Women's family roles would not be hurt by gay marriage

"All you need is love," said the Beatles.

"Yeah, right," said the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Well, actually it says the following: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

There are a thousand passionate arguments raging in favor of this amendment but most of them are religious or in fiery defense of some presumed moral fabric of America.

For example, Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, stated, "Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society."

I specifically take issue with the last three words of that sentence. When exactly did "our entire society" so conclusively define marriage, that we are able to "redefine" it now? People have been arguing over the institution's meaning for ages! (Henry VIII, anyone?)

Let's say that by a definition for marriage, Daniels was referring to a male-female union. In a generalized portrayal of American opinion, Daniels arrogantly presumes to speak for our entire society in making such a declaration. He may represent many Americans, even the majority, but stating that our country is anything but sorely divided is ridiculous.

A national USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted Dec. 7, 2003, found that while 48 percent of Americans actively oppose gay marriage, 50 percent believe the results would be either an improvement or irrelevant. The numbers vary with different polls, but almost all hover around the halfway mark.

Either way, opinions and numbers mean little in a stiff ideological battle where gay rights issues have often brought into question the central purpose of marriage.

Historically speaking, marriage for romance is a relatively new concept, though America has undoubtedly embraced it. Inherently embedded in this idea of marrying for love rather than money, status, or convenience is the women's liberation movement. After all, why would Susie marry rich Bobby for money if she can marry poor Johnny for love and make a fortune herself?

However, William R. Mattox, Jr., offers a fresh, secular, and even compassionate spin to the opposition of gay marriage in an article in USA TODAY. Though firmly stating that he is not a "gay basher," Mattox argues that gay marriage would devalue a woman's role in society.

"[We] don't want our daughter to be raised in a culture in which young men are taught that women have less intrinsic worth than men," Mattox writes. "Or that the most basic unit of society can somehow be complete without a woman."

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

He further acknowledges a vice-versa complaint regarding lesbian marriages.

While I appreciate Mattox's thoughtful consideration of a woman's worth, he has missed a key element of the feminist movement. Saying a woman has a specific role in a family, defined solely by her gender, pins her to a stereotype that must be foregone to transcend sexism.

What qualities is Mattox suggesting that a woman brings to a marriage? If he means the warm, loving, motherly instincts characteristic of the stereotypical woman, he might want to redefine his notions regarding both genders. Can a man not have these qualities? Is a woman lacking such tendencies not truly female?

In considering the definition of womanhood, one must remember Sojourner Truth's famous "Ain't I a Woman" speech, a milestone in the history of women's rights.

"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere," said Truth. "Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman?"

Here, the same principles apply.

Anyone that thinks a woman is defined by any particular attribute, that gender plays such an irrefutable role in a person's character that love and marriage are incomplete without one of each type, has failed to make the affirmation that Truth demanded back in 1851.

Will we ever make the leap?

I will not get into what heterosexual marriages have done to devalue women in the past, but I will suggest that most of the demeaning terrors women face today — rape, domestic violence, etc. — are rarely caused by gay men or any marriage between them.

Despite this highly original tangent that Mattox introduces, most opposition to gay marriage still stems from religious values. Women's rights activists have consistently had to fight societal and religious assumptions based on gender, and their struggle today continues worldwide (NOT just in the Middle East). The gay rights movement, inextricably entwined with anti-sexist definitions of gender roles, will face very similar challenges based on sexuality.

A good deal of progress has been made in the last century or two, so clearly, narrow convictions CAN give way to more compassionate acceptance — all we need is love.

Sanhita Sen is a freshman from Yorktown, Va.