The defence of the “natural” family in historical perspective: when marriage would suspend the legal existence of women

History is there for us to help us learn about the present as well as the future. However, political sensitivities often obscure what science is trying to tell us. By denying the social reality that goes against their convictions, individuals prevent the past from providing them guidance into the future. Rather, they are afraid of this future that does not correspond to their ideal notions of life. Consequently, generations after generations make the same mistake of considering their social norms to be ultimately superior to all others.

The conservative camp of our days claims to struggle for the safeguarding of the “natural” family by attacking same-sex marriage. Some US Republicans are even calling for a “Natural Family Month” to promote their concept of what is “natural” and what is not. Unfortunately, the definition of what is “natural” has historically constantly been shifting. And, hardly surprisingly, our conservative friends have chosen their particular historical moment as the one that represents the highest standard of “normality”. Not the medieval period when inbreeding among the royals was an acceptable practice. And, certainly, not the near future when gay and lesbian couples will also constitute an integral part of “normality”.

To demonstrate how ridiculous the contemporary conservative limitations of family will look to the future generations, we might take a glimpse at how these same conservatives would have described a married woman had they been living in the 18th century:

“By marriage, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything, and she is therefore called in our law a feme covert.”

This was the normality at the time, for the quote above was “the most famous definition of a married woman's legal status”, provided by an English jurist in 1765. Had these conservatives lived in the early 19th century, they would have been arguing that it corresponded to the natural order that “married women in the US were legally subordinate to their husbands”.

And as the general social consciousness would have been changing, they would have fought against the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, which while “did not change the status of women within marriage”, at least “recovered rights of divorced or separated women to inherit or bequest their own property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued as if she were single”. This already would have been decried as disturbing the “natural” status of a divorced woman, just as same-sex marriages are disturbing the “natural” families today. A suitable occasion, perhaps, to proclaim a “Natural Divorced Woman’s Month”?

And it was only a question of time when “the old doctrine of legal unity of husband and wife” would have been terminated, as it was in the UK by the Married Women's Property Act of 1882. It is equally just a question of time when all discrimination against the LGBT community will be terminated. But such historical lessons about social change are, sadly, ignored by those who are opposed to social change.

There were many individuals from the 18th and 19th centuries who have died with the notion that men are the “absolute monarchs in their families”, while women had the duty to “submit themselves to their husbands in all things”. And there will be a lot of contemporary individuals who will die as believers that same-sex marriages go against the natural order. But there is consolation for our conservative friends. Just as the humans from the previous centuries are now resting in peace despite the liberties of the contemporary women, the contemporary defenders of the “natural” family will likewise feel no pain whatsoever as a result of gays and lesbians having been fully embraced by the future generations.

Sources:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/ohio-republicans-introduce-natural-family-month-bill-lgbtq-families-rcna207354
https://www.weber.edu/michaelwutz/womens-legal-status.html
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/struggle-married-womens-rights-circa-1880s

Image by Freepik.com