I wrote this verse several months ago, but hesitated to post it here before I had a chance to get some individual feedback from some of my poet friends. My goal was to have it speak about the fact of social change, using a significant and somewhat divisive social change that is arguably still ongoing as a foil, without appearing to endorse either the pro-change or anti-change camp. I hoped to have people on both sides of the issue think this poem was supporting their views, but after a few edits ended up with a mix: some people on each side thought I was supporting their view and some that I was opposing it.

What’s my true opinion of the changing definition of marriage? See post 743 where I outline my political position. This topic fits in that framework nicely.

The historical references in this poem are, to the best of my knowledge, correct; however, the structure of the verse suggests, without actually stating, that temporal correlation means causation and that the social changes outlined were the conscious plans of specific individuals. I have no evidence of that; I suspect most of this story was emergent, not planned.

On the 10% false paternity point (meaning children whose genetic material was contributed by a different man than the one identifying at birth as the child’s father), it is easy to find lower numbers in sources today. However, when false paternity was first brought to my attention 20 years ago 10% was by far the most common number I heard, and I was unsuccessful in finding what percentage was cited 100 years ago.

The hardest part of writing this was finding the right word to use where this version has lovechild. I wanted a word that unambiguously meant the children conceived during a couple’s lovemaking, and did not include adoption, surrogacy, or other forms of adding children to a couple. I found plenty of words that used to mean that, but struggled to find one that still does – an accidental confirmation of one of the points of the poem.

On marriage

One hundred years ago or so a marriage was a contract
which granted both the signatories right to loving contact.
    In this contract, thus pledged he:
        I’ll keep her safe, I’ll pay her way,
        I’ll give her kids a place to play.
    In this contract, thus pledged she:
        I’ll keep his house, see to his need,
        he’ll think my offspring are his seed.
    In this contract, thus pledged we:
        We’ll act as one in law, in life,
        we’ll share our goods and hide our strife.
One hundred years ago or so blood typing was discovered
and false paternity at rates near ten percent uncovered.
    Around that time, the private eye:
        I’ll prove your spouse has no remorse
        so you can have a smooth divorce.
    Around that time, to Reno fly:
        A six-week stay on rented cot
        and then we can untie the knot.
    Around that time, the unwed lie:
        We’re married (just not to each other);
        or, it’s okay, he’s just my brother.
One hundred years ago or so, we found ourselves in trouble.
How could we pull this broken beam without creating rubble?
    Not enough to up the prize:
        We’d done what Law and Faith could do;
        what more to offer those who’re true?
    Not enough to punish lies:
        Detecting falseness caused great pain
        without much evidence of gain.
    Not enough to cut all ties:
        An unleashed boy, a night of fun,
        a girl’s motherhood begun.

Society was resting on
a concept that it wished was gone.
We could not simply pull it out
without a widespread social rout.
    But there’s a way
    to save the day
    through what we say.
We re-cast marriage as just love,
and not decrees from God Above.
Ignore the knot, omit the chain:
you love, then wed; it’s just the plain.

One hundred years ago or so, we changed how we told tales
enthroning love above all else; it’s always love prevails.
    No more the Taming of the Shrew:
        Where love’s the prize and not the plot
        and true affection no one’s got.
    No more the Penzance Pirate crew:
        Where noble blood meets lissome maid
        without a hint of love’s charade.
    No more the wealth plus beauty glue:
        Where maidens’ husbands may be old
        provided they have ample gold.
One hundred years ago or so, new stories we began
which re-spun marriage in a way that fit the new grand plan.
    We spoke beyond how lovers meet:
        To build up love enough to last
        our heroes gained both quirks and past.
    We spoke of men as hot and sweet:
        No more would means and honor do,
        we wanted them exciting too.
    We spoke of women less like meat:
        For love to last beyond their youth
        we spoke in terms of deeper truth.
One hundred years ago or so, that narrative was fiction,
but widely told on page and screen by those with perfect diction.
    A generation passed, and then:
        No fault divorce: if love has died
        the government would stand aside.
    A generation more, and then:
        Free love, sex ed, no virgin bride;
        more talk of sex, at times with pride.
    A generation more, and then:
        The wedding of a pair of grooms,
        no hint of funding lovechilds’ rooms.

Society still rests upon
some concepts that we wish were gone.
We cannot simply pull them out
without a widespread social rout.
    But there’s a way
    to save the day
    through what we say.
Don’t fight head-on, don’t change the rule:
to shift the word’s the winning tool.
Retell the tale a different way
and everything will change some day.