let's set the record straight (pardon the pun)
Gay and lesbian Americans can already marry if we define marriage as a public declaration of love, commitment, til death do us part, always and forever amen, blessed and sanctioned by the gods/goddesses/universe/positive energy or whatever sacred or secular belief one chooses to call one's own. These ceremonies are already happening and they have been for some time. So what are we really debating here? Are we battling over what to call these commitments (that I repeat are already in existence and in some cases flourishing)? By continuing to argue the definition of marriage, we seem to be missing the bottomline of civil rights and equality. I'm sure I'll ruffle a few feathers of my hetero and gay and lesbian comrades here by saying this but if we reconfigure the "marriage" debate in civil and legal terms (in my opinion--civil unions for everyone), a much more progressive struggle might be waged, one that doesn't privilege the mainstream heteronormative model of love relationships.
posted by colored me @ 11:53 AM
5 Comments:
Wait, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the point that gays/lesbians cannot get the same rights and privileges that straight people get when they marry (ie: inheritance, visitation at hospital, tax breaks etc). If what you are saying is that civil unions can get those same rights, then I'm with you sister. (btw, this coming from someone who is not at all sold on marriage as an institution period).
hi texter! yep, i'm saying that civil unions should grant same sex couples and others who are living as partners the same rights "married" couples have. i think we need to completely re-language the debate so that it engages legal discourse over personal and religious views on what constitutes "marriage."
girlblue, I agree, but I don't think you go far enough. The point is, we should all be able to get the benefits that right now only married people get just because we're citizens like in every other country. Marriage is a religious matter, and I don't see why two people should be able to get benefits based, essentially, on a sexual relationship, be it herterosexual or gay, when someone who's single or lives with a relative or a friend or an aquaintance or whatever is left out. The state shouldn't be about privileging religious arrangements, it should be about equity for everybody, kids and adults alike. It's messed up when people who don't really want to be married are doing it only because it's the only way they can get health insurance and so on.
I agree with you on the civil unions question...that's all that the state should be involved in, for everyone. And I also think Anonymous makes a great point. I think it's unfortunate that in winning same-sex marriage rights - like here in Canada, where I live - the more radical possibilities that Anonymous lists are essentially nullified for good.
Yep, the marriage vs civil union argument bores me. That anyone gets rewards for "happening" upon a relationship or learning well the rules of romance in our society seems to me fundamentally misguided and undemocratic. I see why society would desire a mechanism by which to control people as good citizens (domestic life reigns in the chaotic potential of other living arrangements), but I agree at bottom with Anonymous that those rights should be assigned regardless of partner status.
Post a Comment
<< Home