Comparing Same-Sex Marriage to Women's Suffrage
Last night, I read an article on the Huffington Post, Why Gay Marriage is the Wrong Issue by Bob Ostertag that got me to thinking. My comment follows below:
The recent trend in the gay civil rights movement to center its efforts on gaining the legal right to marriage reminds me of how the first wave of feminism, which began in 1848, originally pushed for all sorts of civil rights for women, but it eventually ended up concentrating on a single civil right: the right to vote.
While gaining the right to vote was a crucial step in the cause for women's rights, sexism did not end in 1920, nor has it ended yet in 2008. The same will be true of the push for full equal rights for homosexual citizens being reduced to pushing for the single civil right; that of marriage. While as long as marriage exists as a legal category, I believe that all consenting adults should have this right, regardless of sexual orientation, gaining the right to marriage will in no way end homophobia. Let's not forget the wider cause and let's not see marriage as the be-all and end-all of gay rights.
Comments
I agree with Ostertag in the sense that not all gays may want that right to marry. However, if Ostertag thinks there is a more important cause for gays then he should start his own revolution and quit harassing those who do want marriage. For some gays and lesbians it is symbolic of being recognized by society, and they worked very hard to earn it here in Mass.
And as far as marriage in general goes, I believe that the government needs to get out of the marriage/civil union business altogether and get out of everyone's bedroom, straight and gay. I don't think it's the government's place to regulate, legislate, or promote any form of intimate relationship.
For those who would say "what about the benefits that come with marriage", I'd say that such benefits need to be granted on the basis of sharing a household together on a long term basis and not a sexual relationship, gay or straight, monogamous or non-monogamous.
That is, there are other family groupings who could use such benefits as much as those in sex/romance based relationships. Adult children living with elderly parents, parents living with disabled adult children, single parent siblings sharing a home, grandparents raising grandchildren, to cite a few examples.
Such benefits would be granted under a Domestic Partnership that would be based on sharing a household and the type of sexual relationship, if any at all, that existed between those involved would be entirely irrelevant and moot to the terms of the Domestic Partnerships. Marriage would then be a private matter between those involved, as it should be.
I can't speak for others, but the idea of registering my intimate relationships with the government in the same way I register my car just doesn't get it for me.
Totally agree with you re: benefits. Actually as far as health care goes (although not perfect) Canada thinks that ALL citizens deserve benefits and that's where I stand too. Other benefits, again I totally agree with you that many types of "couples" deserve more support. I see what you mean about gay marriage dominating gay rights, so I guess you're right about that.
Re: government and marriage, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not married, I just live with my boyfriend so I honestly don't know much about the process) I thought that the various city halls in each state, i.e. the government, handed out marriage licenses. So legal marriage is the government.
That's one of the reasons J and I aren't married: we aren't Christian and we don't want to get involved in the legal tangle nonsense of the states.
Of course I respect your opinion so feel free to tell me if you disagree. :)
By separating the legal benefits that now come only with marriage and granting them to a wide variety of relationships, many having nothing to do with sex, would make relationships between consenting adults their own business. It would also serve to make same sex marriage a non-issue as well as non-monogamous ones, as they government wouldn't be involved. The Domestic Partnerships would be a household relationship, not a romantic or sexual one. Whatever personal relationships that might exist among those involved would be their own private business.
Of course, the religious right would howl just as loudly if all marriage was privatized and de-regulated, but they'd eventually adjust after it was a fait accompli