Regarding "Marriage is Love"
Feb. 16th, 2004 10:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trocheeMany of my friends -- married and single -- have posted the "Marriage is Love" meme. I completely approve of the sentiment I think I see behind it -- that the rights of marriage should be extended to everyone, regardless of gender or sexuality.
But.
Marriage isn't love, nor vice versa. I'm not comfortable with the equation either.
I've been in a marriage where the love left, and in more than one loving relationship that does not involve marriage. Thus I feel somewhat entitled to pipe up here (then again, I *always* feel entitled -- it comes with the white-straight-male territory).
I of course support the right of homosexuals (and poly people too) to choose to conjoin themselves with another person (or two) in the eyes of the law, but one of the real tragedies of marriage in this country (even for straights) is that it's so often seen as a protection -- and there shouldn't be protection needed. (1) we should have a national health care program so that one doesn't need to become linked to a provider to be cared for (2) we should be able to declare other consenting adults our civil partners -- regardless of our genders or sexuality. For that matter, (3) we should be able to emancipate ourselves from default devolution of decision-making -- if I feel that my dad is a bad decision-maker, and I don't want him raising my kids if something happens to me, then I should have the ability to declare person X to be the guardian of my children. (this is not the case, if you read this, dad, but I may never have kids anyway!)
What really pisses me off is the hypocrisy of the asshats saying (on the one hand) "sanctity of marriage! constitutional amendment! we can't let our culture be destroyed!" and out the other side of their mouth: "state's rights! some people are just tough businessmen -- we can't help it if they rape the people! a man's home is his castle -- if he hits his woman, that's between them and God! And get the welfare women married or kick 'em off benefits! Oh, and honey -- here's some divorce papers. I know you put your career on hold for 25 years just for my political ambition, but um, I've just met this intern."
I'm not sure what the big win would be for state-sanctioned marriages -- straight or gay -- in a society that actually values and protects its members in whatever relationship they might choose to be in. I understand why people choose to have them in our current society -- it's a sanctioned protection of a relationship (citizenship, healthcare, tax status, decision-making) -- but in the unequal protections that it provides to straight folk, it's fundamentally unfair. Marriage (straight), as usually understood in WASP America, is also founded on a creepy concept of women-as-property (after all, somebody gives away the bride!).
We should celebrate the SF rebellion and MA decision because they extend protections to one class of people who have previously been denied those rights. That's a good thing. But we have miles (light-years!) to go before we sleep.
But.
Marriage isn't love, nor vice versa. I'm not comfortable with the equation either.
I've been in a marriage where the love left, and in more than one loving relationship that does not involve marriage. Thus I feel somewhat entitled to pipe up here (then again, I *always* feel entitled -- it comes with the white-straight-male territory).
I of course support the right of homosexuals (and poly people too) to choose to conjoin themselves with another person (or two) in the eyes of the law, but one of the real tragedies of marriage in this country (even for straights) is that it's so often seen as a protection -- and there shouldn't be protection needed. (1) we should have a national health care program so that one doesn't need to become linked to a provider to be cared for (2) we should be able to declare other consenting adults our civil partners -- regardless of our genders or sexuality. For that matter, (3) we should be able to emancipate ourselves from default devolution of decision-making -- if I feel that my dad is a bad decision-maker, and I don't want him raising my kids if something happens to me, then I should have the ability to declare person X to be the guardian of my children. (this is not the case, if you read this, dad, but I may never have kids anyway!)
What really pisses me off is the hypocrisy of the asshats saying (on the one hand) "sanctity of marriage! constitutional amendment! we can't let our culture be destroyed!" and out the other side of their mouth: "state's rights! some people are just tough businessmen -- we can't help it if they rape the people! a man's home is his castle -- if he hits his woman, that's between them and God! And get the welfare women married or kick 'em off benefits! Oh, and honey -- here's some divorce papers. I know you put your career on hold for 25 years just for my political ambition, but um, I've just met this intern."
I'm not sure what the big win would be for state-sanctioned marriages -- straight or gay -- in a society that actually values and protects its members in whatever relationship they might choose to be in. I understand why people choose to have them in our current society -- it's a sanctioned protection of a relationship (citizenship, healthcare, tax status, decision-making) -- but in the unequal protections that it provides to straight folk, it's fundamentally unfair. Marriage (straight), as usually understood in WASP America, is also founded on a creepy concept of women-as-property (after all, somebody gives away the bride!).
We should celebrate the SF rebellion and MA decision because they extend protections to one class of people who have previously been denied those rights. That's a good thing. But we have miles (light-years!) to go before we sleep.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 06:17 pm (UTC)