The most pressing legislative issues—which Dr. Maria Hagemeyer had already identified in the early 1950s and outlined in three “memoranda”—were the German Civil Code (BGB), which dated back to 1900, and family law —which still contained many provisions dating back to the Nazi era.

However, her ideas for reforming the traditional view of marriage and family through legislation and eliminating male dominance were not universally welcomed. While the Social Democrats, for example, largely aligned with Hagemeyer’s positions, conservative circles saw the downfall of the Christian West looming on the horizon. High-ranking church officials never tired of glorifying the man “as the natural bearer of the authority required by the principle of marital order.”

In return, the wife should be allowed to manage the household on her own responsibility, in addition to pursuing her own gainful employment, as long as her duties in marriage and family did not suffer as a result. The primary point of contention was Section 1354 of the German Civil Code (BGB). Since 1900, it had stated: “The husband has the right to decide on all matters concerning married life; in particular, he determines the place of residence and the home. The wife is not obligated to comply with the husband’s decision if the decision constitutes an abuse of his right.” According to the majority opinion in the Federal Cabinet, the new Section 1354 was to be worded similarly; the differences between the draft bills submitted in 1952 and again in 1954 were only marginal. (In the Bundesrat, Rhineland-Palatinate was among the states that did not wish to waive § 1354.)

The husband’s right to make the final decision had survived several turning points in history. And the so-called “casting vote” had almost made it into the law passed in 1957. By a razor-thin majority, the relevant Bundestag committee voted against the right to make the final decision. CDU Representative Elisabeth Schwarzhaupt was instrumental in securing this narrow majority. The future first female federal minister—unlike many members of her party, including female members—did not want to give husbands the final say by law again. Accordingly, Section 1354 was removed from the draft bill without replacement.

However, during the decisive debate on May 3, 1957, her CDU caucus submitted an amendment and once again called for men to have the final say—now also referred to as “final responsibility.” Among the CDU members of parliament who strongly supported the amendment was Dr. Helene Weber. Just a few years earlier, she had fought alongside Dr. Elisabeth Selbert, Friederike Nadig, and Helene Wessel for Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law… The debate over the concrete implications of the principle of equal rights was thus waged not only between the parties in the first and second Bundestag, but also within the parliamentary groups themselves. In the debate, for example, Elisabeth Schwarzhaupt and Helene Weber took different positions.

The SPD parliamentary group was more unified on this issue. Quite a few of its speakers viewed the right to make the final decision as a revival of patriarchal structures, since in marriages there could only be shared responsibility, but no responsibility that was purely male.

FDP Representative Dr. Marie-Elisabeth Lüders and Margot Kalinke, a representative of Die PARTEI (DP/FVP), also made similar arguments. Ultimately, however, they, too, did not question the traditional view of the family. In the actual roll-call vote, 186 members of parliament and nine of the Berlin representatives voted against reinstating the husband’s right of final decision—and thus against a new Section 1354. A total of 177, however, voted in favor. [In 1957, out of a total of 497 members of parliament, just 54 were women, representing 11 percent. Of the 22 female CDU members of parliament, eight others joined Elisabeth Schwarzhaupt in voting “no,” three abstained, and one was on leave. The SPD and FDP both voted unanimously against a new Section 1354, as did the All-German Block/Federation of Displaced Persons and Disenfranchised Persons.

The three women representing Rhineland-Palatinate in the Bundestag represented the full spectrum of voting positions. Annemarie Ackermann of the CDU abstained; Maria Dietz (CDU) from Mainz voted in favor of the old Section 1354; and Luise Herklotz (SPD) from Speyer voted against it.] The voting pattern was different, however, when it came to the equally controversial issue of the father’s right to make the final decision. In cases where mothers held a differing opinion, fathers were to continue to have the final say, as in the old Civil Code (BGB). The majority endorsed this position and thus the draft bill—but about two years later, the Federal Constitutional Court struck down this one-sided male privilege. The other amendments to the BGB, which the Bundestag also passed on May 3, 1957, played a lesser role in the debate and subsequently in public perception.

For example, the community of accrued gains was newly introduced, along with provisions in the event of divorce. Working wives were now also better protected against their husbands being able to simply quit their jobs on a whim. Similarly, provisions were established, for example, regarding remarriage, the status of stepchildren, and children born out of wedlock.

In the final vote, the law was passed unanimously—or as Bundestag Vice President Dr. Richard Jaeger put it: “Ladies and gentlemen, with this, the German Bundestag has completed one of its most significant legislative achievements in the implementation of the Basic Law.”

However, FDP Representative Dr. Wolfgang Stammberger likely spoke from the heart of quite a few parliamentarians when he said: “Ladies and gentlemen, my colleague Ms. Weber spoke quite correctly earlier about the division of roles between the two spouses in marriage—namely, that the man is, after all, primarily there to earn a living, and that the woman’s primary role is to create the atmosphere and the sense of domestic security that the man needs so that he can earn a living.” While the minutes note laughter and applause at this point, his next remarks drew only applause: “We male members of this House, who are constantly in a state of transition, know better than anyone the advantage a married man has over a bachelor. And the fact that the domestic comfort provided by the atmosphere created by our wives is significantly more pleasant than bachelorhood is evident from the enthusiasm and eagerness with which we always head home for the weekend.”

The plenary minutes make no mention of the female members’ eagerness to return home for the weekend. In any case, women had to wait 20 years for the next major reform of marriage and family law in 1977.