My take on gay marriage is that it simply perpetuates a heterosexist/patriarchal institution when it is sanctified as the privileged way of being by the state. Gay marriage in no way addresses the realities of the varieties of primary relationships between people of the same sex -- economic, social, emotional and sexual -- I have encountered in queer communities, nor do I see it as progressive in respect to a queer or feminist social evolution.

The single folk and the folk who live in non-traditional relationships (siblings, friends, you name it) could also use some help in achieving social justice. Single people are shown to be hardest hit by neo-liberalism in Canada yet get left on the margins as folks jump on the campaign to wed homosexuals. As a queer I do not see it as a particularly pressing issue for our communities but it sure seems to get the spin of a good thing.

quote:

---

Single people are shown to be hardest hit by neo-liberalism in Canada yet get left on the margins as folks jump on the campaign to wed homosexuals.

---

I think that's a different issue, isn't it?

quote:

---

'by definition'

---

By definition, African Americans weren't actually people at one time.

And what am I supposed to say, once I've taken part in this legally-recognized-ceremony-that-isn't-marriage and some asks my marital status? "No, I'm not single, I've been civilly-unioned for five years." How quaint and concise.

Yarrow, I agree with you that "marriage" may not be the best way to define same-sex relationships, however, I would still like to have the same rights as other members of society so that I can then reject them (or not) as I see fit. I would also like to see more rights extended to non-married households. For example, siblings living together, or adult children living with their parents should be able to extend their benefits to each other and apply for the tax benefits that are given to married couples. Domestic partnership, for insurance and tax purposes, would be a more equitable position.

[ 14 March 2003: Message edited by: andrean ]

[ 14 March 2003: Message edited by: audra estrones ]

I don't think gay marriage is a terribly radical thing, though once upon it was, and a few comments in this thread show why it's still important to make the fairly conservative demand for simple equality. So i sort of agree with you.

quote:

---

Some definitions change. As I said, if homosexual couples want some kind of legal recognition, so be it, just call it something other than marriage.

---

Oh boy. Another person recycling the old line of bilge about how gay marriage "cheapens" the institution of marriage.

Rather than waste my time with a hefty dose of my usual sarcastic roaring laughter which shows exactly what I think of the merit of such a bogus line of argumentation, I now turn to Yarrow's statement.

In regard to the "bandwagon" line of argument, a good deal of the wind has been taken out of the sails anyway of the pro-gay-marriage camp since Revenue Canada, for all intents and purposes, treats a male-male or female-female common law relationship identically to a male-female common law relationship, which, in turn, is treated equivalently to a "real" marriage.

In effect, then, the tax system in Canada now guarantees the same access to the labyrinthine art of transferring deductions and hornswoggling that I can't figure out for the life of me that goes on in a jointly-filed tax form.

However, the point that is still validly made by the pro-gay-marriage camp is as stated above: Homosexuals should have the perfect right to do whatever the hell it is they want with their relationships subject to each others' informed consent.

In addition is a line of reasoning not yet touched upon:

Gay couples still face legalized discrimination in areas other than tax provisions. Gay partners, for example, do not, unlike heterosexually married couples, gain automatic inheritance rights or hospital admission rights, to name just two areas.

Furthermore, they often do not gain automatic pensionability based on the partner's job. My grandparents, for example, are still married after 50 years or so, and my grandmother will, again, by some labyrinthine arrangement in the CPP, get an increase in her pension based on her marriage to my grandfather.

Medical benefits are another common example. Some companies still restrict the definition of "spouse" to a heterosexual mate, which automatically penalizes homosexual couples as the latter cannot assume automatic coverage under extended medical benefits often provided with higher-paying jobs.

quote:

---

I think that a good solution would be for the state to stop performing "marriages". Let the religious communities perform marriages for whomever they want but the legally binding document, the one that is issued by the state, should be called something else and recognize both opposite and same sex unions. It could be called a "union license" or something, instead of marriage license. That way, nobody need get in a huff about the definition of marriage - the religious institution would perform the "marriage" (or not, according to their beliefs) and the state would certify the "union".

---

quote:

---

...though she's a Catholic as well...what possible objection could they have?

---

I can't see any, andrean. Neither of you has ever been divorced, which is the big one. You might have to convert, though....

Edited to add:

... but I'm an idiot. I missed the "as well," not to mention having forgotten that detail of your background. Ah, well...

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]

i dont care if you dont want to get marry or if you think gay marriage is not a progressive step for gays and lesbians.

Some queers want to get married. Like me.

And i demand the right to get marry. It's my choice. I don't have abortion and i dont encourage women to have abortion, but i still think it should be legal, you get my drift? I dont understand how ANY equality- freedom seeking persons can be against the idea of Gay marriage, especially gay people themself.

Its my right, protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And it has to be called "marriage", anything else would be seen as "second class".

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: HighBreath ]

quote:

---

Now I know that some religions can't get past old beliefs (Catholics!)

---

Actually they (we) can't get back to their old beliefs, when gay unions were accepted and performed in the Catholic church.