-time custom of pelting the newlyweds with birdseed did not exist before the 1970s when animal-lovers realized that songbirds were bloating on dried rice that they found on the ground after the former custom.
Economic times have caused families to rethink the age-old convention of the bride’s father paying for the entire ceremony — a last vestige of the days of dowries when a young man had to be bribed to take a free-loading daughter off her parents’ hands — that well-established custom has gradually given way to a more humane approach to sharing the financial burden.
Even religious traditions of marriage have experienced constant metamorphosis over the years. As more interfaith couples have wed, we have seen the emergence of multi-disciplinary ceremonies where couples have chosen not to follow the out-dated tradition of rejecting one or both of their faiths as a prerequisite of holy matrimony.
One of the most beautiful weddings I ever attended was between a young Jewish fellow and his Catholic fiancé, whose mother was born in France. The ceremony was performed by both a rabbi and a priest with intertwining vows in English, Latin, Hebrew and French. A perfect expression of the union of their two families, yet one which would have been unthinkable just a generation before.
But, again, marriage has such a long history of changing with the ever-changing times, that the last thing we should expect from it is to stop growing and changing. We know today that marriage is not a rote ritual handed down by God to Adam & Eve and preserved verbatim for thousands of years. It is, rather, an expression of how each community, each culture, and each faith, chooses to celebrate the joining of loved ones who have decided to make a life together.
Christians do not expect Jesus to be central to a Buddhist wedding, nor do Jews refuse to acknowledge Lutheran unions because they didn’t include a reading from the Torah. Marriage is what we each make of it. And that’s the way it always should be.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact, never existed at any point in history.
Because, honestly, which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?
…The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
…Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
…Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
…Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
…Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or Hispanics?
…Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?
No, the truth of the matter is, that we’re trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it “was and always has been” during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s – just before most of us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion (within reason). Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed. Those are okay.
But there’s something profoundly disturbing about amending the Constitution to define anything about the 1970s as “the way God intended it.”
While this article may contain interesting research in the changing traditions of matrimonial ceremonies throughout history – one thing remains in common throughout history. From one religion to another, from one culture to another, from one era to another – every marriage, regardless of how, where, when, or who – they all required male and female. So, to answer your question as to ” which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?” We want it to remain, as it has always been, a union between male and female.
You know, I genuinely believe that one of the major reasons that the “wedding” industry has become so ridiculously over blown is due to the fact that marriage is on kinda shaky grounds. Many (not all) women nowadays desperately want to cling to the idea that their wedding day will be wonderful and that their marriages will reflect this same “happily ever after” type of fantasy when the reality is that the odds are stacked against them…
I think marriage ought to be redefined so that the 1st amendment applies.
What a well-written, interesting article. Thank you for describing how marriage has evolved. The beauty of what you describe is that in the end, no matter what the societal pressures, we are still free to create the kind of relationship we want and continue our own growth. Marriage, if you choose it, is what you make it, and is best served by creativity, openness and love.
Interesting article, thanks.
From my grumpy early morning UK perspective there’s a big difference between marriage and relationship. I’ve often felt the marriage ceremony (which I’ve reluctantly been through twice) was a bizarre public ‘performance’ completely at odds with the personal and intimate nature of relationship.
From Being Initimate by John and Kris Amodeo (very old book):
“…A formal commitment is a pledge to an accepted conventional structure that is believed to be necessary to achieve respectability and happiness. Society cherishes such commitments because in previous times they were necessary for protection, security, and social order. This structure, however, is no longer essential for survival. While clinging to the old ways may offer some modicum of security, the love for which we truly hunger may never arise by conforming to such conventions.
“A ‘process commitment’ is a more flexible, yet equally serious, commitment to the well-being of both ourselves and others. It reflects a consistent dedication to embody factors that reliably lead to personal growth, which provides a foundation for love and intimacy. A process commitment also involves the steady development of a genuinely felt caring and love for others. As we commit ourselves to a process of growing closer to ourselves and others, we may find ourselves actually experiencing the very thing that a ‘heroic’ formal commitment was supposed to guarantee…
“If our primary investment is in maintaining the permanence of the marriage, we may be inclined to hide feelings or bypass conflicts that are perceived as potential threats to marital stab¬ility. These conflicts, however, are vitally necessary to explore deepen. If, in fact, we protect ourselves and one another from feelings or concerns in order to hold on to the relationship, the dishonesty and withholding will themselves lead to the demise of a felt love and intimacy. Constrained by the notion that we must remain together, or that love means that we are obliged to protect one another from unsettling truths, we may avoid discomforting topics that could lead to difficulties.
“The marital contract is frequently used to avoid growth, justify abuse, or deny responsibility for personal shortcomings that the marriage was somehow ‘supposed to’ alleviate. On the other hand, offering no substantive commitment would leave the relationship on shaky ground, subject to sudden dissolution at the earliest sign of emotional discomfort or conflict. How, then, can we find some safe middle ground that provides protection against the misuses of commitment, yet offers a supportive foundation for the continued growth of love and intimacy?…”
Enshrining the right to gay marriage in law is a positive step forward for society but it’s no protection against such problems which can exist in any kind of union whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual… Seems to me that’s where the real work needs to be done.
This history of marriage is interesting. Someone I once knew said living together is the same as marriage if the two people have chosen to be together. I told him that is a misconception and I explained why. It is more than just the legal and financial stuff; it has to do with perception, group-think, and societal expectations.
When two people live together, they subconsciously know that they can walk out of the relationship at any time; this means they may not work as hard at compromise or try as hard to make the relationship work. The couple knows they can get out of the relationship easily and their friends, family, and society see the union as impermanent so a break-up is not the same loaded issue as it would be if they were married. The perception is that either person can just bail out on the relationship and others’ perception is that the partners are “free” for other entanglements. Kids from these types of unions often grow up with different names from their fathers or mothers and while that isn’t a bad thing, for some kids it can make them feel like their parents are not committed to a union or to them. Kids need structure and the impermanence of living together doesn’t provide it as much.
When two people marry, they have made a very public statement to their families, their friends, and their society that they intend to make a committed union. Subconsciously, the couple knows that backing out of marriage is a lot more work and means those people in their community of family and friends will be witness to their failure to keep the relationship together. Everyone’s perception of the union is that the couple is exclusive and unavailable as well as a committed union which should be respected as such. There is a huge sense of failure when a marriage ends that isn’t there as much when a live-together relationship ends. That public statement of an intention makes things so different and makes the couple feel accountable for their promises and their failure to keep them if they divorce. Kids of marrieds often feel more secure because society defines marriage as permanent, despite the high divorce rate, so the perception is that marriage represents structured permanence.
Children are a special issue when it comes to people relating. Any couple that has children together really needs to think carefully about the children before having them and before breaking up the relationship because long-term studies have shown that too many children of broken relationships suffer in their adult relationships.
Perception is affected by social expectations and the social expectations of marriage are that it is supposed to be permanent and that getting out of it requires time, legal consultation or paperwork and discussions about property division and child custody. There just isn’t the same perception of permanence with living together and as such, it is often a lot easier to break up such co-habitations.
So no matter how the ceremonies of marriage have changed over time, it is currently socially percieved as an institution that affects the way everyone involved thinks and their subconscious efforts toward the union.
I think that our perception of marriage can and should include many forms of relating such as same-gender marriages and poly marriages. Hopefully society will, with the dying off of the “old guard,” embrace the more inclusive concept of marriage that allows for the many forms of committed love that humans have.
Right On Cynthia!
there seems to be anew trend now with releasing doves at the wedding ceremony
http://funny-farm.tressugar.com/Wedding-day-nightmare—-warning-nudity-129441
see if this works…
Aren’t weddings an amazing consumer practice, both economically and ideologically? If about one half of marriages end in divorce (don’t think we consider suicide, murder, disease, and insanity ways of getting out yet!), isn’t it amazing how much the average wedding actually costs up front financially? And long term, the costs are beyond financial! On the surface the goal of the wedding is marriage—but the package is sold without an understanding of the contents. Ideologically, the wedding sells the romantic, happily ever after that is unrealistic, historically inaccurate on any number of levels, and counter to the basic human condition. And who is the target of all that marketing? I am reminded here of the Purity Balls from previous posts and other nightmares.
Inequitable gender roles and responsibilities enacted with “traditions” hiding power and control all masquerading as romance, consumed with alcohol and anger, frosting and frothy appeals. Makes a worthwhile study of another institution that really ails us.
Eric,
Yes. I agree with you.
Out completely then, with the “old” and in with more trust, less law.
From your comment I realize I was basing my “left field” (to most) suggestions on shifting what is (and leaving slavery as an option) instead of what could/should be.
Thnks.
That’s a pretty big gaffe — Loving vs Virginia turned over the racially based laws and that was in, I believe, 1967. Now, I don’t know if opponents tried to make new laws banning interracial marriage at the time, in an effort to get around Loving vs Virginia — that is certainly possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Linda, a binding agreement that takes five minutes to create, that cannot in many cases be dissolved without a huge battle? I believe that the marriage contract is an instrument of slavery for that reason. It’s not a valid contract and I don’t think it has to be that binding, i.e., permanently binding.
“And during the Civil Rights era, when opponents of interracial marriage tried to pass laws making such couples illegal, we came to realize that they, too, were wrong in trying to redefine marriage to prevent those newfound relationships.”
Laws against interracial marriage were on the books long before the Civil Rights era. In fact, laws against miscegenation existed for centuries, dating from the 1660s.
http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html
This article is by a woman who is writing a book about the history of miscegenation laws in the US. The article discusses the similarities in the arguments of opponents of same-sex marriage to the arguments of people who opposed repealing miscegenation laws in the civil rights era.
Wedding “traditions” are ever evolving. For example, there’s not just the birdseed gauntlet, now, it’s bubbles and sparklers, too!
PS
For myself I don’t agree with any legally binding financial agreement for household, but its purpose can be argued.
On the other hand, if insurance companies, as one example, were to offer benefits for members of household not requiring marriage, a lot of the legal need would fall away.
Hm. Feels like a total re-work of a part of our relationship system.
xo
Really enjoyable and informative article, thanks Jeff.
Great photo – thanks Eric!
I’m a firm believer that the Financial Contract of Family should be wholly seperate from what we call “marriage” – and available legally to whomever wants to have that contract with other/s for purposes of legally sharing costs and benefits of a household.
Additionally to that, I think that spiritual or religious unions should be a totally Other idea and left to the churches temples and spiritual communities – binding for their purposes, from their perspective, whomever/s that religious entity scantifies.
Who knows what new churches might spring forth? The Sanctity of Marriage Church? The Church of Adam and Eve? The Church of Pink Dildos? (I am NOT being sarcastic, BTW. Quite serious.)
There could be one on every corner and people ‘in love’ could express themselves freely – and NOT confuse their emotions with their pocketkbooks.
I am a firm firm believer in seperation church and state within what has become our modern idea of “marriage”.
Anyway – thanks for the very interesting historical tid-bits.
Jeff doesn’t mention that the birdseed is new. It used to be rice; but raw rice hurts birds, so the purveyors of weddings went to birdseed, which is presumably good for birds.
The chicken dance — oy.
Really interesting. I have thought that marriage was created just to merge property, like when my great grandfather and the owner of the farm next door decided that my grandmother would marry the oldest son of the other guy so that the family farmland would be expanded. My grandmother was born in the early 1900’s. She ran away to New York to get away from that union and wound up marrying someone she preferred.
Excellent writing!
Jeff,
While i am no authority on the subjects you cover, this seems for all the world to be a thoroughly researched and well-reasoned piece. You taught me a few things and for that please accept my heartfelt thanks.
Eric,
Thank you for the poetically-composed photograph.