Why marriage matters so much to so many LGBT people

[dsc]

Forgetting for a moment that it would actually be harder to affect a civil unions law that gave same sex couple marriage equity and was valid in all 50 states and federally, many LGBT would be dissatisfied with that outcome. Why?

Because marriage is how society defines an adult. Assuming one doesn't just assume the unmarried person is gay, the assumption becomes that they are not ready, ie not enough of an adult, for a serious relationship. One of the loonier, but frankly probably one of the more inate criticisms of Nader's campaign came from Chris Matthews who wondered if a man who never married was enough of an adult to be President. For the record I neither know, nor care, why Nader is unmarried and feel there were a host of other, far better, reasons to criticise his campaign but this was a real reason given.

Like it or not, we will never be considered full adults and thus full citizens unless and until our relationships are treated the same as everyoneelse's. I am torn as to whether I would accept civil unions sooner over marriage later. The simple fact is, that no matter the status of the rights, the relationship will be considered inferior for all time if the name is different. There is a reason that seperate but equal has a bad name.

Ironically we are considered adult, in the bad sense, when it comes to pop culture. Let a show have a gay character and it will immediately be considered unfit for children. Let the show's gay character actually become sexual and it will be considered unfit for children and teens. Let the show's gay character go all the way and you might well get an x rating. If our existence makes a show unfit for children, it is hard to argue that we are going to have a citizenry willing to bestow full rights upon us.

Maybe it is possible for full relationship equality to exist without the name. But I think it is about as likely to happen as educational equality existing in segregated schools.

[MADem]

1. Naaah, it's because the community is "old fashioned" with

"traditional values!!!" (That popping sound you hear may well be fundie heads exploding!)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm

Divorce declining, but so is marriage
By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
Divorce is on the decline in the USA, but a report to be released today suggests that may be due more to an increase in people living together than to more lasting marriages.

-------
Couples who once might have wed and then divorced now are not marrying at all, according to The State of our Unions 2005. The annual report, which analyzes Census and other data, is issued by the National Marriage Project at New Jersey's Rutgers University.

The U.S. divorce rate is 17.7 per 1,000 married women, down from 22.6 in 1980. The marriage rate is also on a steady decline: a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9, says the report, whose calculations are based on an internationally used measurement.

...In the USA, 8.1% of coupled households are made up of unmarried, heterosexual partners. Although many European countries have higher cohabitation rates, divorce rates in those countries are lower, and more children grow up with both biological parents, even though the parents may not be married...The USA has the lowest percentage among Western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the report says.

"The United States has the weakest families in the Western world because we have the highest divorce rate and the highest rate of solo parenting," Popenoe says.

[Warpy]

2. Well, that plus some rather extraordinary rights granted to

married couples that are not granted to other unrelated adults.

One is the right to visit a partner in an ICU. Now I was a stubborn old bitch and would enforce visiting hours for hostile families and sneak partners in during the off hours. I could have lost my job for it. Marriage confers the ABSOLUTE RIGHT of a first degree relative when it comes to things like this.

Another right is to determine funeral arrangement when one partner dies first. Although arrangements can be prepaid and the will can be made, the family can still pitch a fit and have a long term partner shipped to another state, buried in the family plot, and kept away from internment with a life partner should they so choose. This is really obscene.

There are other understood rights, such as custodial rights when there are minor children in the family. Blood relatives can again pitch holy hell and take the kids, something that serves no one, especially the kids. Marriage keeps them away to the point they have to PROVE unfitness instead of just proving their own blood ties.

Personally, I can't imagine why any sane person would marry. I did it once, but I was much younger then and I've been happily out of it for a long time. However, I can't see exempting any consenting adult from this particular branch of contractural law. It violates the equal treatment clause.

Plus, you can tell they're desperate. I swear they're resurrecting all those old "miscegenation" speeches from the dying days of Jim Crow.

[dsc]

3. Note that my post assumed that all rights would be granted

in the civil unions. I still think a majority of us would be dissatisified with that outcome.

[idgiehkt]

4. honest to God...

#1, thanks for doing all that stuff and breaking the rules for the people you did. I know it meant the world to them
and #2, listening to you list this stuff it just seems to me like families dont' want their family's property, money, possessions threatened by significant others that they don't approve of. It must be in the marrow or something on that level where they are threatened. It's very strange to me.

[Jigarotta]

5. marriage is a bond between people, not gonads or churchiness.

I have no idea why this is an issue. yeh, maybe I do.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Rather than accept that logic, I'd prefer to challenge....

the "looney" assumption ( of a deep thinker like Mathews, no less) that being married is a prerequisite to being an adult.

[dsc]

7. As one who has often been asked

the likes of "when will you settle down" and "why haven't you gotten married yet" I can assure you the idea is out there in the populace.

[pnwmom]

19. The idea might be out there but we don't have to accept every stupid

idea that's out there, do we?

[kentuck]

25. rather childish actually...

to wish to be accepted as an "adult"...imo

[susanna]

15. No kidding.

I married at 36, but I'll be gosh-darned if before then I wasn't working, keeping a roof over my head, paying my bills and generally making an absolute adult of myself.

Though now that the OP mentions it, my family responded very favorably to my marriage; almost like I was "worthy" of adulthood now...so I can definitely see that viewpoint.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. This isn't the strongest argument in favor of legal gay marriage.

I am heterosexual and have chosen to remain single indefinitely. I don't see marriage as having to showcase to the world that I am valid, a big, grown-up girl, and ready to join the adults. You shouldn't marry for status, gay or straight.

On the other hand, gay marriage is a matter of equal protection under the law and civil rights. Gay partners should be able to automatically inherit as a surviving spouse as heterosexual marriage partners do, should be able to make medical decisions on behalf of their incapicitated spouses, and/or undergo the tedium of divorce law like everyone else when the union is permanently rent asunder, for examople. You get my drift.

You marry for yourself, your partner, and/or a family you create, tops. You don't marry for the sake of society.

[pnwmom]

18. I agree: "you shouldn't marry for status, gay or straight."

[Totallybushed]

9. I think you make a good

point as to why it matters to LGBT people, and also to their opponents.

[TNMOM]

10. I agree. First thing first is to unite the LGBT community

behind this. There were a lot of gays who voted for Bush. So while gay marriage is an important issue now, it needs to become one that drives how gays vote. Right now, there are a lot of gays who think gay marraige is not as important as supporting Bush's so-called fiscal conservativeness (we all know it's not so conservative). Honestly, I don't think this is a sufficient wedge issue for gays (not in the same way that it is for the right wing).

[Deja Q]

11. The ones that voted for *. Are they all wealthy?

Or are some of them so hateful of themselves (or hated by others?) that they will vote for the opposition? if it is "hateful", some people are so sick of society they will do what it takes to side with those who'd see them dead. Who likes to die?

Some Africans sold their own for such perks.

Some Jews helped Hitler for the same reason.

Why do we think that just because one person is a way doesn't mean they will band together?

[pnwmom]

20. And not all gays, or gay families, think the word "marriage" is important

as long as the federal law is changed to allow legal civil unions with the same rights (and responsibilities) as marriage.

[Liberal Veteran]

22. Let's not kid ourselves on civil union argument, though.

Already, in states where they passed those bigotted marriage laws and amendments, people are going to the courts trying to undo ALL domestic partner rights for gays like trying to keep companies from offering domestic partner coverage to employees.

We might get a few more people on our side, but the opposition is working to make gays and lesbians somewhere between invisible and criminal.

[pnwmom]

24. That's true. But I think there is more and more support for

civil rights for gays, especially among young people. In a few years, barring the coming of a religious theocracy, I bet this won't be nearly as controversial.

[theHandpuppet]

32. That's already happened to my partner

Her company (originally based in PA but with offices in other states) offered domestic partner benefits, including health benefits which were sorely needed. For several years we had those health benefits and other rights so many straight couples take for granted. But when Virginia (yeah, that state where MARK WARNER was governor) passed some of the most gay-hating legislation in the U.S., we lost our joint health benefits. No company in Virginia can offer domestic partner benefits, even if that company voluntarily offers them or is headquartered in another state. The company she works for was not happy about being forced to void our benefits after so many years.

This loss has been devastating to this partnership of some 15 years. No insurance company will offer reasonably priced health insurance to someone with MS (as I have) so as of today, June 1st, I am among the millions of Americans without health insurance.

Thank you, straight America. Does your marriage feel safer now?

[KittyWampus]

12. I am sick of the obsession with the word Marriage. The best course is to

abandon it. Liberals, civil rights advocates and gay people. Get the fuck over it.

In the United States there is seperation of church and state.

The State has no business Marrying people.

Any two human beings that want to join their households and share liability and benefits should go to the state courthouse and sign a civil union contract. Any. Two. People. Straight, gay , black, white, transgendered.

Any two human beings that then want to have an elective MARRIAGE ceremony of any kind- secular or religious- may go to house of worship or wherever and have the damned MARRIAGE ceremony.

That liberals of all types including gay people can't grasp this simple solution is beyond me.

[dsc]

28. words matter

ideas matter. If you have two different words for relationships then the relationships will be viewed differently. There is no getting around that.

[UTUSN]

13. Shrub is married to Pickles and HE ain't an "adult" n/t

[smokey nj]

14. My husband and I decided to marry when his company

started to offer domestic partnership benefits, the benefits offered at my job were really expensive and shitty, so I didn't take them. To qualify, you needed to submit an affidavit of spousal equivilancy and provide proof of domestic partnership along with other things. We decided that it would be easier if we got married, so we went to Vegas. It seemed unfair to me that these benefits were offered to couples who had the option to marry. There is no logical reason to deny same-sex couples the same partnership rights as hetero couples. We are also childless by choice, so it's extra frightening to us that the government wants to get into the business of defining familys. I know this post is long, and disjointed, but I just what you to know that I whole-heartedly agree.

[dsc]

31. It burns me up that

they offer those benefits to people who can get married but that is what it takes often to get them passed. BTW congrats on the wedding.

[smokey nj]

42. Thanks dsc

I just hope that some day soon I'll be able to offer the same congrats to you.

[BiggJawn]

16. So what's that say about divorced STR8 guys?

If unmarried adults aren't considered "grown-ups", I just imagine what "society" thinks of adults who have married and failed....Multiple times.
Other than the legal shit like inheiritance and children's parentage and that stuff, marriage is pretty useless, anyway.

[dsc]

30. Marriage is hardly useless

but divorcees are granted more respect than people who have remained single for too long.

[BiggJawn]

34. More respect?

OK, I'll take your word for it. I've only been divorced twice. Oncve the kids are grown, you look the same as a single guy. We don't wear signs, after all.

Still, if people want to get married, they should be able to. Their Mileage May Vary.

[pnwmom]

17. Why civil unions now versus marriage later?

Why not civil unions right now AND keep working toward marriage soon after?

[smokey nj]

21. Serious question

Is the difference between civil unions and marriage semantic, or is it just that civil unions, in this cirumstance, haven't been defined? When I hear this issue discussed, it's always in the context of a marriage being a religious ceremony, but there's no distinction made between straight couples who are married in civil ceremonies vs. those married in religious.

[dsc]

27. because once civil unions were granted

then most people would think that we were done with the issue. It might even be an explicit part of the deal. I have no doubt civil unions would at least delay marriage and might outright forbid it.

[pnwmom]

41. I don't think so, not if activists continue to call for it. The coming

generation (three of them closely related to me) couldn't care less about denying gay rights. All we have to do is wait for them to get a little older.

[Ravy]

23. Question. Would you accept civil unions if that

was *all* that the government provided?

My idea would be to get the government completely out of the marriage business. If a couple wanted to unite legally, they bought a civil union certificate and had a civil ceremony or a church marriage to complete it. It would be just as it is now, except all couples would have the same legal status.

Even now there are people who don't consider a) people married by a justice of the piece or b) people united out of a particular church as being married.

I am sure there would be plenty of churches that would marry LGBT persons, but a church marriage should not be required for a couple to be legally united, just as it is now.

This way, I think you could capitalize on the polls that say a majority favor civil unions, and have the same rigths (and obligations) as everyone else.

[dsc]

29. I probably would

but as a practical matter it would be a harder change to affect.

[Ravy]

35. Since it is really not changing anythinge except for

the term that the government currently uses (marriage), to a new term (civil unions), couldn't it be done in a single bill? Did Vermont have to change every law they had on the books individually?

[pitohui]

26. really is that the reason?

to be honest i got married to get my hubby's health insurance and i assume in this economy it's the same for most people -- the odds are that BOTH of you are not going to be able to get the good job w. that gives the health benefits

and that's why marriage is important

if you are both ralph nader then why bother, it just screws up the paperwork and the banking

[dddem]

33. whether we like to admit it or nor, marriage DOES carry some

weight in this society. Your status changes. You are viewed more seriously, as a more responsible person. That may or may not be a correct assunption, but it exists none the less.
My brother and his wife, who are against gay marriage, but have no problem with the term 'civil union', were married in a civil ceremony. I asked them if they would accept being "less married" than me, and they weren't thrilled with the idea.
Why would you deny 2 committed people who want to spend their lives together in a secure relationship that right? And what good comes of that denial? I truly don't get it.
Peace.

[Ravy]

37. Well, the thing is, in the eyes of a segment of our society,

your brother and sister-in-law are "less married" than people who were married in a church. I believe that is why there is always a discrepancy in polling between supporting civil unions and supporting gay marriage.

It is impossible to mandate religious beliefs. I think it is better to separate the term the government uses for unions from the one the various religions do. We can make the government be fair and just.

[theHandpuppet]

36. I'm not so sure, dsc

I see the point you're trying to make, but how does that explain folks like my fundie neighbors, who between the two of them have had six marriages? The same ones who berated my partner and I for putting up Halloween decorations for the neighborhood kids (anti-religious!) and keep trying to get us to go to church? In fact, among the couples on our block my partner and I have been together longer than everyone but two couples, one of which is a couple in their 80's. Would our being able to marry bring us some newfound respect among such people? I doubt it. Because the basic problem lies with THEM, not us.

[ruggerson]

40. Bingo n/t

[SmokingJacket]

38. Either "marriage" for all, or "civil unions" for all.

Keeping everything as it is and simply allowing gays to marry would be the easiest fair solution. As it is, denying a woman to marry another woman, or a man another man, is simply sexual discrimination.

However, I would be pleased if the govt got out of the business of "marrying" people, and instead granted civil unions for legal purposes (to any two, or even three, people who apply for them), and let people define their own marriage however they want -- religiously or whatever.

[sendero]

39. That's exactly what I was thinking..

... government should get out of the "marriage" business. It's none of their business. There should be a legal union, sanctioned by the state and available to adults of any gender, and if someone wishes, a marriage in a church. There are many churches that would be happy to provide this service for anyone who wants it (UU for example).

TO me, this is the only way to politically deal with this in a way that makes anyone's and everyone's complaint moot and pointless. And it provides the GLBT community with 100% of the rights afforded to "married" people.