The Future of Marriage Equality

[millych3]

Saw this piece on the TaraElla Post recently, and it made me think

"In fact, the reason why we are fighting for marriage equality is because we have to work with the present governmental system for a while yet. Marriage equality is currently easier to achieve than getting government out of the business, but the latter should be our long term goal. As for de-emphasizing marriage in culture, that is the only way to achieve freedom and equality for all (globally) in the long run that I can see. Therefore, the two goals do not contradict each other - one is short term and the other is long term."
Source: http://taraellapost.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-de-emphasizing-marriage-and.html

Now that Marriage Equality is achieved in some small parts of the world but still a failure in the big picture, what do you think should be our next step?

[beyurslf]

1. I am not sure why de-emphasizing marriage in our culture is supposed to be a "gay"

issue. I may agree that marriage is not that important to me, but many, many of my friends want marriage badly. I just don't see gay equality and the de-emphasis of marriage as mutually exclusive to each other.

[laconicsax]

2. Sorry, but stuff like this hinders marriage equality.

I had to find a working link, and here it is: http://taraellastylia.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-de-emphasizing-marriage-and.html

De-Emphasizing marriage and abolishing State Marriage would definitely have been seen as liberal, up until very recently. Certainly, removing state control over an area where it is not required is definitely liberal. That was the understanding when I began to back this long term goal back in 2004.

Sorry. Abolishing "State Marriage?" All marriages are "State Marriages."

The religious anti-gay lobby has been incredibly effective in pushing the lie that marriage is religious, leading to scores of people believing that we need to get the government out of the marriage business. The problem is that religious groups have inserted themselves into the marriage business, not that government has done so. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, making it a civil matter.

Marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one. Working to abolishing it as a civil institution pisses on the hard work of those who have fought and are currently fighting to extend this http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1447056.html">civil right to same-sex couples.

Unrec.

[marginlized]

3. Sorry, but...

Sorry, anytime I hear “getting government out of the marriage business”, it translates as keep those gays away from our heterosexual privilege.

And sorry, but you can de-emphasize marriage for yourself all you want right now. Don’t get married. The government isn’t forcing you or anyone else. And thinking that de-emphasizing marriage achieves freedom and equality is a non sequitur. You’re going to have to explain the connection.

Because marriage is not only a secular contract between two individuals as another commenter has pointed out, but it’s surrounded by a whole body of well defined law that everyone gets to enjoy (or not) for the cheap price of a marriage license. So think of the license as legal short hand for hiring an attorney.

Wow, sounds like a whole lot of governmental intervention in the private lives of … who could have thought or necessitated this horrendous situation? Oh yeah. Heterosexuals. Because men abandon their wives. Parents abandon their children. People can be really, really awful. So there’s laws to prevent that shit, and it comes wrapped in a neat little package called marriage.

Which is helpful, because if you’re trying to raise children - and I’m sure you’re familiar with the stats on glbt folks raising kids, right? - 20% of male couples have them, over 30% of lesbian couples do, and among minorities the figures are higher. So, figuring in the many State and Federal benefits that accrue to families with children, marriage is very much a poor woman’s issue.

So why do you want to “de-emphasize” it?

And sorry, but to address TaraElla's post, she seems to have her own opinions as to what "liberal" is. De-emphasizing marriage may have been a feminist talking point back when wives couldn't hold credit accounts or sign contracts without their husband's approval or signature, but that was quite some time ago. Her statement:

Certainly, removing state control over an area where it is not required is definitely liberal. That was the understanding when I began to back this long term goal back in 2004.

I wonder what "control" she feels the state has over her current relationships? Or given that a marriage license is a legal instrument, what meaning would it have if it weren't a legal document? Because we've outgrown the need for marriage? And 2004 is so long ago.

[ladyfutura]

4. I Actually Think This Makes Sense

Marriage equality should still be our #1 goal.

But then TaraElla made this post in the context of what she has written in the past. She seems particularly concerned that marriage equality is still far away for most states in the US let alone the rest of the world.

I agree that we will NOT win this one quickly like no-fault divorce, and I think most people would agree seeing that most states already have constitutional BANS on marriage equality (shameful). NY does not equal the whole USA or the rest of the world.

However, de-emphasizing marriage has been on a winning streak in the past few decades. The number of cohabiting households in the US has dramatically increased. It is even becoming more common in Asia.

As for the financial benefits of marriage: In Europe, Canada and Australia, cohabiting couples actually have some or most of the rights and benefits of marriage. Why? Because people there campaigned for it. This could also be as valid a focus of campaigning for the US. But obviously this does not decrease the need for marriage equality.