Defining Moment
I heard some right-winger noting a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be betweeen a man and woman would not change the definition of marriage. Perhaps not, but it sure would change the Constitution's definition of marriage.
By the way, until today I never heard of the term "Boston marriage." Is New England guy familiar with it?
posted by LAGuy @ 1:08 AM
2 Comments:
Interestingly enough, I am familiar with the term from my pre-New England days -in either AP test-prep American History or English classes in high school(in western Pennsylvania).
My recollection is that it was presented as something like economical and puritanical spinsterism in the units on Emerson/Thoreau/Transcendentalism (and came off as something really dry and boring and very churchy-something like your maiden aunts fed up with the boorishness and impiety of men, living on their own) and, perhaps not surprising given the times and location, issues of sexuality were absent or suppressed- although looking back now, the subtext would probably be obvious.
They might have been a few references in op-ed pages as part of the ongoing gay marriage debate but I can't say I noticed.
I believe it's originally from Henry James. In the last couple decades it's taken on a new complexion. David Mamet wrote a play called Boston Marriage, but I wasn't aware it was a well-known term like Philadelphia Lawyer.
Post a Comment
<< Home