What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Marriage: The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality
Angry debate over gay marriage has divided the nation as no other issue since the Vietnam War. Why has marriage suddenly emerged as the most explosive issue in the gay struggle for equality? At times it seems to have come out of nowhere-but in fact it has a history. George Chauncey offers an electrifying analysis of the history of the shifting attitudes of heterosexual Americans toward gay people, from the dramatic growth in acceptance to the many campaigns against gay rights that form the background to today's demand for a constitutional amendment. Chauncey illuminates what's at stake for both sides of this contentious debate in this essential book for gay and straight readers alike.
200 pages, Paperback
First published August 17, 2004
2 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
About the author
George Chauncey
14 books31 followersGeorge Chauncey is professor of American history at the University of Chicago and the author of Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, which won the distinguished Turner and Curti Awards from the Organization of American Historians, the Los Angeles Times Book Prize, and the Lambda Literary Award.
He testified as an expert witness on the history of antigay discrimination at the 1993 trial of Colorado’s Amendment Two, which resulted in the Supreme Court’s Romer v. Evans decision that antigay rights referenda were unconstitutional, and he was the principal author of the Historians’ Amicus Brief, which weighed heavily in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision overturning sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, he lives and works in Chicago.
He testified as an expert witness on the history of antigay discrimination at the 1993 trial of Colorado’s Amendment Two, which resulted in the Supreme Court’s Romer v. Evans decision that antigay rights referenda were unconstitutional, and he was the principal author of the Historians’ Amicus Brief, which weighed heavily in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision overturning sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, he lives and works in Chicago.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
September 8, 2009
People concerned about gay marriage rights will know lots that Chauncey covers in this book. However, I think that some of his main points are not facts that I hear often understood from many people.
First, homosexual conduct has not been historically as regulated in the U.S. as it became in the 20th century; before the 1920s and 30s, many of the laws that were put on the books then did not exist. The current form of criminalization of homosexuality is a 20th century invention.
Second, marriage has become such a focus point for the debate over gay equality because legally marriage has become a nexus for basic civil and economic rights representative of a basic status of citizenship. This, too, is unique to the post-WWII United States; marriage has been less a contentious topic in other countries because their social benefits/welfare systems are connected to individuals, not to married couples. The way we regulate gender and work through the family, via the concentration of economic rights through married couples, doesn't necessarily make sense and is not the case in many places (nor was it always the case here).
Third, even while many conservative religious figures have rejected equating the social status of gays and lesbians today with that of blacks before the civil rights movement, many of their arguments against gay marriage are incredibly similar to those arguments they made against segregation in the 1950s. Jerry Falwell, for instance, argued strongly against interracial marriage in the 50s, saying it was against God's plan. This seems to support the idea that many religious conservatives use so-called Biblical notions simply as a prop to uphold their own preferences for social and economic inequality.
In general, Chauncey's book is a good popular account that utilizes history to contextualize and challenge assumptions on the topic.
First, homosexual conduct has not been historically as regulated in the U.S. as it became in the 20th century; before the 1920s and 30s, many of the laws that were put on the books then did not exist. The current form of criminalization of homosexuality is a 20th century invention.
Second, marriage has become such a focus point for the debate over gay equality because legally marriage has become a nexus for basic civil and economic rights representative of a basic status of citizenship. This, too, is unique to the post-WWII United States; marriage has been less a contentious topic in other countries because their social benefits/welfare systems are connected to individuals, not to married couples. The way we regulate gender and work through the family, via the concentration of economic rights through married couples, doesn't necessarily make sense and is not the case in many places (nor was it always the case here).
Third, even while many conservative religious figures have rejected equating the social status of gays and lesbians today with that of blacks before the civil rights movement, many of their arguments against gay marriage are incredibly similar to those arguments they made against segregation in the 1950s. Jerry Falwell, for instance, argued strongly against interracial marriage in the 50s, saying it was against God's plan. This seems to support the idea that many religious conservatives use so-called Biblical notions simply as a prop to uphold their own preferences for social and economic inequality.
In general, Chauncey's book is a good popular account that utilizes history to contextualize and challenge assumptions on the topic.
August 16, 2012
In the Acknowledgments at the end of 'Why Marriage?', George Chauncey says that he wrote it in three months, and at five chapters and less than 2000 pages,it is more a pamphlet or an essay than a book. This isn't in any way to disparage ''Why Marriage?'; rather it's a reason for anyone interested in the issue of same-sex marriage to pick up a copy and quickly learn a little more about the debate.
'Why Marriage?' tells the history of the American debate, but much of what Chauncey writes will be relevant to other Western countries. In the first chapter, 'The Legacy of Antigay Discrimination', Chauncey reminds readers of how recently homosexuality was not merely disapproved of, but criminalized, and the ways in which various institutions - law, church, medicine, the entertainment industry - policed and persecuted homosexual people. This is a very recent history, the height of homosexual persecution was post-World War Two, but it is a history that has been quickly forgotten.
The irony, of course, is that with increased persecution came increased militancy; and, Chauncey writes: "Long before masses of gay people chose to come out of the closet, the national government played a crucial role in destroying the walls between people's 'public' roles as workers and churchgoers and their 'private' lives as homosexuals." (p. 27) This is the theme of the second chapter, 'Gay Rights, Civil Rights', which examines how America moved from anti-gay discrimination to a situation in which same-sex marriage can even be talked about. Part of it was the creation of a resisting community as a result of persecution; part of it was the influence of feminism and the sexual revolution; part of it was the inspiration taken from "the many social movements [that] called on people to engage in ... risky acts of witness, from sitting at a segregated lunch counter to burning a draft card". (p. 33) But possibly the biggest factor was the crisis caused by AIDS, and by the refusal of the government and public institutions to care for the people affected by it. This led both to an increased mobilization of gay people, and increased cooperation between gay men and lesbian women. "By the mid-1990s, then, lesbians and gay men faced a complex mixture of support and hostility". (p. 56) Without that support, marriage rights for gay couples would be unimaginable.
The third chapter, 'How Marriage Changed' looks at the other reason that same-sex marriage is now at least imaginable: the changing nature of marriage itself. The chapter begins with a paragraph that anyone discussing same-sex marriage should be required to learn off by heart:
'Marriage is constantly changing. Once often polygamous, it is now usually monogamous. Once concerned primarily with the control of labor and the transmission of property, now it is supposed to nurture happiness and mutual commitment. Once governed by custom alone, it has been alternately regulated by kin, slave owners, masters, church, and state. Given the enormous variation over time and among cultures in how "marriage" has organized sexual and emotional life, child-rearing, property, kinship, and political alliances, many anthropologists are loathe to use the term "marriage" at all, since the term's apparently straightforward simplicity hides so much more than it reveals.' (p. 59)
Chauncey then goes on to describe four historical factors that have opened up the possibility of same-sex marriage: the recognition of the freedom to chose one's marriage partner as a civil right; the increasing egalitarianism and gender-neutrality of marriage; the importance of marriage in the allocation of state and private benefits; and the decreasing power of religious authorities to impose their marriage rules on others. Of these four factors only the third, the importance of marriage in allocating benefits, isn't equally important in the Australian context. While marriage still makes some difference to the rights and responsibilities of Australians, it isn't so important in a country with universal healthcare, and one in which age, disability and unemployment benefits are provided by the government rather than employers. Australians do not need to rely on their spouse's employer for healthcare. But the other three factors are just as true in Australia as they are in the USA.
In the fourth chapter, 'Why Marriage Became a Goal', Chauncey explains why support for same-sex marriage went from being a minority position to being widely held by gay and lesbian people. The reason was "two searing experiences of the 1980s that forever impressed on lesbians and gay men the importance of securing their relationships: the devastating impact of AIDS and the astonishing rapid appearance of what everyone soon called the lesbian baby boom". (p. 95) People were unable to be with their dying partners in hospital or organize their funerals because they weren't 'next of kin'; survivors could lose their homes after the death of partner; the non-biological mother could lose custody of their children after the death of the biological mother. Marriage would solve all this by providing legal protections not ptherwise availble, or available only at great cost: "A full set of documents necessary to approximate the protections provided by marriage could cost several thousand dollars; a marriage license might cost $25". (p. 113) Workplace domestic partnership policies solved some problems, but not all: "No domestic partnership policy could provide hospital visitation rights, or social security benefits, or the pension protections available to married couples". (p. 118) So gay people started to fight for the right to marry, and on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which from May 17', 2004, the state did. More than 250 couples lined up at the steps of city hall in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to receive marriage lisences on that first day, cheered on by a crowd of ten thousand. (p. 138)
In the final chapter, 'The Present as History', Chauncey puts the then-present-moment, 2004, into historical context, looking at what the gay rush to marriage signified; what the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA); and what can be learned from previous marriage debate - the debate over inter-racial marriages, or 'miscegenation'. History teaches that "marriage bans play an integral role in reinforcing broader patterns of inequality". (p. 161) This is why so many same-sex couples seek marriage, as a refusal of second-class citizenship. It is why the Religious Right and other conservative groups oppose same-sex marriage so strongly, because a marriage without a 'husband' and a 'wife' challenges the God-given subordination of women. It is why so many groups, including religious groups, argued so strongly against mixed-race marriage, because such marriages indicated the full and equal citizenship of blacks and whites. History teaches that "the demonization of subordinate groups as sexually aberrant and dangerous has served to justify their subordination. Homosexuals are not the first group to be demonized as sexual sinners and predators". (p. 163) History warns that both the supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have exaggerated its potential impact. By finally, history encourages us that things can change. "Racism has not disappeared, but the theology of Dr King has triumphed over segregationist theology so decisively that his religious opponents have been almost entirely forgotten". (p. 164) And so Chauncey ends: "nothing in history is inevitable. As always, our future lies in our own hands."
This book is as relevant to Australia as it is to the USA. The Religious Right is much less powerful here than it is there (no matter what the Australian Christian Lobby may tell politicians) but on this topic it has still captured our atheist Prime Minister, while the Catholic Leader of the Opposition takes the official Vatican line. The legal importance of marriage is less in Australia, with very little difference between the rights and responsibilies created by marriage and those created by de facto relationships, and no differences at all when it comes to children. But allowing same-sex couples the equivalent of de facto relationships would still create a second-class of relationship in Australia simply because they would not have the choice that heterosexual couples have between marriage and a de facto relationship. There was less fear about miscegenation in Australia than there was in the USA, in fact at some points in Australia's history 'breeding the colour out' was seen as a way of dealing with Aboriginal people. But Australia's indigenous people also have a history of their marriages not being recognized and their rights as spouses and parents ignored - they too can recognize that the right to marry is an important civil right. The history of the present that Chauncey describes is as important for Australians to know as it is for Americans.
So, for anyone interested in the current debate about same-sex marriage, and particularly for those people who, like me, want the Uniting Church to advocate for and bless same-sex marriages, I heartily recommend this little book.
'Why Marriage?' tells the history of the American debate, but much of what Chauncey writes will be relevant to other Western countries. In the first chapter, 'The Legacy of Antigay Discrimination', Chauncey reminds readers of how recently homosexuality was not merely disapproved of, but criminalized, and the ways in which various institutions - law, church, medicine, the entertainment industry - policed and persecuted homosexual people. This is a very recent history, the height of homosexual persecution was post-World War Two, but it is a history that has been quickly forgotten.
The irony, of course, is that with increased persecution came increased militancy; and, Chauncey writes: "Long before masses of gay people chose to come out of the closet, the national government played a crucial role in destroying the walls between people's 'public' roles as workers and churchgoers and their 'private' lives as homosexuals." (p. 27) This is the theme of the second chapter, 'Gay Rights, Civil Rights', which examines how America moved from anti-gay discrimination to a situation in which same-sex marriage can even be talked about. Part of it was the creation of a resisting community as a result of persecution; part of it was the influence of feminism and the sexual revolution; part of it was the inspiration taken from "the many social movements [that] called on people to engage in ... risky acts of witness, from sitting at a segregated lunch counter to burning a draft card". (p. 33) But possibly the biggest factor was the crisis caused by AIDS, and by the refusal of the government and public institutions to care for the people affected by it. This led both to an increased mobilization of gay people, and increased cooperation between gay men and lesbian women. "By the mid-1990s, then, lesbians and gay men faced a complex mixture of support and hostility". (p. 56) Without that support, marriage rights for gay couples would be unimaginable.
The third chapter, 'How Marriage Changed' looks at the other reason that same-sex marriage is now at least imaginable: the changing nature of marriage itself. The chapter begins with a paragraph that anyone discussing same-sex marriage should be required to learn off by heart:
'Marriage is constantly changing. Once often polygamous, it is now usually monogamous. Once concerned primarily with the control of labor and the transmission of property, now it is supposed to nurture happiness and mutual commitment. Once governed by custom alone, it has been alternately regulated by kin, slave owners, masters, church, and state. Given the enormous variation over time and among cultures in how "marriage" has organized sexual and emotional life, child-rearing, property, kinship, and political alliances, many anthropologists are loathe to use the term "marriage" at all, since the term's apparently straightforward simplicity hides so much more than it reveals.' (p. 59)
Chauncey then goes on to describe four historical factors that have opened up the possibility of same-sex marriage: the recognition of the freedom to chose one's marriage partner as a civil right; the increasing egalitarianism and gender-neutrality of marriage; the importance of marriage in the allocation of state and private benefits; and the decreasing power of religious authorities to impose their marriage rules on others. Of these four factors only the third, the importance of marriage in allocating benefits, isn't equally important in the Australian context. While marriage still makes some difference to the rights and responsibilities of Australians, it isn't so important in a country with universal healthcare, and one in which age, disability and unemployment benefits are provided by the government rather than employers. Australians do not need to rely on their spouse's employer for healthcare. But the other three factors are just as true in Australia as they are in the USA.
In the fourth chapter, 'Why Marriage Became a Goal', Chauncey explains why support for same-sex marriage went from being a minority position to being widely held by gay and lesbian people. The reason was "two searing experiences of the 1980s that forever impressed on lesbians and gay men the importance of securing their relationships: the devastating impact of AIDS and the astonishing rapid appearance of what everyone soon called the lesbian baby boom". (p. 95) People were unable to be with their dying partners in hospital or organize their funerals because they weren't 'next of kin'; survivors could lose their homes after the death of partner; the non-biological mother could lose custody of their children after the death of the biological mother. Marriage would solve all this by providing legal protections not ptherwise availble, or available only at great cost: "A full set of documents necessary to approximate the protections provided by marriage could cost several thousand dollars; a marriage license might cost $25". (p. 113) Workplace domestic partnership policies solved some problems, but not all: "No domestic partnership policy could provide hospital visitation rights, or social security benefits, or the pension protections available to married couples". (p. 118) So gay people started to fight for the right to marry, and on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which from May 17', 2004, the state did. More than 250 couples lined up at the steps of city hall in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to receive marriage lisences on that first day, cheered on by a crowd of ten thousand. (p. 138)
In the final chapter, 'The Present as History', Chauncey puts the then-present-moment, 2004, into historical context, looking at what the gay rush to marriage signified; what the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA); and what can be learned from previous marriage debate - the debate over inter-racial marriages, or 'miscegenation'. History teaches that "marriage bans play an integral role in reinforcing broader patterns of inequality". (p. 161) This is why so many same-sex couples seek marriage, as a refusal of second-class citizenship. It is why the Religious Right and other conservative groups oppose same-sex marriage so strongly, because a marriage without a 'husband' and a 'wife' challenges the God-given subordination of women. It is why so many groups, including religious groups, argued so strongly against mixed-race marriage, because such marriages indicated the full and equal citizenship of blacks and whites. History teaches that "the demonization of subordinate groups as sexually aberrant and dangerous has served to justify their subordination. Homosexuals are not the first group to be demonized as sexual sinners and predators". (p. 163) History warns that both the supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have exaggerated its potential impact. By finally, history encourages us that things can change. "Racism has not disappeared, but the theology of Dr King has triumphed over segregationist theology so decisively that his religious opponents have been almost entirely forgotten". (p. 164) And so Chauncey ends: "nothing in history is inevitable. As always, our future lies in our own hands."
This book is as relevant to Australia as it is to the USA. The Religious Right is much less powerful here than it is there (no matter what the Australian Christian Lobby may tell politicians) but on this topic it has still captured our atheist Prime Minister, while the Catholic Leader of the Opposition takes the official Vatican line. The legal importance of marriage is less in Australia, with very little difference between the rights and responsibilies created by marriage and those created by de facto relationships, and no differences at all when it comes to children. But allowing same-sex couples the equivalent of de facto relationships would still create a second-class of relationship in Australia simply because they would not have the choice that heterosexual couples have between marriage and a de facto relationship. There was less fear about miscegenation in Australia than there was in the USA, in fact at some points in Australia's history 'breeding the colour out' was seen as a way of dealing with Aboriginal people. But Australia's indigenous people also have a history of their marriages not being recognized and their rights as spouses and parents ignored - they too can recognize that the right to marry is an important civil right. The history of the present that Chauncey describes is as important for Australians to know as it is for Americans.
So, for anyone interested in the current debate about same-sex marriage, and particularly for those people who, like me, want the Uniting Church to advocate for and bless same-sex marriages, I heartily recommend this little book.
April 15, 2009
A concise argument for gay marriage, generally effective but written in a hurry. For his history, Chauncey leans on secondary sources (including his own Gay New York), some more reliable than others. He's pretty vague on any history that comes before the twentieth century; he tries to explain how things were Before, but Before is not a particularly helpful category of analysis for such a complex issue.
That modern American absorption creates the central weakness in Chauncey's argument. Chauncey tries to show that marriage was not always as clearly defined a civil/legal institution as it is now in America. He also tries to show that homosexuals did not always face the discrimination they face now in America. And ultimately, he tries to show that contemporary discrimination can only be remedied by allowing homosexuals to marry. The trouble is, his argument does not address the possibility that marriage itself (including its place in the law as a basis for civil benefits) could be changed as an alternate remedy to opening up marriage to homosexual individuals. This could undermine the book's effectiveness with a certain kind of libertarian traditionalist and with certain kinds of leftist activists. And it's a strange gap in the argument, given that Chauncey himself implies the possibility by discussing the dramatic changes that have taken place in the legal/civil institution since the eighteenth century. He doesn't show that marriage is necessary to the just operation of our laws, so he doesn't actually show that gay marriage is necessary to the just operation of our laws.
But one could hardly expect a book like this to address all possible forms of radical change. I think the book largely succeeds in addressing its intended audience -- centrist Americans who are perhaps uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage but not with gay rights in the abstract. And I should add that Chauncey does a pretty good job being fair to his opponents in this text.
That modern American absorption creates the central weakness in Chauncey's argument. Chauncey tries to show that marriage was not always as clearly defined a civil/legal institution as it is now in America. He also tries to show that homosexuals did not always face the discrimination they face now in America. And ultimately, he tries to show that contemporary discrimination can only be remedied by allowing homosexuals to marry. The trouble is, his argument does not address the possibility that marriage itself (including its place in the law as a basis for civil benefits) could be changed as an alternate remedy to opening up marriage to homosexual individuals. This could undermine the book's effectiveness with a certain kind of libertarian traditionalist and with certain kinds of leftist activists. And it's a strange gap in the argument, given that Chauncey himself implies the possibility by discussing the dramatic changes that have taken place in the legal/civil institution since the eighteenth century. He doesn't show that marriage is necessary to the just operation of our laws, so he doesn't actually show that gay marriage is necessary to the just operation of our laws.
But one could hardly expect a book like this to address all possible forms of radical change. I think the book largely succeeds in addressing its intended audience -- centrist Americans who are perhaps uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage but not with gay rights in the abstract. And I should add that Chauncey does a pretty good job being fair to his opponents in this text.
September 5, 2022
Published in 2004, this book is a miniature time capsule of what was happening in America at the time, namely the legalizing of gay marriage in Massachusetts, and how the consequences of that decision would play out in other states. Obviously it does not include Obergefell v. Hodges which happened long after this was published but it does look back on other important Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Lawrence v. Texas. It’s fascinating to look back on the politics of the time, long before Trump and just after 9/11. It is weird to read it just after the repealing of Roe v. Wade and I would like to see a similar book written about that as well. This book pairs well with the Making Gay History podcast and also does a brief dive in queer history. It gets better as it goes along. It’s obviously extremely brief and lacking detail, however I think it acknowledges all the crucial points of queer history even if the nuance is missed. I should absolutely read this book again. While the chapters are decidedly not in bite sized pieces, it’s easy to break them down into smaller, more digestible, parts. As someone who always thought that the “we’re just like you” argument for gay marriage left out the most marginalized people in our community, which it does, this does a great job of explaining why it became a central issue for us and how we got here.
May 8, 2019
Informative and important.
Read
February 25, 2023Read for thesis - good historical background
July 16, 2008
This short sweet book provides a concise overview of the history of antigay discrimination and the rise of gay rights movements in the US followed by an explanation for why marriage became a goal of the gay rights movement. The first chapter is one of the more eloquent explanations of popular attitudes about homosexuality in the 20th century. It does a good job of recreating the era, as Chauncey explains, when "there was no Will & Grace or Ellen, no Queer Eye for the Straight Guy , no Philadelphia or The Hours , no annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) film festival"(5) - in other words when invisibility was one of the key ways in which antigay discrimination operated on a systematic level. From teaching this book I've learned how easily even the recent past becomes invisible to those who have not lived through it.
I found the chapter on How Marriage Changed overly simplified and not the story I would tell (He states marriage became more egalitarian, increasingly used as a depository of federal benefits, and less religious in nature). In the Chapter Why Marriage Became A Goal he offers two answers - the Aids crisis, and what he terms "the lesbian baby boom" - both of which (through birth and death) drove home the importance of the protections marriage offered. The final chapter is a call to action.
One thing I thought was sorely missing from this book is the idea of gender and sexuality as changing social constructs. This was surprisingly to me since that is the core of the success of Gay New York .
I found the chapter on How Marriage Changed overly simplified and not the story I would tell (He states marriage became more egalitarian, increasingly used as a depository of federal benefits, and less religious in nature). In the Chapter Why Marriage Became A Goal he offers two answers - the Aids crisis, and what he terms "the lesbian baby boom" - both of which (through birth and death) drove home the importance of the protections marriage offered. The final chapter is a call to action.
One thing I thought was sorely missing from this book is the idea of gender and sexuality as changing social constructs. This was surprisingly to me since that is the core of the success of Gay New York .
Read
October 6, 2011This was a really quick history of marriage and the struggle for GLBTQ civil rights and more specifically marriage equality. Plus, Chauncey put together a simple and straight forward argument for the value of marriage equality for all people. I learned about the significance of the Lesbian Baby Boom of the 1970s and 1980s as another need for marriage or partner rights that coincided with the health care needs of primarily Gay men in the 1980s dealing with HIV/AIDS.
Also I was impressed with Chauncey's linking the religious right wing opposition to Gay Marriage to the changing perceptions of marriage in the general public. He argues ultimately the religious right's irritation began with the rights of women changing in the early 20th century which helped support the liberation of roles for both men and women from the traditional roles of husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker. For the religious right Gay Marriage is unsettling because it could further liberate the notion of marriage by eliminating husband and wife.
I hope that marriage can be liberated from these discriminatory conservative religious perceptions.
Also I was impressed with Chauncey's linking the religious right wing opposition to Gay Marriage to the changing perceptions of marriage in the general public. He argues ultimately the religious right's irritation began with the rights of women changing in the early 20th century which helped support the liberation of roles for both men and women from the traditional roles of husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker. For the religious right Gay Marriage is unsettling because it could further liberate the notion of marriage by eliminating husband and wife.
I hope that marriage can be liberated from these discriminatory conservative religious perceptions.
January 31, 2008
This is a good little primer in absolute terms. But people familiar with the narrative of the gay liberation movement - particularly after WWII - are going to find that the first part of the book is a brief, eloquent survey of the topic that provides little they hadn't already read. Similarly, people following the arguments in favor of Gay Marriage through the news media, etc., will be familiar with the second part of the book. It would, however, probably be an excellent introduction to both topics for those who need it.
I also find that I'm inclined to resent the book simply because it could help delay The Strange Career of the Closet, which in a just world would get a midnight release comparable to one of the Harry Potter books.
I also find that I'm inclined to resent the book simply because it could help delay The Strange Career of the Closet, which in a just world would get a midnight release comparable to one of the Harry Potter books.
April 1, 2012
Relatively short and not overly technical, Chauncey's book traces the historical changes of mainstream US society regarding the social and legal aspects of marriage since the turn of the 20th century as well as how (white) lesbian and gay attitudes towards this institution have likewise developed.
July 15, 2007
I feel strongly about gay marriage rights, but I felt even more strongly about it after finishing this book. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to educate themselves about why this matters or the history of the movement.
January 22, 2009
Really well written, concise, interesting. History I never knew and of course never learned in school... Chauncey is a talented writer and makes this non-fiction book that could be dry and tedious to get through actually enjoyable and readable.
August 18, 2007
this is a "101 level" book that certainly favors the pro-marriage side of the debate, though it does examine the queer criticism of marriage as an institution. it doesn't delve deeply enough into a dialogue between the two sides.
May 10, 2014
Great book. Builds the case for equal marriage rights by giving an overview of the institution, and how the desire, support, and necessity for marriage equality evolved and grew. There's a depth to the history without it getting too inside baseball.
March 14, 2007
Essential for anyone thinking of getting married in the U.S. ... gay, straight or otherwise.
June 13, 2009
awesome
August 5, 2015
This book ought to be required reading for every evangelical pastor and Christian conservative leader. We forget or misrepresent history at our peril.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews