It’s Not a Gay Thing... Why the debate over same-sex marriage misses the point

[BridgeTheGap]

A consumer of current news might imagine that access to same-sex marriage is the most contested issue in contemporary family policy, and that marriage is the only cure for the disadvantages lesbian and gay families face. Both of these observations would be wrong. The most contested issue in contemporary family policy is whether married-couple families should have “special rights” not available to other family forms. Excluded families include unmarried couples of any sexual orientation, single-parent households, extended-family units, and any other constellation of individuals who form relationships of emotional and economic interdependence that do not conform to the one-size-fits-all marriage model. No other Western country, including those that allow same-sex couples to marry, creates the rigid dividing line between the law for the married and the law for the unmarried that exists in the United States.

I propose family law reform that would recognize all families’ worth. Marriage as a family form is not more important or more valuable than other forms of family, so the law should not give it more value. Couples should have the choice to marry based on the spiritual, cultural, or religious meaning of marriage in their lives; they should never have to marry to reap specific and unique legal benefits. I support the right to marry for same-sex couples as a matter of civil rights law. But I oppose discrimination against couples who do not marry, and I advocate solutions to the needs all families have for economic well-being, legal recognition, emotional peace of mind, and community respect.

Bonnie Cord graduated from law school and began working at a government agency. She bought a home with her male partner in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia. When she applied to take the Virginia bar exam—a test necessary to obtain the right to practice law in the state—a judge ruled that her unmarried cohabitation made her morally unfit to do so.

Catrina Graves was driving her car behind a motorcycle driven by Brett Ennis, the man with whom she had been living for seven years. A car failed to stop at a stop sign and hit Brett’s motorcycle; Brett was thrown onto the pavement. Catrina saw the accident, stopped her car, and ran to Brett, who had suffered trauma to his head and was bleeding from the mouth. He died the next day. When Catrina sued the driver for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court dismissed her lawsuit because she was not related to Brett by blood or marriage.

http://www.utne.com/2008-07-01/Politics/Its-Not-a-Gay-Thing.aspx

[sui generis]

1. agree 10000%, intellectually

If you take out the emotional component, the idea of our social drive leading us to make a financial commitment to mutually manage mutual assets, look after each others' welfare, assign our family unit for the purpose of transfer of assets and make appropriate medical and financial decisions based on that definition of role and responsibility within a legal "family", then yes.

Oh wait. Did I just define marriage anyway? :P

Yes, it's about managing assets and mutual fiscal responsibility. It's about declaring and exercising the rights of family over the members of that family, and about being beholden to the responsibility of family, legally speaking.

Who cares if love or pink parts are involved. It's the legal arrangement and only has ever been about property and money. So I'd have to ask, what do pink parts have to do with it anyway? Do we require that people have sex, monitor, and enforce it? If not then enforcing opposite gender marriage doesn't have a basis in animal husbandry as everyone likes to believe. If it did we'd send our mules and non-milkers to the slaughter house and try siring a new herd with better stock. Fortunately for us the government is not in the business of farming and ranching humans.

Where we lose is when OUR people at HRC piss and moan about covenants and love and all that other crap that has nothing to do with legal marriage.

[madinmaryland]

2. Isn't there a difference between the examples you cited of couples

that have the legal right to get married but choose not to, and couples that do not have that right?

There seems to me to be a big difference between have the right to choose whether to get married and deciding not to (and living with the consequences of that decision) and not having the right to choose whether to get married.

:shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. did this couple not have a choice? the fact that we DONT have a fucking choice is an issue

i hate these holier than thou progressives. get over it. the playing field is not the same. choosing not to exert a right, is in no way the same as not having a right

[jonnyblitz]

4. thank you!!

:applause:

[FreeState]

5. +1 n/t

[mitchtv]

6. +1

more bullshit from the peanut gallery

[Toasterlad]

7. Exactly. Get Me the Same Choices Others Currently Have, And Then I'll Help Work for Expanding

coverage for people who already have that choice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. coupled straight people who want marital rights without getting married, even when its open to them

can fight their own damned fight, without trying to tear ours down.

[Toasterlad]

9. So Agreed.

[Book Lover]

10. *Exactly*!!

There is a world of difference between the right to have all marriages recognized, and the right to establish a household as one sees fit.

[Meldread]

11. I made a similar argument to this in the past on this forum.

You can read that thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x143977">here.

I depart with the seemingly majority of people here and agree with the decoupling of marriage from the state, as I think that would provide us with the most benefit. I also fully realize that there are multiple camps within the gay community, with only one camp openly visible.

There are many LGBT people who don't want marriage as it is currently defined. They view it as a heterosexual institution and don't want any part of it. I personally see that point of view as short-sited and while I understand where they are coming from, I still think it is foolish due to all the legal benefits given to married couples. People really are truly oblivious to all the built-in advantages created by the state (and I include federal, local, and state in that word). That is the main reason we are fighting for marriage, to obtain those legal state endorsed benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals. It's not about being a culture warrior and getting a notch in our belt against the conservatives, no matter how good it might make us feel in the end.

I think this article does a good job backing up my previous thread's discussion. However, I'd turn to my fellow LGBT brothers and sisters, and question why we continue to use the same strategy in state after state? It will certainly work in some states, but a different approach might work better in others. I think it's a mistake to depend upon the courts, because even if the United States Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, we could find ourselves in the same position as abortion. I would like to think such an outcome is unlikely, due to the trends we see in some states that have legalized gay marriage through various means. However, at the same time I think it's a mistake to ignore the possibility. I do not wish to see a cultural backlash, after which we spend the rest of our lives holding our breath each and every time a Supreme Court seat becomes vacant.

All that being said, there are also practical matters to consider. In order to achieve the change we seek, we must build a large enough coalition. Changing our strategy so that we are able to broaden our coalition with straights who might not have otherwise enlisted increases our chances dramatically, especially if we can use them as the public face. In the end, I see it a potential greater victory because all the issues those straight folks have had with the marriage laws impact us just as much as they impact them - even more so right now, since we can't even marry in most of the states. So even if we were successful in achieving equal marriage in all states, we'd still have to go back and look at things from the perspective being explored in the article.

Just some things to think on, as we look ahead.