Same-Sex Marriage as a Means to Something Better

It may surprise some to learn that the debate over same-sex marriage is not only between gay rights supporters and their opponents. For the last fifteen years, there has also been a vigorous debate over same-sex marriage within the LGBT and progressive communities.

For almost two decades, the organized gay rights movement, led by groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal, have been pushing hard for marriage. But there have also been LGBT rights activists who have questioned whether it makes sense to focus so much of the movement's energies and resources on seeking to expand an institution that has for so long contributed to the subordination of women and that has also served to discriminate against those who choose not to marry.

These critics argue that our society unjustly privileges marriages at the expense of other types of relationships. Our current laws make a slew of crucial benefits -- from health insurance to social security survivorship payments to tax advantages -- dependent on marital status. Rather than limiting eligibility for these benefits to individuals who are married, critics propose that everyone be allowed to choose one designated beneficiary. It should not matter, the critics argue, whether the two individuals in question are married or even whether they are in an intimate relationship. (One of the leading proponents of this view is law professor Nancy Polikoff. You can check out her blog here.)

From the critics' perspective, the marriage equality movement's focus has been too narrow because it ignores the interests and aspirations of those who prefer not to marry. It also does not go to the crux of many of the most compelling questions of justice in our society. On the health insurance issue, for example, pushing for same-sex marriage does nothing for employees (straight or gay) who work for employers that do not provide the benefit.

I must say that I find many of the arguments made by progressive critics of the marriage equality movement compelling. And yet, I do not believe that the pursuit of same-sex marriage has been a mistake. As long as society continues to privilege marriage in the way that it does, it is unconscionable to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to marry. I think where the marriage equality movement goes wrong is when it understands the pursuit of same-sex marriage as an end in itself rather than as a means to achieving a more fair and just system for distributing rights and benefits.

In a very short period of time, the marriage equality movement has succeeded in getting millions of Americans to question whether it makes sense to privilege heterosexual marriage in ways that tangibly harm gay people. The movement deserves an immense amount of credit for this. But now that the legal and moral advisability of limiting marriage to different-sex couples is in play -- a result that would have been unimaginable as recently as 1995 -- the time has come to also debate the legal and moral advisability of continuing to privilege marriage, whether gay or straight.

If it is unfair, for example, to deny a married lesbian the opportunity to receive social security survivorship benefits when her same-sex spouse dies, why is it not also unfair to deny the same benefit to someone who lived and cared for a deceased unmarried partner regardless of her sexual orientation?

There are some who may think that it is not possible to seek to both expand the institution of marriage -- by allowing same-sex couples to marry -- while at the same time seeking to reduce its importance. But I think that this is perhaps an instance in which we can have our cake and eat it too. We should, by all means, strive to make the institution of marriage more inclusive. But our goal, over the long run, should be to lessen the prioritization of marital status in the distribution of rights and benefits.

Comments

[klgrube]

Let me make this clear: the people of this country do not support gay marriage. In every state where they have been allowed to make this choice, the voters have rejected gay marriage. In the few states where gay marriage is TEMPORARILY allowed, there was no ballot initiative or referendum process to allow the voices of the people to be heard! Their voices were silenced by legislatures or courts influenced by very wealthy gay activists and organizations into misrepresenting the people who elected them on this issue!
In the next few months, gay marriage will be repealed in Maine. In New Hampshire, the voters will oust Governor "Flynch" and the legislators who forced gay marriage into law against their wishes and will, shortly after the 2010 election, have their newly-elected legislature pass a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage, effectively repealing their gay marriage law. Iowa already has their Marriage Protection amendment waiting for the time when it can be considered. But it's entirely possible Vermont or Connecticut will beat them and join New Hampshire in repealing their gay marriage laws right after the 2010 election.
Trust me, the voters of these states will not stand for their voices being silenced so outrageously and will either vote directly or elect a legislature that will actually listen to them. The voters have seen what happens when they elect so-called representatives who totally misrepresent them and lie to them, as did Governor Lynch, and they will not let this happen again.

[lelandt]

Nadler is planning on introducing a bill to repeal part of DOMA and grant federal marital rights only to those who are married. President Obama supports granting marital rights to all in "legally-recognized unions" (Obama's campaign created this term and it appeared on the White House web site).
Nadler's plan completely screws the West Coast as California, Washington and Oregon have domestic partnerships. We need to let Nadler know that this is not acceptable. It does not make any sense that Nadler does not support the President's proposal. Let all your members of Congress know you support inclusive federal legislation which includes marriage, domestic partnerships and civil unions. Join the campaign, 3 Clicks for Equality!
Go to www.NationalMarriageEquality.com to email your representatives for Federal Marital Rights.

[CornetMustich]

Kudos to New England and Iowa for supporting (civil) marriage.
And to the Episcopal Church.

I've been busy officiating for couples who have been coming to CT to wed this summer from around the country. And they are bringing their families and friends along to celebrate too. Congrats to all.

Some of the couples have been together for 38 years, and 45 years, and 5 years. And I think that they have been expanding what marriage means in our society.

To the marriage foes, and sexually phobic, please find something else to do with your time, because life's too short. Find love. I did, and I'm about to celebrate 30 years with my spouse.

And remember, marriage is firstly a civil matter, as marriage licenses are isssued by and recorded in town halls not church halls, and in America we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

End DOMA and DADT now Obama.

[boarderthom]

Economic issues matter and marriage is an economic issue. Studies show that married people are slightly healthier (less costs) and wealthier (pay more taxes) than their single counterparts and this is true for gay people as well. Therefore, it is in the state's best economic interest to grant marriage equality. This is because there are thousands of rights and responsibilities that come with the legal contract of marriage (yes, marriage is a legal contract). Gay people deserve these rights and responsibilities.

[lafon5891]

I've been struggling with this very notion for a while. Marriage is heteronormative and I don't know whether I should be fighting to undermine heteronormativity be reducing the importance of marriage or fighting to make marriage more queer therefore undermining heteronormativity. The answer: DO BOTH!