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 10:04 am (UTC)Re: marriage
From:no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 06:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 03:48 am (UTC)My wife and I tried to subvert the symbolism of woman as property and some of the other bizarre elements of "traditional" (i.e. Western Christocentric) weddings. As a result, we wrote our entire ceremony and incorporated symbols that had some meaning for us. It was a unique ceremony, and not everyone was pleased--including large portions of my wife's Mormon family. But then, there were also people who approached us and told us it was the most beautiful ceremony they'd ever seen. Not too sure how much of that was just courtesy, but I think some people were really relieved that we didn't mention religion or treat the ceremony like an opportunity to proselytize.
Marriage and Love
Date: 2004-02-20 04:04 pm (UTC)I find this whole business quite problematic. I want to support my queer friends who are down at the capitol marching against an amendment to the state constitution which would make marriage only possible between a man and a woman in our state. I agree with my friends that marriage shouldn't be limited to hetero couples, but I can't say I'm comfortable with marriage in the first place. I myself had a wedding ceremony, but am not totally sure that we are actually legally "Married," though after 33.3+ years it's rather a moot point. The whole history of marriage relating to women as property is definitely problematic -- and certainly in our culture it's no sure thing that marriage leads to love, caring or stability. There are tons of marriages which have no love -- for some it never did, for some it disappeared -- and forcing people to stay married who don't want to isn't healthy either, that's for sure.
So why should we fight for gay folks to have the right to marry? Because along with those wedding vows come legal rights to make decisions, to inherit, to relate to offspring, and, in our pitiful country, to have health care -- if one of the spouses is lucky enough to work for an organization that has health care benefits, that is.
What we really need is to separate religion and legalities -- leave "marriage" to the religions and have a legal status that is open to everyone who wishes to take it on.
I guess I've repeated much of what Trochee said. We do indeed have light-years to go before we sleep!