Sex Roles DOI 10.1007/s11199-015-0476-y
MEDIA REVIEW
A Review of Bridegroom, The Loving Story, and Bachelorette, 34: Challenging Cultural Expectations of Marriage Bridegroom. Directed by Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, Mozark Productions and Virgil Films, 2013. 79 min. $19.99 (Virgil Films). http://bridegroommovie.com/ The Loving story. Directed by Nancy Buirski, HBO Documentaries, 2011. 78 min. $2.99 (Amazon Instant Video). http://lovingfilm.com Bachelorette, 34. Directed by Kara Herold, New Day Films, 2009. 30 min. $195 (University Price). https://www.newday.com/film/bachelorette-34 Emily Keener 1 & Catherine J. Massey 1
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
In this review, three films are discussed which together highlight common factors maintaining the status quo and cultural expectations surrounding marriage and romantic relationships in the United States, namely that marriage is between a man and woman of the same race and that women should be married (Cruz and Berson 2001; Depaulo and Morris 2006; Herek 2006). Please note that this review was informed by studies based on U.S. data. These films may benefit viewers in understanding that people who violate the status quo and cultural expectations of marriage are stigmatized and are subjected to negative stereotypes and discrimination. These negative consequences may vary depending on context of the status quo violation (samesex relationship, interracial relationship, and no relationship or being single), may be specific to U.S. culture, and have historically varied (Cruz and Berson 2001; Depaulo and Morris 2006; Herek 2006; Pew Research Center 2013). Examining these three violations of the cultural expectations of marriage has the potential to teach important lessons about the historical context of marriage laws and how to challenge factors that maintain the status quo and cultural expectations of marriage. As such we suggest and review three films:
* Emily Keener
[email protected] 1
Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA, USA
Bridegroom (same-sex marriage), The Loving Story (interracial marriage), and Bachelorette, 34 (singlism).
Film Overviews Bridegroom is an emotional story of two gay men, Tom and Shane, who were in a committed relationship, but who were unmarried nor could they be married due to anti-gay marriage laws. Thus, when Tom died in an accident, Shane was left without the protection of marriage rights. The consequences of not having marriage rights surround next of kin issues at the hospital, property/finance issues, and how he was excluded by Tom’s family from making funeral arrangements and attending the funeral. Despite their long-term committed relationship, Shane was not mentioned or acknowledged at Tom’s funeral service or in the obituary. Especially because of the emotional nature of the film and the age of the young men (they were in their 20s—Tom died at 29), this film may be especially relevant to young adults. It is not as much Bentertaining^ as it is griping and dramatic—it keeps the attention of the viewers. Bridegroom uses interviews, photographs, and video clips to show Tom and Shane’s coming out stories (unlike Shane’s family, Tom’s family was not accepting and threatened violence), their relationship, Tom’s death, and the discriminatory aftermath of Tom’s passing. The Loving Story is a documentary about Mildred and Richard Loving, an interracial couple living in Virginia in
Sex Roles
the 1950s, who violated Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924—banning interracial marriage. The film tells the story of how the couple woke one night to local police raiding their home after which they received criminal charges for Bcohabitating.^ Through the use of impressive archival footage, still photography, and interviews, the film follows the couple’s fight to live as a married couple in the state of Virginia all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where they won their landmark case, Loving v. Virginia (1967). The Loving Story not only tells the story of this couple, but also provides the historical context of anti-miscegenation laws. Students are likely to enjoy the film, becoming engrossed in the courtroom drama or in the romantic love story. Bachelorette, 34, highlights U.S. cultural expectations for women to marry. It is a documentary about Kara, a young adult woman who is content to maintain her single status. The style of Bachelorette, 34, is very different from the other two films. It uses voiceovers and retro video clips, paintings, clipart, and collages to tell the story of a mother and daughter where the mother (reflecting the larger culture) is obsessed with her daughter getting married. Kara’s mother explains how she cannot sleep at night because she is so worried about her daughter’s future without a husband. She is worried about her daughter’s deathbed regrets of never marrying and wonders who she will have to help her as she ages. In a moment of weakness, when she internalizes her mother’s fears, Kara allows her mother to help find her a husband. Through the story of her mother’s marriage, a historical perspective on marriage is given. In the end, Kara’s mother comes to understand her daughter’s perspective that getting married is not an essential life goal. In our experience of showing the film to students, some viewers may not like it, but for those who are open to innovative approaches to storytelling, the film is as fun and entertaining as it is educational and enlightening.
Factors Maintaining Cultural Expectations There are some common themes in these films. For example, similar factors such as family, religion, and laws work to maintain U.S. cultural expectations of marriage for these three types of status quo violations.
parents could not have been more supportive. His mother told him that she already knew before he could even get the words out. Shane’s father also was supportive. Tom’s experience with his family was negative. When Tom broke the news, his family fought, telling him to Bchange his mind^—Tom’s dad even pulled a shotgun on him, ripped a door off the hinges, and threatened Shane over the phone during a dramatic fight. Eventually, Tom’s mother, Martha, seemed to accept Tom and Shane’s relationship when she started visiting the couple frequently. Immediately after the accident, Martha came into town to settle Tom’s affairs. She went through all their belongings and wanted to discuss bank accounts. Overall, through her grief, she seemed supportive and included Shane in the funeral plans. There were even discussions about Shane’s family staying with her in Indiana. After Tom’s mother returned home, it became clear that Tom’s family did not want Shane at the funeral and that there would be a physical altercation if he and his family attended. Bridegroom depicts well the impact that cultural expectations have on validation and treatment of intimate relationships that violate the status quo. Shane was ignored as Tom’s intimate partner by Tom’s family, and was excluded from any involvement with his burial. Prilleltensky and Gonick (1996) noted that maintaining the status quo often perpetuates marginalization of particular groups and extends to other social structures and discriminatory practices. For example, the rationale often used for not legalizing same-sex marriage revolves around the issue of reproduction and maintaining the Bfamily.^ Antigay groups (e.g., Focus on the Family) often suggest that children of same-sex couples are disadvantaged (Herek 2006). These anti-gay beliefs are held despite evidence to the contrary. According to the American Psychological Association (2005), There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parent to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth (p. 15).
Family In watching these three films, the role of family, as either a source of support or a source of pressure, is evident. In the Bridegroom film about the relationship between two gay men, the impact of supportive and unsupportive families can be seen. When Shane and Tom came out as gay men to their families, the contrast of their reactions was striking. Shane’s
In The Loving Story, a film about interracial marriage, the family as a source of support was evident. For example, the Loving’s families gave them a place to hide in Virginia. It is possible that without the support of the family, the Loving’s would not have had the financial means to fight their case with their frequent trips to Virginia for court appearances. In fact, it was their desire to live near their families that motivated them
Sex Roles
to fight for their right to live together as a married couple in Virginia. Similar to arguments against same-sex marriage, arguments against interracial marriage are often centered on reproduction, children, and maintaining Bthe family.^ In fact, in The Loving Story, recordings from the Virginia Supreme Court case present the quote by R.D. McIlwaine III, the Assistant Attorney General, stating that children are the victims of interracial marriage. Specifically, he stated: If the state has an interest in marriage and in maximizing the number of stable marriages and in protecting the progeny of interracial marriages from these problems, then clearly there is scientific evidence available that is so. It is not infrequent that the children of intermarried parents are referred to not merely as the children of intermarried parents but as the ‘victims’ of intermarried parents and as the ‘martyrs’ of intermarried parents. Bachelorette, 34, a film about a single woman, is centralized around Kara’s family (i.e., her mother) as a source of pressure to marry. Kara’s mother cannot understand her daughter’s complacency with remaining single and provides an enormous amount of pressure on Kara to find a husband. A significant portion of the movie replays the mother’s humorous and sometimes offensive phone messages to Kara giving her ideas for meeting men or telling her about eligible bachelors. Her mother even recommends that she stop socializing with lesbians because men will think she is Bone of them.^ Her desperation was obvious when she explained that Kara does not have anything in common with the eligible men and that some of the men she mentioned where a horrible fit for Kara. Because the mother is frustrated with Kara’s lack of effort and because Kara internalizes her mother’s fears, Kara’s mother comes to visit Kara to find her a husband. It does seem that this visit helps Kara’s mother better understand her daughter and that finding a husband is not as easy or as essential as she thought and thus seemed to let Kara lead her single life in peace. This film demonstrates that, for singles, there is the simultaneous pressure to get married and have children and stigma against singles having children on their own. Not having children is seen as selfish and self-involved and single parenting is seen as a disadvantage and not as good as a two-parent household (see DePaulo 2006). Furthermore, using family values to facilitate expectations of marriage, especially for women, are salient and, for some, DePaulo contends, may force a choice between marriage, family, and career. In Bachelorette, 34, the pressure to have a family is evident. Kara’s mother voices concerns over Kara being lonely and makes several references to her desire for Kara to have children. She wonders who will take care of her when she is old and who will be there at her Bdeath bed scene.^ According to DePaulo, issues of whether single people will reproduce or whether they will be alone in their lives are common concerns
of those, like Kara’s mother, who do not understand or agree with one’s choice not to marry. Although these films show different violations of the cultural expectations of marriage with varying consequences, comparing and contrasting the role of family in each highlights the similarities in the struggle and how the family can either provide support making the situation easier or can contribute to or provide negative consequences making the situation more difficult. These films might help viewers accept a more diverse definition of Bfamily^—recognizing that families come in a variety of shapes, shades, and sizes. Viewers might be encouraged to challenge familial factors used to maintain U.S. cultural expectations of marriage by perhaps being supportive of their own family members who violate marriage norms or by providing support to those who are experiencing pressure from their own families due to a lack of approval surrounding their romantic relationships.
Religion Religion was a salient factor in all three films. In Bridegroom, coming out as gay men for Tom and Shane was difficult because of the internal struggle between their sexuality and the religious beliefs held in their families. Tom’s family, in particular, used their religious beliefs to deny who Tom was and led them to exclude Shane in Tom’s funeral. In addition, Tom’s family often tried using their religious beliefs to convince Tom to Bchange^ his sexuality because it is a sin against God if he continued with this life. In The Loving Story, during the legal battle for interracial marriage, Judge Bazile, who upheld the anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia, stated Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. Thus, imputing his interpretation of the Bible as evidence for not allowing interracial marriage. In Bachelorette, 34’s depiction of the pressures put on a single woman to marry Kara’s mother mentions that getting married is a motivating factor to avoid the sin of premarital sex. Though religion was not a major theme in this film, it does open the conversation about how religious views on premarital sex have changed for some over time. Cohabitation, or living together unmarried has increased dramatically in the U.S. since 1970 (Smock 2000). Therefore, today, premarital sex is more socially acceptable than in the past, albeit a double standard still exists with
Sex Roles
women judged more negatively than men for engaging in premarital sex (see Crawford and Popp 2003). Perhaps highlighting how religion is used to maintain the cultural expectations of marriage will help viewers challenge the status quo. They might see how religion has been used to deny freedom and choice to some groups, but not others—or at one time in history, but not at another. Together these films show that interpretations of the Bible change over historical time and can be manipulated to support discrimination. This conversation can be applied to or contrasted with the role of religion in the other films. For example, in The Loving Story, the view that interracial marriage is a sin is no longer accepted by the larger U.S. culture. Although the U.S. is in the midst of a cultural revolution on same-sex marriage, it is still socially acceptable to hold the view that same-sex marriage is a sin (Rauch 2004). Thus, religious beliefs are still used to define marriage and therefore affect marriage rights in the United States. By examining changes in how the Bible was interpreted over historical time and how some older interpretations were used to oppress other groups of people (Tamez 2006), some viewers might come to understand that current and future interpretations of the Bible used to discriminate deserve critical attention and perhaps reconsideration.
Laws In modern history, the norms for romantic relationships and marriage in U.S. culture have shifted, some have been maintained, while others (i.e., same-sex marriage) have added controversy for U.S. public and political avenues (Coontz 2004). In a powerful way, Bridegroom shows the consequences of same-sex couples not being allowed to marry. Shane was not allowed to make decisions concerning Tom’s funeral nor was he able to attend; Tom’s parents were Bnext of kin,^ and legally had the right to exclude Shane. Same-sex marriage was illegal in the U.S. until Massachusetts became the first state in June 2004 to grant same-sex marriage licenses (Herek 2006). However, the allowance of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts did not grant the same benefits allotted to other sex marriages. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA; House Resolution 3396, 1996), that was signed into law by President Clinton, prevented marriages of same-sex couples from being federally recognized. Therefore, same-sex married couples were not federally protected by the 1138 laws bestowed on married couples (Human Rights Campaign 2015). These benefits include social security entitlements, tax breaks for marriage and children, estate tax, taxation of retirement benefits, family and medical leave, immigration law, family benefits for federal workers, and continued health coverage. States also have their own marriage laws related to property and medical/health decisions for their spouses. As recent as June 2013, in the case of United States v. Windsor (2013),
the US Supreme Court overturned DOMA stating, BThe avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States^ (p. 21). Since that date, in the United States, there have been many bans on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional in states now granting same-sex marriage. The U.S. sociocultural shift in same-sex marriage is similar to the bans on interracial marriage (i.e., miscegenation) that date back to 1661 Colonial America (Cruz and Berson 2001). The Loving Story demonstrates the impact of institutional racism and segregation laws that, according to the film, were meant … Bto keep the colored person down and the White person up^. In the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. As noted in The Loving Story, the Supreme Court ruling soon led to the repeal of miscegenation laws in the remaining16 states that had such a law. The aforementioned landmark cases on marriage rights emphasize the importance of these relationships in U.S. culture and the 1000+ legal rights afforded to married persons. Although the right to marry regardless of race and sexual orientation (in some states) has been legalized at the federal level, U.S. culture imputes the expectation of marriage, especially for women. These marital expectations are a residual of the historical inequities of gender and sexual orientation. The belief that women need to Bfind a good man^ and have children to feel whole completes the circle of these cultural or social expectations (Erchull et al. 2010). Of course, there are psychosocial predictors of and variability in parents’ expectations for their children to marry (Manning et al. 2007). Although marriage laws and rights are important factors working to pressure single women to marry (see DePaulo 2006), unfortunately, Bachelorette, 34, missed the opportunity to explicitly discuss laws affecting single women. Historically, women were considered the weaker gender and not expected to be self-sufficient. They were expected to marry and become the Bproperty^ of their husbands (Jaquette 1982). Husbands not only owned them, but also owned everything that women may use, wear or produce, such as wages and children (Stanton 1876). There were very few options for women to work and be self-sufficient. Whereas women’s rights have evolved, the current U.S. culture continues to discriminate against those who remain single and devalue interracial and same-sex marriages. Related to the legal benefits of marriage, there is some suggestion in the film that the target (Kara) would have better finances if she were married. In fact, DePaulo and Morris (2006) make the case that the lack of shared benefits (usually afforded to other-sex spouses and at times to same-sex
Sex Roles
spouses) results in dual compensation for the same work. In fact, evidence suggests that married persons tend to be hired at a higher wage than single persons; add in the tax breaks that married people are afforded, and typically you have married persons making considerably more money than a single person doing the same job (Depaulo 2006). In the military, contract marriages or marrying only for benefits afforded to married couples and not singles or cohabitating couples seems to be a long-standing issue (Karney and Crown 2007). Although marriage today seems to bring many advantages over not marrying, there was little recognition of these advantages in the film. There was, however, some mention of the Bold maid^ and the one and only single woman who lived in Kara’s neighborhood which suggested that the situation for single women used to be harder than it is today. In summary, these films demonstrate how changing laws to be more inclusive creates positive changes in lives. This is especially true in The Loving Story where viewers see the outcome of the changed laws when the Loving family is finally allowed to live together in Virginia. Unfortunately, in Bridegroom, Tom did not live long enough to see the effect that inclusive marriage rights can have on a family. It can only be inferred that with changed laws, Shane would have been allowed to be in the hospital room with Shane and would have had spousal rights surrounding Tom’s funeral. In Bachelorette, 34, Kara lives the benefit of changed laws. That is, she can own property and support herself without a husband. Thinking about what her life would have been like 100 years ago without a husband can highlight the effect inclusive laws can have on one’s ability to live freely. Taken together, these films highlight the similar legal forces used to maintain the status quo and show how the status quo in the U.S. has changed over time (e.g., legalizing interracial marriage and more social acceptance to be a single woman than in the past) and may help viewers better understand and challenge the current efforts to change marriage laws to include same-sex marriage.
Using Films with Students These films could be shown together to students in courses related to relationships, gender, and sexual orientation. Showing these films followed by a discussion may assist students in challenging longstanding prejudicial beliefs of the marriage status quo. Because Bridegroom and The Loving Story are often available to rent or stream on a number of websites (e.g., Amazon and Netflix), students can watch these films at home as Bhomework^ and because Bachelorette, 34, is relatively short (30 min), it can be shown in class. Also, these films could be
shown as a film series where one film is shown each evening with a discussion following the shorter Bachelorette, 34, film. When using these films in the classroom, consider giving students definitions of homophobia (Herek 2004), racism (anti-miscegenation laws, see Pascoe 2009), and singlism (DePaulo 2006), While viewing the films, ask students to identify factors (e.g., religion, family, politics, laws) within the films promoting homophobia, racism, and singlism. Students might also be asked to compare and contrast the struggles and contributing factors (e.g., what was the role of family in each of the films?). To help provide a U.S. historical perspective, students could be asked to predict how same-sex marriage will be viewed in 50 years and relate social change to how interracial marriage is viewed today. Given that students do not always know that interracial marriage was, at one time, illegal, students might realize that future generations may have the same perspective on same-sex marriage. Whereas Bridegroom and The Loving Story explicitly depict racism and homophobia, Bachelorette, 34, is more subtle but, if paired with a reading (e.g., DePaulo and Morris 2006) providing evidence of discrimination, it might expose the implicit ways that U.S. cultural expectations are maintained to discourage same-sex and interracial marriage.
Using Films for Scholarship These films highlight the continued need for research on the psychological and cultural factors supporting prejudice and discrimination. Anderson (2010) asserts that bigotry has changed from overt prejudice to unconscious, covert or subtle prejudice that stems from stereotypes and culture. These unintentional subtle prejudices may play a role in maintaining the status quo. For example, according to the Pew Research Center (2013), 42 % of respondents opposed same-sex marriage, but 67 % reported that they favored legal agreements giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples. Fifteen percent of those who opposed same-sex marriage, but who favored other rights for gay couples, reported opposing same-sex marriage because of religious beliefs. These subtle prejudices may be unintentional and hide under the guise of their religious beliefs, but lead to a Bseparate, but equal belief^ which perpetuates oppression. To reduce prejudice and oppression, these films may provide the impetus for researchers and practitioners to examine psychological and cultural factors related to maintaining the status quo of marriage. These examinations can lead to evidence-based support of equality that challenges prejudicial laws to dismantle oppression. Although U.S. culture has seen a transformation in laws regarding interracial and same-sex marriage and more acceptance of women who remain single,
Sex Roles
prejudices still exist surrounding these issues and research on these topics is needed.
Comparisons to other Films Although there are other films on same-sex marriage rights and interracial marriage, we do not know of any others on singlism, thus, making Bachelorette, 34, the obvious choice. The benefit of showing Bridegroom in an undergraduate setting over other films on same-sex marriage is the powerful emotional nature of the film, and because the story is about young men in their 20s, this film may resonate more with this population. The Loving Story is an award winning 2011 film. Even though there are other films on interracial marriage none has received as much attention and accolades.
Conclusion These films not only highlight the negative consequences of violating the status quo of marriage, but also show the common factors used to maintain the status quo. Identifying the common factors can help viewers understand how to challenge or change these factors that continue to oppress various groups. That is, viewers may adopt a wider definition of family, become a more supportive family member to those who challenge the status quo, or become an activist to facilitate change in laws that are oppressive to one self or others. Seeing how religious beliefs were used in the past to maintain the status quo and perpetuate oppression (e.g., interracial marriage), might lead viewers to critically examine its use to maintain beliefs about marriage only being between a man and a woman. Finally, viewers might also recognize the powerful role laws have in our society to change lives.
References American Psychological Association (2005). Lesbian and gay parenting. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full. pdf. Anderson, K. J. (2010). Benign bigotry: the psychology of subtle prejudice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Coontz, S. (2004). The world historical transformation of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 974–979. doi:10.1111/j. 0022-2445.2004.00067.x. Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26. doi:10.1080/00224490309552163.x.
Cruz, B. C., & Berson, M. J. (2001). The American melting pot? Miscegenation laws in the United States. OAH Magazine of History (Family History), 15, 80–84. doi:10.1093/maghis/15.4.80. Defense of Marriage Act. H. Res. 3396, 104th Cong., Rec.1738C (1996) (enacted). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS104hr3396enr/pdf/BILLS-104hr3396enr.pdf. Depaulo, B. (2006). Singled out: How singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored, and still live happily ever after. New York: St. Martin’s. DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2006). The unrecognized stereotyping and discrimination against singles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 251–254. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721. 2006.00446.x. Erchull, M. J., Liss, M., Axelson, S. J., Staebell, S. E., & Askari, S. F. (2010). Well…she wants it more: Perceptions of social norms about desires for marriage and children and anticipated chore participation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 253–260. doi:10.1111/j.14716402.2010.01566.x. Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond ‘homophobia’: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 1, 6–24. doi:10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6. Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61, 607–621. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.607. Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Overview of federal benefits granted to married couples. Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/resources/ entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-tomarried-couples. Jaquette, J. S. (1982). Women and modernization theory: A decade of feminist criticism. World Politics, 34, 267–284. doi:10.2307/ 2010265. Karney, B. R., & Crown, J. S. (2007). Families under stress: An assessment of data, theory, and research on marriage and divorce in the military. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 395 (1967). Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2007). The changing institution of marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 559–575. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00392.x. Pascoe, P. (2009). What comes naturally: Miscegenation law and the making of race in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Pew Research Center. (2013, June 6). Section 1: Same-sex marriage, civil unions and inevitability. Retrieved from http://www.people-press. org/2013/06/06/section-1-same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-andinevitability/. Prilleltensky, I., & Gonick, L. (1996). Politics change, oppression remains: On the psychology and politics of oppression. Political Psychology, 17, 127–148. doi:10.2307/3791946. Rauch, J. (2004). Gay marriage: Why is it good for gays, good for straights, and good for America. New York: Times Books. Smock, P. J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1–20. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.1. Stanton, E. C. (1876). Declaration of Rights of Women of the United States, July 4, 1876. Elizabeth Cady Stanton Collection. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (111.00.01) [Digital ID# us0111_1]. Tamez, E. (2006). The bible and the 500 years of conquest. In R. S. Sugirtharajah (Ed.), Voices from the margin: Interpreting the bible in the third world (revised and expanded 3rd ed., pp. 13–26). Maryknoll: Orbis. United States. v Windsor, 570 U.S., 12–307 (2013).
