The great irony of this is that gay people are saying to the social conservatives "Hey, we want to be like you. We want to take part of the great civilizing force, marriage." It is the most conservative thing the GLBT community has ever done. (e:james,46594)
That got me thinking about my true feelings on the issue of gay marriage. At first I was just mad at the Christian conservatives over prop8, then I thought just maybe they are saving homosexuality from becomming the new heterosexuality.
Taking out the B and T
First of all I don't think the B part of GLBT is saying much about this. It doesn't make sense unless they are living in denial or in some closet of their sexuality. How can you be bisexual and commit to just one person. If you really want that you can already have it, marry the opposite sex, have sex with same sex on the side. Why not, just not marry at all? I think we should probably leave them out. Even T isn't really that concerned if you think about it, because they can make the switch and actually get married.
So basically, it is just a GL issue and even in that group, in is a sub-group of those in conservative gay relationships like (e:jim) and (e:james), (e:lauren) and (e:fellyconnelly), or (e:mike) and (e:libertad).
Down with State Marriage
Seeing as I have no benefit to gain from gay marriage due to my non-traditional family unit - I am moving my suppport for promoting gay marriage to the abolition of state marriage movement altogether. I think there are probably more straight guys that would join me on this one, than on allowing gay marriage, lol.
I say let there only be state civil based unions. People appoint whoever they want as health proxy /visitation rights, inheritor, health insurance partner, tax incentives etc and get rid of the marriage part. We just need strreamline that process of appointing someone.
If two traditionalist heteros or hetero styled, gay conservatives still want to be married they can. I am not saying make marriage illegal. It would just have to be a religious marriage or a private commitment ceremony for the non-believers. Why involve the state?
That way there needs to be no voting about the term marriage ever again and traditionalists can still protect their faith based marriages. I bet by changing the words on it, conservative would have less problem with equal rights. I mean imagine the "protect hetero-only partner, health care visits" posters - they just wouldn't carry the same weight.
In the end
I guess in the end I am more for an even playing field than for marriage.
Humans - as a species, are NOT monogamous. However, a good chunk of us are hypocritical, narrow-minded and judging.
I don't like the term civil unions but I do think that there should be a way for people to pick who ever they want as their health care proxy and there should be away that people can get all the same legal rights that come with Marriage. There is one problem I sort of have with civil unions. How does one break them, what is the legally equal to say a divorce? I think this idea is a good idea that you have (e:Paul) . I think that it would also be a good idea for people who aren't gay. There are some people who never get married but live like they are. I think one problem with this idea is the same problem that faces gay Marriage or same sex marriage in that it is a state issue. With marriage it is illegal to be married to two people. If I mary someone in New York than every other state honors it so if I move there isn't a problem. But with this system that might not happen. If someone has to move out of state for a job the legal rights you have in North Carolina could be differnt then is South Carolina or they might not count it as valid.
(and I'm not the most monogamous, either! ;-)
That should read, "that leads me to believe that, in general, G and Ls have more interest in traditional marriage. "
I got a little crazy with the cut and paste.
I'm bi and I have done the monogamy thing too. I just meant to say that Gays and Lesbians have zero chance to marry someone they are sexually attracted and fit better into the traditional marriage construct. That leads me to believe they have, in general, G and Ls have more interest in traditional marriage for gays.
Anyways, I am not saying to take the right to marry away from bisexuals in the first place, lol. I am saying take it away from everyone. I am just saying that in the current system bisexuals already have an option to marry someone they are sexually attracted to, possibly meaning that lots of them are already married. Also, in my experience, myself included - bisexuals are not the most monogamous people.
Hey! I'm bi and I've done the monogamy thing. I'll just ditto Lauren's comment.
Despite the field's lack of interest, this enlightened hetero agrees with you
Yep. Thanks for making this post. The narrow definition of marriage is stifling for a ton of straight people. I shudder thinking about it. It represents an archaic inflexible un-evolved and unscientific system to me. It's not about rights even, I would go a step further and say that its about CHOICE to do whatever the hell you want in your life (if its not harming anyone and benefiting your psychosocial well-being) and be granted legal and societal benefits, given you made that choice.
Choice could have a number of faces. Not just marrying, partnerships and delegations. Choice includes control of your relationship/social environment, your choice of a community, your reproductive/adoptive choices, your medical/end-of-life choices.
The idea is to get rid of state interference in non-criminal self-global-health promoting personal choices. A person cannot be globally healthy if others decide their fates, goals and choices. We may be a social species but we have a unique genetic identity and choices are our way of estabishing personalized social choices, given our evolutionary identities.
Like I said, I want all of those rights for anyone, that anyone wants to appoint to those positions in their life and I don't see why marriage has anything to do with it. My thing about bisexuals (myself included) was that they at least have some opportunity for marriage.
I just want equal opportunity for everyone and to move all the deifnition of the important roles in your life to state based forms instead of one role marriage being assigend to one person and then they get everything.
Say you were married but having a relationship with your secretary and you trusted her more than your wife in terms of health care decisions. I don't see why you can't just define her as your health care proxy and leave it at that.
Same wih a single person who just has a non-sexual, same or opposite sex, best friend they trust most. Why not indentify them as you health care proxy, etc.
As for Jim - sorry if I misinterpreted your relationship as traditional/status quo. Part of the reason was your rings. Viewing them from the outside, your commitment rings kind of represented a traditional "claim of symmetry with the status quo" and traditional marriage. Not to say that I wouldn't wear a ring if M and T wanted to get them. You know how much I love jewlery.
Gay marriage, I always felt, would be a step in the right direction: liberalizing the home. (e:PMT) certainly are not accommodated by gay marriage, and there are hundreds of other non-traditional couples in this state who wouldn't get the benefits they deserve. Moving towards a non-sexualized, legal apparatus where benefits can be conferred on willing groups is what we need and the very end of traditional marriage.
There is a great paradox that the GLBT community, doing the most conservative thing in our history, will be doing its part in ending marriage.
Personally, I don't want to get married to be more traditional or to claim symmetry with the status quo, except to the extent that I want to get the rights involved. Access to shared health care, recognition standardized across the country, inheritance laws, all that.
In a lot of ways Paul, I am totally with you. I do think that gay marriage and those who are for it are trying to say "we are like you" when, often, we are not. I could get in to a whole nother conversation around that, but my real concern about your post is the taking out of the "B" and "T".
First, in terms of bisexuality...you said, "how can you be bisexual and commit to just one person". My question is, how can you be straight and commit to just one person, or gay for that matter? I happen to consider myself pansexual (which is also a whole other conversation) but just because I am in a relationship does mean that all of a sudden I have no sexuality outside of that relationship, even if i am committed.
In terms of T...not all people who transition do so into a "hetero" relationship. There are trans women, for example, who still love and want to be in relationships with other women. Also, there are trans people who do not go through with full surgical procedures and therefore do not officially become the opposite gender according to state records. There are also queer people who do not identify with any gender.
For me, the battle of marriage equality is not necessarily for marriage only, although some look at it as such. I think that it is more about looking at "equality" and how it is compromised through various loopholes. There are also many other loopholes for many other communities that are also worth fighting for. Ultimately, the question should not be about whether or not you think marriage is something desirable, but if you can recognize that some do and if they want it, there should be nothing standing in their way.
I could get behind that.