Complicating the Gay Marriage Debate

46 thoughts on Complicating the Gay Marriage Debate

1. Get government out of the marriage business for everyone, gay or straight. Marriage (and its definition) should be between the two (or more) people getting married and possibly their church, mosque, or witch doctor.

   The government got into the marriage business for only one reason: racism. Marriage “licenses” were created simply to prevent miscegenation.

2. Is gay marriage really the path to equality?

   No, but it IS on THE path to equality.

   We will never make any changes if we remain on the outside. We need to be within the institutions in order to change them. To have access to them, and then with others, move to change and bend them as you will. Then we can craft it the way we all want it to give access to a wider division of people (inlcuding, if feasible, poly peeps).

   But you’re never gonna acheive that by reaching for such out of the starting gate. I have the same reaction to those that cry “we must get the state out of recognising relationships!”. I mean, first off, why? Second, like the “everyone should have civil unions” argument … in what fantasy world is this a feasible and acheivable strategy? Sure, it might be the best solution, but honestly, you think the fundie wingnuts are reacting badly to the SSM question? Wait till you try to “take marriage away” from them, because that is how they will frame it.

   I am pro-SSM, 100%, unequivocably. Do I see it as the be-all and end-all of LGBT equality? Not in the slightest. I see it as merely one piece, one step, in a wider movement towards equality.

   I am never going to understand the “but we shouldn’t be focusing on SSM, we should be doing THIS!” crowd, because why can’t we be doing both? Why can’t we be doing all these things? Yes, I know, resources are limited, and it is true that SSM is eating up a larger slice of the pie than it probably should, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a recipe for disaster.

   There is enough effort out there in the queer community to focus on issues of poverty, race, health-care AS WELL AS marriage. As many of us resist assimilation, a similar number wouldn’t mind it either.

   In the interests of full disclosure, John D’Emilio is a professor at my university, has taught me, and is on my dissertation committee, and I do disagree with him on this matter. And I am of the demographic that would most be served by SSM.

3. Saltyfemme: Could I possibly ask you what you mean by “queer?” Are you a lesbian, transgender, or…? Just so we can understand where you’re coming from.

   But if you don’t want to answer I understand of course.

4. To me, it’s pure and simply about equality. I don’t think marriage is the be-all and end-all of anything. I do think it’s unfair that straights get this huge institution with all of its huge benefits while gays and lesbians are intentionally excluded. That is, I don’t have an opinion on whether or not you should marry your girlfriend (if you have one), but I sure as hell think you should have the opportunity to do so.

   Similarly, I would never personally join the military (definitely not the U.S. military). For various reasons I’m against the whole system. But I think it’s important for feminists to fight for the rights of women to be soldiers.

5. What Sarah said.

   Also, great post; you were very fair to all sides.

6. Furthermore, why should the government get to police who shares our benefits, who can inherit from us, and who can adopt our children?

   A) I assume you’re talking about state run benefit programs as opposed to benefits such as health insurance as offered by employers?

   B) The state really only governs who inherits from you if you don’t have a will. And even then, the drafters of the Uniform Probate Code are trying to come up with rules that will suit the largest numbers of people.

   C) I do think the government has a role to play in ensuring that children are placed in homes that are safe. But I take it you mean broader issues, such as those which preclude gay couples and single individuals from adopting?

7. “What good is the right to share health insurance with your partner when millions of Americans don’t have health insurance to begin with?”

   Plenty if one partner has health insurance and the other doesn’t. Seems like stating the obvious to me.

   For it’s stress on addressing “marriage in a legal sense” this post is good in terms of bringing up issues but lacks something in terms of positing legal alternatives that are really viable and have the potential to become legal in the not-too-distant future. I don’t think marriage is necessarily the best or only way to live or have a family. However within the current system, the rights that come with marriage, and even divorce, provide benefits that are non-existent for non-married couples.

   I also think in certain circumstances it’s easier to recognize the normalcy in non-married hetero couples and in some situations they receive the benefit of the doubt by “passing” as married. This does not automatically happen for homosexual couples. Thereby making the rights afforded to married couples even more important to homosexual partners.

8. As evil fizz was getting to, I think it’s a mistake to say that the government needs to stay out of regulating things like marriage and inheritance. What most of it comes down to is property disputes – how much alimony after divorce, which kids get how much inheritance – and that’s one of the things the courts are designed to regulate.

   As for benefits, the problem is that the employer-provided healthcare model just doesn’t work. Extending benefits to same-sex relationships allows more people in, yeah. Allowing more people into it is a good thing, in that it gets more people health care, but it’s just not going to reach everyone. The benefits argument is hopefully one that we won’t have to have when we get some kind of nationalized health care system going.

9. I have long thought that marriage itself should be tossed back to the respective churches — which can put whatever restrictions they like on it. But it has no legal meaning or legal ramifications, it’s strictly religious in nature.

   In the mean time in the *legal* arena, you can define partnerships in any way shape or form to fit your own situation. Designate your heirs, who else has access to your money, and so on and so forth.

   But I know that will never fly.

10. I will never fathom people who seem to think that “the path” to anything worth having isn’t composed of the individual steps it takes to get there.

    It’s like someone who has an ambition to fly to Europe. They need to pack a suitcase, which they need to fill, so they go to the supermarket and buy toothpaste to pack.

    “But WHY are you standing here BUYING TOOTHPASTE?!” demands a well-meaning bystander. “TOOTHPASTE won’t get you any closer to Europe!”

    Jeez, people. It’s nice to have grand lofty goals, but the time comes when you have to break those grand lofty goals down into the individual, not-too-terribly-glamorous steps to get there. This is one of those steps.

    People who think otherwise seem to have the attitude that achieving these goals will just sort of happen, like “same-sex equality” will just sort of rain out of the sky at us when we wish for it hard enough. They can paint the pretty pictures of What Life Will Be Like When We’ve All Benn Taken Up By The Rapture, but ask them to articulate the actual day-to-day steps to getting there, and they blank out on you. Nitty-gritty? Dirt under the nails? Actualyl aiming for and hitting specific deadlined targets? That’s no fun. Let’s talk about pie in the sky some more! *sigh*

    Just to remove all doubt, I am 100% in favor of same-sex marriage. Completely and utterly. I couldn’t give a crap how society conceptualizes relationships; all hman societies have conceptualized them in one way or another for whatever reason. NONE of these ways should be restricted by the gender of the participants. To say otherwise is like saying that, since you think government is inherently evil, there’s no point to fighting for equal ethnic representation in the Senate. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth …

11. My thoughts on yaoi gay marriage are basically as follows: insofar as we have enshrined a two-partner emotionally and sexually monogamous relationship as the cornerstone of our society, denying legal recognition to gay couples undermines that institution. Personally, if I could structure my life any way I wanted without societal pressures to do otherwise, I would live in a big ol’ house with a group of my friends, male and female, straight and queer, and we would all cook and clean and hang out together and make the kind of emotional commitment normally associated with marriage to one another, but not sleep together. Just, you know. Cuddle.

    So, basically, I’d stay in college forever.

12. I understand several queer critiques of marriage and the argument that privileging adult monogamous romantic relationships over all other relationships is not ideal. I’d prefer, in a lot of ways, laws like the one that exists in France: any adults, regardless of relationship/kinship/gender, can register to receive the benefits of marriage.

    However, I think it’s worth pointing out that the Christian Right is the entity most responsible for keeping ssm on the table at the moment — by seeking to ban it and anything resembling it by state constitutional amendments and their holy grail, a federal constitutional amendment. Most political fights, at this time, aren’t from gay activists trying to press the issue of marriage, but from gay activists trying to resit the scary efforts to enshrine discrimination into various constitutions.

    It’s a defensive, not an offensive war, and I think it’s one we need to be fighting.

13. I think gay marriage is the path to equality for gays who want to be married. Obviously, it doesn’t help others so much.

    I support all the aims of the BSSM statement, and advocate for them, but for many people, right now, marriage is the best way to look after their family.

14. Well said.

    Anyone who thinks there are only two sides of each story didn’t interview enough people.

    I wish there were more options available to all couples. My spouse and I probably would have chosen a civil union if we had that option because “marriage” just doesn’t really describe what we’ve got. We care about each other equally; I’m not his slave.

15. I think the problem goes beyond just who gets benefits and how. The question is do we take heterosexuality, including all of the institutions, rituals, and traditions associated with it for granted. Do do we dare critique the social construction of sexuality, giving us the ability of put heterosexuality and heterosexism for granted. To a large degree I feel that the focus on the marriage debate means that critical bisexual politics and queer politics has been running in place for much of the last 15 years. Because it has left us without a safe space to say that the marriage we have now is a political institution, and perhaps there are better ways around which we can structure our relationships.

16. The government got into the marriage business for only one reason: racism. Marriage “licenses” were created simply to prevent miscegenation.

    Well, no. The state got into the marriage business to protect property rights and inheritance, and from our POV, they started doing it for the upper classes back in medieval Europe. The whole prevention-of-miscegenation aspect didn’t appear until after the Civil War (which was also when the “one drop rule” suddenly appeared).

    Google “irregular marriages” if you want to read some really fascinating stuff about English social history and the weird differences between English marriage law and Scottish marriage law.

17. What good is the right to share health insurance with your partner when millions of Americans don’t have health insurance to begin with?

    What does one have to do with the other? If you do have health insurance, then the right to share it with a spouse and very important.

    [W]hy should the government get to police who shares our benefits, who can inherit from us, and who can adopt our children?

    The government has legitimate interests in all those areas. If parents put their own interests ahead of that of a child put up for adoption (not saying this is the norm but it happens and must be addressed), it’s the government’s responsibility to advocate for the child.

    Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status.

    Why do you take for granted that all of the kinds of relationships you discuss are equally good? I know the common critique of traditionalists (not necessarily conservative – there’s a difference) is that they take for granted “heterosexuality, including all of the institutions, rituals, and traditions associated with it” (as CBrachyrhynchos said). But I think you’re doing the same thing.

18. This is another really great post.

    I would love to see some intense discussion in progressive communities about the platform advocated in the BSSM executive summary. I support all of them. I would love to see governmentally sanctioned marriage just eliminated, or broadened somehow to be more flexible, less based on defining some barely-extant heterosexual nuclear family as the “norm” and all of the rest of us with different familial arrangements as “other.”

    On the other hand, I understand and support continuing to advocate for gay rights including marriage, because “marriage” is a right I currently have, and others are excluded from it based on their sexual orientation. And the elimination of that exclusion in and of itself is valuable in the fight to gain full “human” status for non-het folks.

19. Same-sex marriage is important to me. Between my upbringing and my natural disposition, I’m perfectly set up to form a committed, monogamous, (hopefully) life-long relationship, and raise kids, etc… I want the law to sanction other, non-nuclear family structures, too (or just get out of the sanctioning business all together), but it pisses me the fuck off that I — the most marriage-oriented person I know — can’t legally get married because I’m attracted to women, while my straight peers get to look at marriage and casually refuse the opportunity because it doesn’t interest them. To be clear, I don’t think marriage is for everyone; not getting married is a perfectly good, legitimate choice. I think marriage is an equally good choice, and it’s wrong that the government controls who can marry whom (beyond ensuring the participants are consenting adults).

20. Sarah, you wrote:

    I am pro-SSM, 100%, unequivocably. Do I see it as the be-all and end-all of LGBT equality? Not in the slightest. I see it as merely one piece, one step, in a wider movement towards equality.

    I agree with you in theory. In practice, however, I seriously doubt this will actually happen. Most of the gay marriage advocates I know of know little to nothing about other issues facing LGBT people – homeless queer youth, for example, or health problems facing LGBT elderly folks. What makes you think that when the good fight is over, they will start “stepping” towards equality? What do you mean by equality, in this case? What would “stepping towards” it look like to you, in reality?

    There is enough effort out there in the queer community to focus on issues of poverty, race, health-care AS WELL AS marriage. As many of us resist assimilation, a similar number wouldn’t mind it either.

    This is a judgment call. On what facts are you basing “enough effort?” From what I can tell of most mainstream LGBT organizations, there is way too much “effort” on marriage and not enough on many other important issues.

    The other piece I feel like you’re missing is a simple power analysis. Those who have power to mobilize, organize, and lobby in this country usually have some sort of systemic power. Those who “wouldn’t mind” assimilation are those in power – many of whom are white and middle-class. And the voices of those who not only choose to resist assimilation but also don’t have the option of assimilation get swallowed up by the voices of the privileged – those who can and want to assimilate.

21. Lesbia’s Sparrow, you wrote:

    Personally, if I could structure my life any way I wanted without societal pressures to do otherwise, I would live in a big ol’ house with a group of my friends, male and female, straight and queer, and we would all cook and clean and hang out together and make the kind of emotional commitment normally associated with marriage to one another, but not sleep together. Just, you know. Cuddle.

    I know you said this in jest, but seriously, why not? If you and your friends wanted to live together and raise children together and support each other, shouldn’t you be allowed to do that and choose who gets to adopt whom and who can receive benefits from whom, etc? There are cohabiting families across the country grappling with these very issues.

22. Most of the gay marriage advocates I know of know little to nothing about other issues facing LGBT people – homeless queer youth, for example, or health problems facing LGBT elderly folks. What makes you think that when the good fight is over, they will start “stepping” towards equality?

    Well, it seems to me that the relationship between marriage equality and better health care for the LGBT elderly is a pretty direct one, for starters. First, a lot of the agitation for SSM that I’ve seen, older queers have been front and center, because their predicament is such a powerful argument for recognition of same-sex relationships. And second, same-sex marriage puts the partners of elderly people facing health crises in a far stronger position to be effective advocates for their needs and preferences.

    It’s clear that not all LGBT folks have any interest in marriage, or ever will. And yes, it’s clear that there’s a class skew to who’s advocating for SSM, and to who will benefit from it. But it does seem to me that full civil equality is a goal that’s worth pursuing, even at substantial cost, and marriage equality is, like a federal gay civil rights law, a necessary component of civil equality.

    I think it’s also worth noting that the emphasis on, and resources devoted to, the marriage equality struggle have skyrocketed as it’s become clear that this is — contrary to what most people believed just a few years ago — a winnable issue. When it looked like marriage equality was a non-starter, there weren’t many people putting much energy into pushing for it. Once the favorable court decisions started coming in and the polling started to move, it suddenly started getting a lot of attention.

23. SF, do the people who are working with homeless queer youth or elderly LBGT folks know everything under the sun about same-sex marriage?

    To me, this is starting to sound like, “Those people over there doing the things THEY think are important, how stupid! They should be doing ONLY the things I think are important and absolutely nothing else!” It’s just classic disregard for what other people consider important — other people’s concerns are a total waste of time becaue they aren’t perfectly aligned with yours.

    There’s plenty to do to “achieve equality,” whatever the hell that means. Each person will work on what they consider significant, and a lot of people consider marriage and the attendant rights that come with it to be significant.

    It also amazes me how the connection between the work to achieve marriage parity and these other issues is being totally ignored. Do you really consider that the work that needs to be done to get marriage rights isn’t going to impact anything else? That’s awfully reductionist — older LBGT folks have nothing to gain from having the legal rights that come along for the ride when their relationships are recognized by the state? The PR and outreach work needed to convince people that SSM won’t cause the Earth to shift frmo its orbit might not help change attitudes such that few young queers are thrown out of their families?

    These things are connected, and there’s plenty to do for everyone. As long as people are shoving the barrier int he right directrion, I don’t care where they’re standing while they do it.

24. Each person will work on what they consider significant, and a lot of people consider marriage and the attendant rights that come with it to be significant.

    This is assuming that each issue has equal importance and equal people, money, and lobby power working for it. I recognize that this might be my personal opinion, but working on, for example, basic discrimination legislation for trans people (that gay people, in many states, have enjoyed the protection of for years) seems a more urgent need than marriage rights for (mostly) middle-class white gays and lesbians. This exact argument has come to the surface in New York state. And guess which issue actually has the full weight of mainstream LGBT organizations. I don’t think that all needs and issues can be put side by side and for someone to just say “well, you have what’s important to you, and they have what’s important to them, and we’re all working together in this good fight for equality.” That would seem rather naive when you think about the meat of these issues. Would you not agree that not every issue is the same, deserving of equal weight and priority?

25. Speaking as someone who lives where SSM is the law of the land (and where we have legally-recognised common-law marriage as well), I see it very much as an equal rights issue; and this is how it was presented to the courts, as well.

    I don’t personally happen to think it’s the most pressing civil-rights issue affecting GLTB people, but it’s nice to have, and we’re slouching toward equality somehow. I think the main reason it’s dominating the US political discourse is because it’s easy to condense into a soundbite, and because a lot of people have manufactured it as a contentious issue. Make of that what you will…

26. Those who “wouldn’t mind” assimilation are those in power – many of whom are white and middle-class. And the voices of those who not only choose to resist assimilation but also don’t have the option of assimilation get swallowed up by the voices of the privileged – those who can and want to assimilate.

    Unless you’ve changed the discussion, I assume you’re using “assimilation” to represent “marriage”…? Or are you moving into a broader social attack on the entire concept of assimilation?

    One of the defining traits of marriage, and one of the things that makes it such a GOOD avenue to focus on is that, well, it’s cheap. And easy. And fast. Fifty bucks, a few hours, and you’re married.

    Which is why I’m confused about what privileged-only assimilation you’re talking about. There are very few people who are too underprivileged to be able to get married at the local courthouse should they so choose. In terms of “change of legal status” bang for your buck, marriage is pretty high up there.

27. SF, it wasn’t a joke! I really would like to live that way. And it would be nice if the kinds of tax/social benefits that married couples get were applied to other committed households — friends, group marriages, siblings, parents who live with their adult children, etc. But because we have this weird idea that one person should be enough for you, for everything you ever need/want emotionally or otherwise, that isn’t the case.

28. Oh, no — if only I didn’t discover this post at 3 a.m. (West Coast time, that is)! I need to get in bed as soon as possible, but first a few thoughts:

    Okay, can we get back to the basics for a moment? Marriage is still a central site of anti-queer, anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-trans violence — in order to get rid of this violence, marriage has got to go, plain and simple.

    On the issue of the media myth that there are only two sides to the gay marriage/assimilation debate — foaming-at-the-mouth Christian fundamentalists and rabid gay assimilationists — gay marriage proponents actually further this absurdity by silencing anti-marriage queers.

    On the issue of a “winnable strategy,” in this era of endless war, corporate profiteering, and global warming catastrophe, what on earth could that be? I don’t think gay marriage is any more winnable than the end of marriage, and universal access to the benefits that marriage can sometimes help procure — housing, healthcare, food, the “rights” now obtained through citizenship — everyone should have these things, not just married people (straight or gay).

    Sarah in Chicago, the organizations leading the fight for gay marriage (HRC and Log Cabin Republicans, in particular) have more in common with the National Rifle Association than any left agenda, queer or otherwise. They have no interest in fighting for a broader social agenda.

    Okay, if you want to read more on my ideas about gay marriage and assimilation:

    http://www.mattbernsteinsycamore.com/LiP.html

    Or, my critique of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement:

    http://nobodypasses.blogspot.com/2007/03/way-belated-my-thoughts-on-that-beyond.html

29. I don’t get the false dichotomy–EITHER you support the rights of people to form their own relationships and live in non-traditional ways, OR you’re just settling for same-sex marriage.

    Please recall that the legal institution of marriage will change even more as same-sex couples get married; that’s one of the reasons the haters are so terrified.

30. I recognize that this might be my personal opinion, but working on, for example, basic discrimination legislation for trans people (that gay people, in many states, have enjoyed the protection of for years) seems a more urgent need than marriage rights for (mostly) middle-class white gays and lesbians. This exact argument has come to the surface in New York state. And guess which issue actually has the full weight of mainstream LGBT organizations

    Yes there is no mistake that this is definitely happening. I mean, it’s happening in MA right now! We have marriage equality, there’s not going to be a challenge to it until at least 2012, and MassEquality has $3 million extra dollars. At the same time, you have a group trying to pass trans discrimination and hate crimes legislation who don’t even have enough money to afford one full time staff member. And MassEquality continues stalling, stalling, stalling about whether or not they’re going to commit the resources to pass this bill. And there was absolutely a “wait and see, wait your turn” attitude to this all when marriage equality was still an issue here.

    And the thing about this non-discrimination bill is it should be able to pass so easily, there’s not a lot of opposition to it! But it may fail just by virtue of not having enough funding behind it.

    About SSM in particular though, I do absolutely support it, as well as supporting all the goals of the BSSM statement. But I also think too many resources are being used in this fight, and that the overwhelming emphasis on gay marriage does not necessarily reflect the needs of all members of the queer community. And really feel that it’s because a lot of queer people and allies, especially youth, really aren’t aware of the other important issues that are out there.

    Honestly, I feel that the LGBT movement would be much more powerful were marriage to be de-emphasized and if we were to shift focus to non-discrimination and hate crimes legislation. I can’t tell you how MANY straight friends who are shocked to find out that you can still be fired in most states for being gay or trans. Since SSM is the only gay rights issue they ever hear about, they think it’s the only one that actually exists.

31. mythago: I don’t get the false dichotomy–EITHER you support the rights of people to form their own relationships and live in non-traditional ways, OR you’re just settling for same-sex marriage.

    In the real world of debate on gay marriage, there are more than a few people pulling the Andrew Sullivan good homosexual/bad queer approach.

32. I don’t for an instant want to hint that I don’t think many if not all of the things people have brought up as issues aren’t important.

    But the way I see it, one of the very central issues that stand in the way of all of these forms of progress is the majority holding onto the idea that there is only one right way, and that different is bad.

    There is already a huge amount of variety in the way that straight people live their lives, but there is a collective fantasy that they’re all doing the same thing – as just a single example, witness the “marriage is and has always been about having children” and how tenacious that is in the face of the obvious truth that plenty of perfectly married people don’t or can’t have children.

    Like it or not, agree with the form(s) of it or not, marriage is a centerpiece of social normality. People are defined as good people, as good citizens, as grownups, by the seriousness with which they make their public interpersonal committments.

    Systematically denying same-sex couples the right to marry is sytematically keeping us out of any possibility of being considered “normal” or “just plain folks.”

    As long as gay people are the ones who are defined as having sex in restrooms, refusing to make long-term committments, living just for pleasure, and incapable of contributing anything meaningful to society, it is going to stay that way.

    If their child is never going to grow up to be decent or respectable unless the gay gets beaten out of him, parents are going to abuse gay youths.

    If gay people are irresponsible and unsafe, employers are going to feel justified in refusing to hire us.

    And so on. And, being similarly “other”, bisexual, transgendered, and all the other people currently perceived as outside the range of normal and decent will be similarly stuck.

    Being married is seen as normal, and people know what to do with it and how to react to it. People can relate to each other based on common experience, even if other parts of their lives aren’t similar.

    No, marriage is not for a moment the be-all and end-all of civil rights. But look at the sea of changes that eliminating anti-sodomy laws has caused. Marriage will go even further.

    I think marriage is a valid end in itself, and that denying it to gay citizens is inexcuseable. But once the marriage umbrella gets bigger, and people make the adjustment that legal marriage doesn’t mandate a specific lifestyle, then other groups, such as the poly groups you discuss, will have a much more solid place from which to make their case.

33. i’ve been waiting for a post on this issue. thank you.

34. Peter: Like it or not, agree with the form(s) of it or not, marriage is a centerpiece of social normality. People are defined as good people, as good citizens, as grownups, by the seriousness with which they make their public interpersonal committments.

    Systematically denying same-sex couples the right to marry is sytematically keeping us out of any possibility of being considered “normal” or “just plain folks.”

    As long as gay people are the ones who are defined as having sex in restrooms, refusing to make long-term committments, living just for pleasure, and incapable of contributing anything meaningful to society, it is going to stay that way.

    Speak of the devil, and he appears.

    Speak of the devil’s argument, and someone will throw it out in the discussion.

35. The whole idea of equal access to one specific unequal system is one discussion. The idea of civil rights in general is another, broader and more effective discussion…partly because we then have access to concepts that have already been proven in the crucible of race relations. Difference between local and global lessons, it appears.

    Marriage reminds me of cherry picking religon…each partnership is in reality, different from the others if nothing else than due to the infinite variety of human relationships and function. Everyone modifies the central concept to suit them. The fiscal realities of living in a patriarchal society involves understanding the powerful tools involved in marriage. The handwaving of access to inheritance, insurance, divorce laws is a HUGE thing. Without it, anyone who has a partnership and pays taxes is getting screwed out of billions of dollars of legistative work that then has to then be duplicated under separate legislature, which is wasteful and asinine for EVERYONE. It’d be cheaper for US for there to be a blanket civil rights ruling that forbids discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identification, race, or sexual orientation whetner in cases of employment, applicability of legislature, or any other instance. Not so cost effective for underwriters, but honestly, thbbpppt.
    I see that social liberals allow our issues (that can be taken care of by global legislature) to be bogged down and divided into special interest groups that although related (under, say civil rights) are individually less supported. This is a chronic problem with us. The question is how to reach an effective goal without disenfranchising our own people in the meantime.

36. Another great discussion. I’m a gay guy who’s never had a long-term relationship, thus never had the desire to get “married”. So the fight for our right to marry has never seemed very important to me, personally. However, I get so angry when I read stories about committed gays and their legal problems with children and sickness, etc. Therefore, I acknowledge that some form of legalized and equal marriage for gays would be great.

    Lately, though, I’ve been exploring the psychological effect of marriage and applying that to my less-than-stellar relationship history. Many young heteros grow up with the fantasy of meeting the one they’ll love and marry and spend their lives with building a family. I have NEVER had that dream — not even as an “out” gay man. There’s part of me that thinks that I will not find Mr. Right … ever.

    I wonder how many gay people will be helped out of this horrible Catch-22 mind-#$#( if gays were allowed to marry?

    The impetus to build and share my life with another person is just not there for me.

    I sometimes wonder if society has some blame in this because we gays are not encouraged to establish healthy, loving relationships.

37. “I sometimes wonder if society has some blame in this because we gays are not encouraged to establish healthy, loving relationships.”
    you are society.

38. I recognize that this might be my personal opinion, but working on, for example, basic discrimination legislation for trans people (that gay people, in many states, have enjoyed the protection of for years) seems a more urgent need than marriage rights for (mostly) middle-class white gays and lesbians.

    Part of the reason I stopped working with my state equality organization is that the meetings drag into the night, long past my kid’s bedtime, so that a bunch of middle and upper-class white people–whose only deviance from complete beigeness is that they happen to be gay or lesbian–can debate how the organization can better serve the people who aren’t sitting in the meeting at all. That discussion, of why we’re using the limited money and power we’ve developed on marriage equality, has happened over and over, in every state lucky enough to have choices about what to fight for, and it’s tiring.

    Organizations are pushing for marriage benefits because it’s the hill in front of them, which is attainable using the tactics by which they attained employment and hate-crimes protections. I’m just done talking about that, because it’s simple enough that it just doesn’t bear debate. We’ve got a hammer, we’ve using it to pound nails not drive screws.

    But the other part of it was that I’m not willing to compromise. I’m against violence and discrimination affecting trans people, to be clear, but that’s not my issue. Legal equality for lesbians, single and coupled and otherwise, that’s my issue. And the truth is we can’t do everything. So I use my money and time to support legal equality and the enforcement of existing laws protecting the people I care most about…and that means not supporting other things.

    To be more specific, marriage equality is all that’s left between my interest group and full citizenship in 11 states including the one I live in. So I’m going to fight for equal access to the existing system of family law that costs $35 and 30 minutes in my county. If trans folks want to fight for better inclusion in health plans because they see that as the remaining barrier to their full equality, bully for them. But I only have one life and limited money.

    Yes, this makes me an asshole, but not poly or trans-phobic. I’m not a bigot, I’m also not spending my only life fighting for the environment, or voting rights, or dozens of other things I think are important. They’re just not as important to me as the thing I’ve chosen.

    So when you’re generalizing about ‘the movement’ and ‘those activitists’, keep in mind that you’re talking about specific people who have specific reasons for prioritizing what we’re putting first, second and someday-maybe-goddess-willing.

    My family comes first, other families that are less privileged and need the protections of marriage come next. Social change at the level of eliminating family law is going to have to take the back seat. Having busted the paradigm that suggests to you that one doesn’t transition from homeless queer youth to SSM advocate, I get to choose what matters to me and use my time and money to make things happen.

39. While I understand and agree with most of this post, I do have to say that having the right to gay marriage IS important. Not having the right is the gov’t simply saying “You’re relationship isn’t good enough.” Having it legalized is an acknowledgment that homosexual relationships are as real as heterosexual relationships. Right now, that concept doesn’t exist of the majority of Americans (or most of the world, for that matter).

    If/when gay marriage becomes legal, it’s not like all gay people HAVE to get married. They’ll have the right to choose it or, not choose it. I mean, I know plenty of women who don’t vote, even though they have the right to do so. We don’t have to exercise all of our rights, but we all deserve equal rights and access at all times. What you’re talking about is great, but as someone else said, it’s too much to strive for all at once. Unfortunately, when it comes to civil rights, victories have to come in small doses and one at a time. You seem to not be satisfied unless all of society is reconstructed overnight. If it worked that way, we all wouldn’t need to be feminists anymore, having destroyed patriarchy’s oppressive grip in one swoop.

40. But I also think too many resources are being used in this fight, and that the overwhelming emphasis on [OTHER ISSUE] does not necessarily reflect the needs of all members of the queer community.

    Any “other issue” that couldn’t be inserted into this argument?

    And it’s pretty disingenuous to suggest that the marriage debate is all about middle-class whites. Surely you don’t mean to suggest that the poor and people who aren’t white couldn’t care less about marriage.

41. I have to say that I agree with Sarah in Chicago.

    “Is gay marriage really the path to equality?

    No, but it IS on THE path to equality.

    We will never make any changes if we remain on the outside. We need to be within the institutions in order to change them.”

    Although I am unsure about the institution of marriage and its merits, I believe that the first step on the path to equality is to obtain the rights of the “majority”. It isn’t a feasible goal to immediately break down the structures that are currently in place. If we can fight to be included in them, we will then have a much more solid platform on which to stand as we work to change the system.

    Do I think we need to be fighting for other things, as well? YES! Marriage won’t mean much if we are still being killed/harassed/beaten for our sexuality/gender identity/gender expression. We won’t be reveling in our right to marriage if we are struggling to cope with an illness without affordable access healthcare. But I don’t think that the solution to our problems is to drop the issue of SSM. It is a battle that is within our reach. Why not fight it (while still fighting for trans-equality, to abolish racism, to destroy classism, and sizeism, and heterosexism, and ageism…) and worry about perfecting marriage when we get there?

    I apologize if I didn’t communicate my view effectively. I’m just having my first cup of coffee. Let me know if I said something confusing. Thanks.

42. The government got into the marriage business for only one reason: racism. Marriage “licenses” were created simply to prevent miscegenation.

    Well, no. The state got into the marriage business to protect property rights and inheritance, and from our POV, they started doing it for the upper classes back in medieval Europe. The whole prevention-of-miscegenation aspect didn’t appear until after the Civil War (which was also when the “one drop rule” suddenly appeared).

    You are both onto something here. It’s true that marriage licenses served the purposes of racism and preventing the birth of “mixed-gene” interracial children. But they certainly also mattered within a single city-state where pretty much everyone was the same race. They did the same thing, they approved of the couple having sex and children together, and they legally and spiritually bound the couple together to support each other.

    And part of that legal bond was certainly the inheritance and property rights stuff, but that followed from those two being given the right to conceive children together. They didn’t give the right to have children to a different person than they gave the inheritance rights to. Those followed from the fact that the couple was allowed and expected to have their children together, and not with anyone else. Marriage has always included approval for conceiving children together, it has not always meant inheritance rights or other legal incidences or obligations which would be given along with the approval to conceive children.

    People should not be given approval to conceive with someone of their same sex. In order to preserve natural conception rights, we need to enact an anti-genetic engineering law like was enacted by Missouri last year that prohibits creating children that are not the union of a man and woman’s genes. There are also huge safety issues and priority issues, as well as subtle effects on society and individuals.

    Civil unions should explicitly not grant conception rights, so that marriage’s conception rights can be preserved and natural conception rights preserved.

43. Pingback: Ways to End the World » Blog Archive » Way late on this…

44. Same-sex marriage with all of the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage cannot exist in the United States in the near future. Here is why: Forty-five states have laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Source: Human Rights Campaign) There has been over 48 million votes cast on this issue in 29 states and almost 32 million, almost two-thirds, voted against same-sex marriage. As the noted gay historian and professor at the University of Illinois, John D’Emilio, observed in his 2006 article, The Marriage Fight Is Setting Us Back, “The campaign for same-sex marriage has been an unmitigated disaster. It has created a vast body of new anti-gay laws.” There has already been, in effect, a national referendum and we have lost……BIG.

    Despite the title, “marriage”, same-sex marriage with all of the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage does not even exist in Massachusetts. Massachusetts’s same-sex marriage, California’s domestic partners, and Vermont and New Jersey’s civil unions all have the same federal benefits of marriage: zero.

    There is a myth that marriage has more rights and benefits than civil unions/domestic partners. That myth is born from the fact that civil unions/domestic partners have only been passed by states. States have no power to grant the 1100 federal benefits of marriage. However, a national civil union policy, which Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, & Biden have pledge to support, would.

    In poll after poll, a clear majority of voters say they would support civil unions with all the same rights, benefits and obligations of marriage but they would not support same-sex marriage. Illogical? Yes! But it is a fact we must live with.

    There have been no successful direct challenges to statewide domestic partner or civil union policies. Domestic partners and civil unions have been overturned only when they were included in ballot propositions whose primary purpose was to ban same-sex marriage.

    All of the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage are attainable, with public support, under the title civil unions or domestic partners. Same-sex marriage is not. We may not like that fact, however, it is none-the-less a fact. Why the leaders of our community do not see the obvious is beyond my understanding. It is time that someone in the lesbian and gay community tell our leaders that their strategy on same-sex marriage has failed. We must return to the successful strategy of attaining our rights through civil unions and domestic partners which has worked well for over 20 years.

    Leland Traiman
    http://www.EqualityWithoutMarriage.org

45. That’s a welcome and important post, Leland. One thing I have to disagree about though is that same-sex couples should not have all the rights that both-sex marriages have: they should not have the right to attempt to conceive children together. The fertility labs that are working on this should be prevented from actually trying it, it is reckless and unnecessary. Do you agree? All marriages should have a right to conceive children together, but same-sex couples should not. Thus, there is a need for Civil Unions rather than marriage. It isn’t just a matter of pragmatism or achievability, Civil Unions that grant all the other rights and protections but not conception rights are necessary as a matter of principle.

46. John Howard, you’re banned. Don’t comment on feministe again.

Comments are currently closed.