This blog probably doesn't have enough following to warrant an open thread, but to avoid spamming Facebook too much, I'll try it anyway.
I would like to point out that DOMA prevents relationship recognition beyond marriage for LGBTQ folks. For that reason, I think it should be repealed, regardless of my views on marriage and the emphasis that is placed on it.
[Edit 1:25 PM]
Of course just after I post this the hearing is over...
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Polygamy?
I know, I know, more marriage-related stuff. What can I say, it's still in the news. =P
I read a very interesting post by Dr. Jillian T. Weiss on The Bilerico Project about someone who is challenging the Utah law against polygamy.
Before getting into that post, allow me to share my views on polygamy. First, some terminology. Polygamy means marrying multiple people. Most examples of polygamy are polygyny (hence the conflation of terms sometimes), having multiple wives. Then there is polyandry, having multiple husbands. Finally, polyamory is, based on its prefix and root, multiple loves (marriage is not necessary for polyamory). Polyamory is often more complicated than that, but that’s a post for another day.
I don’t care for polygamy because I don’t care for marriage. However, if polygamy was a legal option, I would dislike marriage less than I do now. Marriage would be open to a wider range of relationship types, though it would still ignore many living arrangements and not provide many people rights they deserve. In the mainstream, at the moment, the best I can hope for regarding things related to polyamory is polygamy. Ideally, as I said before, civil marriage wouldn’t exist and the rights associated with it would be given more justly. The next-best alternative for me (and what may be more likely—though I won’t give up) is that marriage is opened up to more living and relationship arrangements (I find this much more complicated and sill problematic). I also want to point out that many people who practice polygamy have misogyny issues. Misogyny is not a requirement for polygamy, however.
I think Dr. Weiss gets things right here, morally speaking (I don’t know much about the legal issues she’s talking about). She states “I think Mr. Brown has as much of a right to his relationships, as do his wives, as same-sex couples, or people who have multiple sex partners.” This is a much different tone from many advocates for “marriage equality” who respond to the claim that “same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy” with “NO! Polygamy is bad!” That is a direct affront to many people in polyamorous relationships, many of whom are queer. In this and other ways, I don’t think the current fight for same-sex marriage is doing anything to help (and is in fact hindering) polyamorous people from having their relationships recognized.
I don’t have much more to say on this note, though I do have a few requests. 1) Read the rest of the post. It’s short and Dr. Weiss makes a few more good points. 2) Don’t forget the poly people when fighting for relationship recognition. 3) Don’t respond to the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy with disgust.
I read a very interesting post by Dr. Jillian T. Weiss on The Bilerico Project about someone who is challenging the Utah law against polygamy.
Before getting into that post, allow me to share my views on polygamy. First, some terminology. Polygamy means marrying multiple people. Most examples of polygamy are polygyny (hence the conflation of terms sometimes), having multiple wives. Then there is polyandry, having multiple husbands. Finally, polyamory is, based on its prefix and root, multiple loves (marriage is not necessary for polyamory). Polyamory is often more complicated than that, but that’s a post for another day.
I don’t care for polygamy because I don’t care for marriage. However, if polygamy was a legal option, I would dislike marriage less than I do now. Marriage would be open to a wider range of relationship types, though it would still ignore many living arrangements and not provide many people rights they deserve. In the mainstream, at the moment, the best I can hope for regarding things related to polyamory is polygamy. Ideally, as I said before, civil marriage wouldn’t exist and the rights associated with it would be given more justly. The next-best alternative for me (and what may be more likely—though I won’t give up) is that marriage is opened up to more living and relationship arrangements (I find this much more complicated and sill problematic). I also want to point out that many people who practice polygamy have misogyny issues. Misogyny is not a requirement for polygamy, however.
I think Dr. Weiss gets things right here, morally speaking (I don’t know much about the legal issues she’s talking about). She states “I think Mr. Brown has as much of a right to his relationships, as do his wives, as same-sex couples, or people who have multiple sex partners.” This is a much different tone from many advocates for “marriage equality” who respond to the claim that “same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy” with “NO! Polygamy is bad!” That is a direct affront to many people in polyamorous relationships, many of whom are queer. In this and other ways, I don’t think the current fight for same-sex marriage is doing anything to help (and is in fact hindering) polyamorous people from having their relationships recognized.
I don’t have much more to say on this note, though I do have a few requests. 1) Read the rest of the post. It’s short and Dr. Weiss makes a few more good points. 2) Don’t forget the poly people when fighting for relationship recognition. 3) Don’t respond to the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy with disgust.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Why I Could Not Celebrate
We're back from the unannounced hiatus! I apologize to anyone who followed the blog. I'm hope to say active this time. Now to jump back in!
(Disclaimer: This post focuses on civil marriage. Because the government is not supposed to force religion on anyone, I don’t think religious arguments fit with civil marriage.)
On June 24, 2011, around 10:30 p.m., the New York senate passed bill 8520, a marriage equality bill, it was called. Thousands of people celebrated that night, crowding bars, streets, and rooftops. But I found it difficult to join them. I couldn’t feel everyone's joy even though I tried. Part of the problem was circumstantial; I was running around Manhattan trying to find a friend with whom I lost contact that night. However, two other things tainted what many LGBT people were claiming as a “victory” (I will concede, for many people it was). The first was the repeated failure of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA). It passed the NY Assembly before marriage, but most politicians and political groups ignored GENDA and focused on marriage. As a result, GENDA has been delayed yet another congressional term. Trans people were forgotten yet again. My other issue is with marriage itself.
First, allow me to share my views on marriage. My view is that marriage should carry no legal weight. Government should not regulate anyone’s relationships and anyone should have access to the benefits associated with marriage (if the benefit fits their situation). For example, there should be universal health care. Many of the tax breaks that are associated with marriage serve little to no purpose other than promoting the institution and should either be made universal or scrapped. Rights associated with raising children should be able to go to anyone or any group raising children, whether it is a single parent or a commune with shared child caring responsibilities. Name another benefit and I could probably state my opinion on it. I think that anyone should be able to get married as a personal ceremony for whatever reason (religion, tradition, etc.), but the rights should be completely separate. I don’t think domestic partnerships or civil unions that are modeled after marriage, as is often the case, should be regulated by the government, either. They should be expanded beyond monogamous, romantically involved couples or something new should be put in their place.
I feel that way because marriage will probably not benefit me and it will not benefit many others. I am polyamorous. I have the potential to be romantically attracted to multiple people at once and I am willing to enter into relationships that reflect that fact. Marriage, as it is now and as the movement is fighting for it, does not respect that. While I know poly people who are married, I do not feel I could and I certainly would not want to. Marriage does not help people such as myself who refuse to get married for whatever reason, whether for ideological or practical concerns (I think their decision should be respected and they still deserve rights associated with marriage). Marriage does not help cohabiting friends who are not romantically involved and do not marry, yet they deserve rights associated with ownership, hospital visitation, etc. Marriage does not or only slightly benefits people who are homeless, unemployed, or working minimum wage with no benefits. Tax breaks aren’t much help if you don’t have enough of an income to tax in the first place. The ability to share insurance isn’t much help if neither partner has insurance.
People might argue that I could still support marriage while also fighting for other relationships to also be recognized. However, I feel that they way the LGb“t” movement is fighting for marriage is not only pointless for many people, it further de-legitimizes those who cannot or will not marry. For example, in Massachusetts after marriage was legalized for people of any gender, people in domestic partnerships, which often include a wide variety of types of relationships, started losing their rights (I encourage you to read the entire article). I am sure this is not exclusive to that state. I bet the same thing will happen in New York, though I hope it will not. It seems to me, as marriage is pushed forward, it is increasingly seen as the only legitimate kind of relationship.
I would like to engage people on what I presented in this post. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong. I want to believe that the LGBT movement is truly working for the benefit of everyone. I want to believe that marriage will help us all. I want to believe that, after getting marriage, the allies of trans people, poly people, homeless people, and others I named before will come back for us. Meanwhile, I will be working to abolish the institution of civil marriage, to pass non-discrimination measures that benefit everyone, and to get everyone affordable health care (to name a few).
For more information on re-framing the marriage debate, visit http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
(Disclaimer: This post focuses on civil marriage. Because the government is not supposed to force religion on anyone, I don’t think religious arguments fit with civil marriage.)
On June 24, 2011, around 10:30 p.m., the New York senate passed bill 8520, a marriage equality bill, it was called. Thousands of people celebrated that night, crowding bars, streets, and rooftops. But I found it difficult to join them. I couldn’t feel everyone's joy even though I tried. Part of the problem was circumstantial; I was running around Manhattan trying to find a friend with whom I lost contact that night. However, two other things tainted what many LGBT people were claiming as a “victory” (I will concede, for many people it was). The first was the repeated failure of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA). It passed the NY Assembly before marriage, but most politicians and political groups ignored GENDA and focused on marriage. As a result, GENDA has been delayed yet another congressional term. Trans people were forgotten yet again. My other issue is with marriage itself.
First, allow me to share my views on marriage. My view is that marriage should carry no legal weight. Government should not regulate anyone’s relationships and anyone should have access to the benefits associated with marriage (if the benefit fits their situation). For example, there should be universal health care. Many of the tax breaks that are associated with marriage serve little to no purpose other than promoting the institution and should either be made universal or scrapped. Rights associated with raising children should be able to go to anyone or any group raising children, whether it is a single parent or a commune with shared child caring responsibilities. Name another benefit and I could probably state my opinion on it. I think that anyone should be able to get married as a personal ceremony for whatever reason (religion, tradition, etc.), but the rights should be completely separate. I don’t think domestic partnerships or civil unions that are modeled after marriage, as is often the case, should be regulated by the government, either. They should be expanded beyond monogamous, romantically involved couples or something new should be put in their place.
I feel that way because marriage will probably not benefit me and it will not benefit many others. I am polyamorous. I have the potential to be romantically attracted to multiple people at once and I am willing to enter into relationships that reflect that fact. Marriage, as it is now and as the movement is fighting for it, does not respect that. While I know poly people who are married, I do not feel I could and I certainly would not want to. Marriage does not help people such as myself who refuse to get married for whatever reason, whether for ideological or practical concerns (I think their decision should be respected and they still deserve rights associated with marriage). Marriage does not help cohabiting friends who are not romantically involved and do not marry, yet they deserve rights associated with ownership, hospital visitation, etc. Marriage does not or only slightly benefits people who are homeless, unemployed, or working minimum wage with no benefits. Tax breaks aren’t much help if you don’t have enough of an income to tax in the first place. The ability to share insurance isn’t much help if neither partner has insurance.
People might argue that I could still support marriage while also fighting for other relationships to also be recognized. However, I feel that they way the LGb“t” movement is fighting for marriage is not only pointless for many people, it further de-legitimizes those who cannot or will not marry. For example, in Massachusetts after marriage was legalized for people of any gender, people in domestic partnerships, which often include a wide variety of types of relationships, started losing their rights (I encourage you to read the entire article). I am sure this is not exclusive to that state. I bet the same thing will happen in New York, though I hope it will not. It seems to me, as marriage is pushed forward, it is increasingly seen as the only legitimate kind of relationship.
I would like to engage people on what I presented in this post. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong. I want to believe that the LGBT movement is truly working for the benefit of everyone. I want to believe that marriage will help us all. I want to believe that, after getting marriage, the allies of trans people, poly people, homeless people, and others I named before will come back for us. Meanwhile, I will be working to abolish the institution of civil marriage, to pass non-discrimination measures that benefit everyone, and to get everyone affordable health care (to name a few).
For more information on re-framing the marriage debate, visit http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)