I disagree. Indeed, I think it is only wealthy upper-class people who can afford to dismiss marriage as being about inheritances and taxes. For many Americans, at least, marriage is the only access they have to health insurance, and the only way they have to ensure that health and end-of-life decisions are made for them by their beloved partners of choice rather than their families of origin. We saw what happend with Terri Schiavo, and that was with a legal marriage; this issue is of even more importance for gay and lesbian partners, who may come from families who are deeply hostile to their loved one and their choices. Surely I'm not the only one to have read those terrible accounts of people not being given information about the status of their partners after an accident, or people whose partners were taken away from them by hostile families when the partner had become incapacitated.

Marriage has a dreadful history, filled with racist and misogynist ideologies; so does the nation-state, but it's been a long time since I've heard anyone chant "Smash the family! Smash the state!" Just as I don't think that the abolition of the nation-state is a viable, or even desirable, goal, I'm opposed to abandoning the institution of marriage as well.

Finally, I question the automatic condemnation of "commercialism." Ellen Willis has argued that the economic boom of the 1960s was part of what made people think and feel that they had a right to happiness, and to take action on that; one could go even further and talk about the economic stability of the unionized, white working class of the 1940s and 1950s also set the stage for the mass movements of the 1960s. Why is it such a dreadful thing for people to want to dress up in fancy clothing, eat good cake, and party with their friends once or twice or three times in their lives? It's not as though people planning weddings are usually deciding between doing that and donating the money to the homeless, and the homeless lose out. People enjoy splendor and spectacle and fanciness; condemning that has always struck me as a streak of puritanism that has always been with the American left--the idea that any luxury at all, any frivolity is suspect. Dressing up and celebrating and gift-giving can be a wonderful part of celebrating two people's love and commitment. I don't see what's so bad about that.

One more thing: the "money is money" argument is great, as far as I'm concerned. Let's fragment the Republicans into fiscal conservatives, who care about money, and cultural conservatives, who hate the Gayz!

I kinda agree with both:

I believe the only reason to get married is for taxes and health care. If you really love your partner and you're both set otherwise federal approval should make no difference.

However we know a lot of gay couples who are denied these very things and are fighting to have what heterosexuals have.

My honest belief is that the government should have no place in marriage whatsoever if it's based on religious beliefs, which it is. It should be a spiritual matter or it should be for EVERYONE (polygamists included).

Also:

Shouldn't we invest our resources in fighting poverty, homelessness and discrimination?

Sure. Let's invest our resources in fighting discrimination. How about discrimination by the federal and state governments about who gets to apply for a marriage license?

I don't get it; it's not like there's a dearth of anti-poverty or homeless-advocacy groups. How is marriage-equality activism taking away from them?

Great to hear from Miriam! I appreciated her bio and overview that was on here after the conference that she and Jessica attended recently. What she writes about here is of great interest to me. I constantly question marriage and its role and purpose in Western bourgeois, non-religious society. I am particularly confronted with it, as I'm sure many of us are, as I come into my late 20s when so many people I know are getting married. "I thought they were with me!" I think. But it seems they are not, so I feel a bit alone, but not so much when I hear from people like Miriam.

Of course, my thoughts here don't even address the role of marriage for more necessary, factful, cut-and-dry reasons like finances and health insurance.

But mostly, I am with the Hidden Cameras!

Heh. Me again.

Your bringing up marriage's relation to political/religious beliefs reminds me that it is one of the few meaningful ceremonies and rituals open to us atheists. I would be very, very pissed off if I were unable to enter into it (for any reason other not finding someone I want to marry, obviously).

30K for a wedding is insane to me... I have been to weddings like that.

My wedding, we paid...$300 for. It was small, we wrote our own vows, and the people that were there were only the people who love us so much we would have had to knock 'em out to keep them away... lol. My outfit was an antique white blouse with lace trim and crystal (looking) buttons, an antique plaid floor length skirt from prolly the 40s, and a pair of vintage cream-colored dingo boots I paid 75 cents for. My beloved wore a pair of blue cords, a neat-o dressy kind of shirt with a mandarin collar, and a jacket he got for $2.

Our thoughts were- why spend all kinds of crazy money we didn't have? Maybe if we had tons more money we would have paid a lot more to do a swankier thing- lots of people seem to get engaged and save up for a really long time to have a huge party.

(How embarassing down the road to be like, oops. Didn't work... too bad we still have thousands of dollars of credit card bills to show for it!)

To further ramble, I never understood the huge deal with weddings/getting all worked up over the frou frou dresses, flowers, party favors, etc. was. Of course, I never wanted to get married...and then I met my beloved, and realized that we could do the whole marriage thing on our own terms, and it looked attractive.

The part of the wedding that really got to me, was the part where we said our vows, declared our commitment to each other, you know, the mushy stuff that all the money in the world can't buy.

After getting married, I got more why it was such a big deal- people do treat you differently. Marriage is an institution- making that commitment has a weight to it.

Commercialism... argh. I am glad we did our thing our way.

I was going to contribute something, but EG pretty much said it all for me. I do think there's something to be said for making a public committment, and making it part of a social ceremony involving those who care about the two of you. I don't see why anyone should be denied that right if they want it.

I also agree with EG. I'm a straight married woman and I love being married. I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, but this is an arrangement that works for us. As we're far from upper-class, we did it because marriage is the only way to qualify for the too-broke-for-a-down-payment homebuying program in our city. Unfair? Yes, terribly. Since then, our friends and family see our relationship as infinitely more legitimate than when we were unmarried--I imagine that's a big draw for LGBTQ folks, too, no?

If you don't like marriage (which is different from not liking weddings), then don't have one. But as someone who enjoys her marriage very much, I hope you can work to afford the same privilege to choose to everyone.

Wow, Jessica. I'm very impressed. These are thoughts I have held in for years but have been to afraid to express.

Come election season, I run several campaigns, and I'm always being chased around by the Gay-Straight Alliance on campus like I'm Pat Robertson for saying that gay marriage is not a priority issue on our local campaigns. Granted, I fought against an amendment that ended up banning homosexual marriage in the State, but that was a specific occasion with a specific purpose. Otherwise, candidates for State Representative or Senate should not be concerning themselves with the issue in Texas.

On top of this, I've always thought wedding ceremonies were quite stupid. Essentially, everything is paid for by the bride's family, implying that there is a burden being made up for in the circumstance, and the ceremony dates back to a transition of property and required female chastity. The whole thing just makes me want to vomit. And why do we put such a high premium on it today? Because now-a-days, more people can afford this sort of thing, where it originated as a ceremony where only the wealthy could have the best of the best. Everyone gets to be royalty on their wedding day, including the ten-thousand dollar dress while hungry little girls starve to death without education or personal worth in insert-your-favorite-third-world-nation-here.

And I'll be damned if a man is ever seen reaching up my dress in public to pull down my lingerie. I mean, honestly.

snappy mackerel said:
"Since then, our friends and family see our relationship as infinitely more legitimate than when we were unmarried--I imagine that's a big draw for LGBTQ folks, too, no?"

I don't think I agree with this. Speaking from personal experience, why should a wife or husband be a more legitimate relationship than a boyfriend or girlfriend? Commitment and/or love can run just as deep between people even if a couple is not married.

For example, why should my dad always invite my sister's husband on family vacations, to family dinners, and pay for him when we go out for drinks, but not do the same for my boyfriend or girlfriend? Are my relationships not as legitimate in his mind? To me, even if it's just right now and not predicted for my entire life, they are.

This is just one reason why I don't fully agree with marriage.

I get all sorts of funny looks from friends and relatives when I say that I don't want a big wedding. I have other things I'd like to spend my money on, like a house and a future, not just one day of my life. Fact is, I see marriage as a legal commitment, and if I were willing to be legally attached to someone (for the health insurance and other benefits), the spiritual/emotional connection would already exist.

In my ideal wedding, I would get married in a backyard with a justice of the peace (I am atheist too, EG, so I hear ya), with only my close friends and relatives watching. And I would wear a nice dress that I could wear again (definitely not white). My reception would be a potluck deal, and I would probably end up making some sort of sheet cake (dessert is my specialty). And later we could party down to some music from a boombox.

The only thing I really can't figure out is how to have a ceremony where I don't have to walk down any sort of aisle.

Oh, and I get even worse reactions when I mention that I'd rather keep my name the way it is. If my future husband wants us to have matching names, he can change his.

I think that there is more to this than the commercialism, inheritance rights and tax benefits. I had a very low key wedding. My husband and I took off to the Virgin Islands, just the two of us, and got married barefoot on the beach. No commercialism. The point of it was that we were allowed to do it. I knew my husband for a whole three months before we took our little spontaneous jaunt to the "altar". The point was that we were able to do that, while my aunt who has been with her partner for over 15 years can't. My husband and I became a legal family and were able to make life and death decisions for each other, my aunt is unable to do that. We are legally allowed to adopt, if we wanted too, but some states only allow married people to do that, so my aunt is out there as well. If my husband were to die tomorrow, I would receive his social security benefits to help our family, my aunt can't. When filling out census forms, my husband and I are considered a family, my aunt and her partner are not. I could go on...

Marriage a big to do and for gay people to want to have that right should not come as a surprise.

I think that the point is that those who want gay marriage are just wanting to be afforded those same rights that I have. They want to have their relationships to be approved by society, to some extent. I also don't think that it is fair to say that there are more important things to worry about than marriage as I think that legalizing gay marriage is a big step toward tolerance.

There's also what happens if one becomes very, very ill -- it's much harder for your partner to make decisions for you if you're not married, especially if your relatives want to interfere. Marriage makes this very easy without having to spend big bucks on a lawyer and then possibly have the legal stuff overturned in court anyway.

Personally, I think people ought to have what they think is meaningful for their ceremony. Yes, some people are unimaginative and spend too much, but they do that in EVERY area of their lives.

I very much agree with EG on this. I had the big to-do, without the more sexist elements (no giving away, though our parents accompanied us both up the aisle, and no throwing of bouquet or garter or other sex-up-the-bride crap), and I would have been happy with a smaller affair if we had less money, but I'm glad we threw a big-ass party with our family and friends. And we thought about having a big-ass party but skipping the legal aspect for political reasons, but to be honest, we caved for the health insurance and tax savings. And the really important stuff likebeing able to make medical decisions for one another if it becomes necessary.

The legitimacy that religious or state-sanctioned marriage adds to couplehood in society's eyes is something you may want to diminish. For the most part I agree, even as someone who has accepted the privileges. But the fact that the prejudice against unmarried couplehood exists NOW is a great reason to open up the institution of state-sanctioned marriage to everyone (especially LGBTQ people), since I sincerely doubt you would get similar support for abolishing it.

I think that the cult of princess-weddings is silly to follow if that's not your cup of tea. And certainly the spending is a bit out of control. But marriage--or some other kind of life-commitment ceremony--can be the most meaningful event in many peoples' lives, so they should be able to enter into it and celebrate it with 12 chocolate fountains if that's their dream.

EG, I LOVE your comment (the first comment posted). Absolutely. Fabulous. I can't agree more and I couldn't put it any better. Bravo.

On to read the rest now!

Marriage should be a choice. You can't make a choice not to get married if it's not on the table. And I strongly disagree that the debate is only about tax breaks for wealthy couples. Here are a few things commonly denied to unmarried couples (straight or gay):
-hospital visitation of a partner or child
-make medical decisions on a partner’s behalf in the event of illness
-take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child
-obtain joint health, home, and auto insurance policies
-inherit automatically in the absence of a will
-file joint tax returns and obtain due rates and exemptions
-have joint child custody, visitation, adoption, and foster care
-obtain veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans
-obtain Social Security and Medicare benefits for ones partner
-obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children
-choose a final resting place for a deceased partner

I didn't put that list together (Outfront Minnesota did) but it's a good place to start.

I'm in the "for everyone or no-one" camp on marriage. I think the choice to get married is an extremely personal one, as is the means of getting married. Modern marriage bears very little resemblance to the traditional marriage, which I think is pretty fantastic. I, personally, wouldn't want a huge wedding, but I don't think worse of someone who does. Ultimately, for me, it should be available for everyone, or it shouldn't be available for anyone (legally speaking).

Even if you got rid of all of the myriad legal benefits that come from getting married, I think you'd find people still having big weddings, and I don't think that's necessarily a good or bad thing- it just is. Personally, I enjoy weddings. I like seeing people enjoy themselves, and I enjoy the festivity of the whole thing. I think it's nice to celebrate nice things, and sometimes it's nice to have a big event with your friends and family.

I agree that a lot of the money that gets spent is ridiculous, but I don't think that's a problem with weddings so much as it's a problem with the commercialization of our society in general. Look at how much money some people will spend on any given event- graduations, "sweet 16" parties, communions, mitzvahs, etc. People go nuts, and buy into the hype.

I'm definitely not comfortable with shaming people who choose to get married or decide to spend money on a wedding dress or whatever. I think we ought to be allowed to have moments where we do ridiculous things for our own happiness. There's aboslutely nothing wrong with being happy or with blowing a ridiculous sum of money on something for a big event if it's something you really like and that makes you happy. Breaking your bank account is stupid, but I'm not going to look down my nose on someone because "that money could have gone to charity X, Y, or Z instead!"

Of course it could have. So could the money you spent on concert tickets, or a new tv, or the season collection of Firefly, or that chocolate, etc, etc. I don't think the choice to spend money on an event that you think is really important in your life should be condemned on the grounds that the money could have gone to help someone else is what I guess I'm saying.

Yes, I raise an eyebrow at the commercialization of the wedding industry (for all), and I also realize that expensive weddings and big 'ol tax breaks affect mainly the middle class. BUT. This is not about a sexist institution, economic concerns, or wanting to be the gay version of straight and middle class. This is about love, committment, and EQUALITY. People who don't want to get married shouldn't be pressured to do so, but people who do should be able to. And having a separate set of laws for one group of Americans just shouldn't fly anymore.

Gay marriage is also a symbol of equality. You could conceivably create other legal structures to give gay couples (or unmarried straight couples, for that matter) all the same legal rights and privileges as marriage. But the eventual acceptance of gay marriage will mean the acceptance of gay *people.* That's why it's important.

mary b...you should consider a quaker-style ceremony. my partner and i are planning a committment ceremony (sans legal marriage) and think the quaker thing is pretty cool. no aisle. no parents "giving" someone away. just a bunch of friends in a circle sharing thoughts and love. we struggled a LOT with the issues raised here. we decided not to do the marriage thing in protest of the unequal access to marriage (we're hetero, but obviously not all our friends are) AND because we think marriage, as conventionally conceptualized, has a nasty history we'd prefer to not be a part of. in the end, our "wedding" (we don't even call it that) is about bringing our family and friends together to meet one another, break bread, and drink some good wine (i loves me some wine). did i mention it will be in the redwoods? i'd jump at just about any chance to have a big party in the redwoods.

"On top of this, I've always thought wedding ceremonies were quite stupid. Essentially, everything is paid for by the bride's family,"

Isn't everything paid for by the groom's family in some cultures? I know someone whose father is from a bride's-family-pays culture and whose mother is from a groom's-family-pays culture. They frugally paid for their own fun wedding. :)

This is an eye-opener of a thread. I try very hard to check my judgments and preconceptions at the door. Reading these open-minded and straight-talking comments re the pros and cons of marriage has provided me a real opportunity for understanding.

is michael harold being honest? i can't tell if he's being cheeky or sincere.

Sincere.

I've been married twice. In my first marriage, we were very young and didn't really care whether or not we had a marriage ceremony. (We were hippies.) Her parents wanted one, so we looked at each other and said, "Sure, why not?"

Now the four children from that marriage are grown and range from 22 to 31 and all four of them are getting married over the next four months. They've worked it out among themselves to maximize the party and friends factor. One marriage is in April, one in May, one in June and one in July. I kid you not. They all want ceremonies, so I said, "Sure, why not?"

(They're paying for it themselves.)

Wow, Michael Harold. Hope you're prepared for a grandchildren explosion!

Sort of. It is pretty weird (in a good way).

cowgrrrl, that sounds awesome. I had the white dress and a liberal Lutheran ceremony, but my cousins are pastors so it was really all family and friends for me, also in the redwoods.

I still sort of regret doing the legal portion of the wedding because of the discrimination currently inherent in the institution. But I don't regret the commitment or the party at all. I want everyone to have that, if they want it, not to mention the legal rights.

Hey! Easy answer: It's a choice.

We should support the rights of LBGTQ couples to have the same choices hetero couples have, that's all.

Some LBGTQ people are capitalist pigs, some aren't, but that's kinda beside the point.

Frankly, I'm against the government being in the marriage business at all. If you want to get married, find a church, justice of the peace, or religious elder to "marry" you. The government should just authorize Civil Unions for taxes and the many other purposes illuminated here to any adult couple. Gay, Straight, "Earl and I have lived together for 15 years and we want a civil union so we don't lose our dog if one of us dies" whatever, the government's business shouldn't extend any further than that.

As for the big wedding thing, well, if it were just up to me I'd be perfectly happy eloping one day and sending out announcements letting people know that they can make a donation to so and so in honor of the marriage. However, my mom (whom I love) loves big weddings, and I know she desperately wants to see me on my "big day" in a beautiful puffy dress with our family there and a reception at our house on the farm. And that's fine with me too, because I know I'll have a hand in the planning and can still do things like request donation to charity in lieu of 6 blenders and because I know my mom loves me and just wants to celebrate me and my future husband. It's not for everyone, but I think it should be an option for everyone just in case they do want it.

I must side with the queer "radicals" on this one. I certainly wouldn't deny anyone the right to marry, despite the its problematic genealogy, but I also wouldn't revere marriage as the golden "path to equality" either. By advocating for an essentially heteronormative institution, gays and lesbians are reinforcing a particular configuration of citizenhood, a distinct image of the "normal American", which in this case consists of being married, monogamous, white, and upper-middle class. Getting worked up over same-sex marriage directly contradicts the whole concept of "queerness", of going against social norms and refusing to be assimilated. This is saying, "Those straight folks have it good, so we'll try to be like them in order to get in on the benefits". This excludes those whose idea of intimacy and family don't match up with the heteronormative model.

Instead of rallying around marriage, we should ask ourselves why people like snappy mackerel had to get married in order to buy a home. Why can't cohabitating couples get the same benefits as married folks? Why is there such a premium on being married in our society? Mind you, this isn't a call to destroy the institution; if you wanna have the whole extravagant affair and blow thirty G's, then go for it. This is simply a suggestion to displace marriage from its glorified position in our society and to accept other forms of intimacy and familial practices.

I believe we are speaking of Western culture on this particular post. And it is traditionally the bride's responsiblity under that circumstance.

As a financial advisor, who is employed by many gay couples, I agree with EG. I am not particular about what marriage is called, "marriage" or "strawberries", but there must be protection for committed couples under the law. To do otherwise would discriminate against adults just because of orientation. Many people do not fully realize the problems that can arise when committed gay people do not have the same rights as my wife and I.

On a personal note. I argued the same thing, with my then girlfriend, for three years. "Why should I care what society thinks about our commitment to each other. I don't need a piece of paper saying I am married."

I will be the first to admit that my now wife was right. Being married is a great thing for me psychologically. I have learned things that I might not have learned if I had simply been in a committed relationship. I can't tell you what it is that is so important specifically, but it has been different for me. Perhaps it is security or something. I think that gay people should be able to make the decision if they want to. Who is our government to decide this for us?

Thanks for all the great comments everyone, its awesome to see some of the same debates I've had repeated here.

I just want to say that I agree with Chris' response, which includes much of what I also believe about what type of partnerships we should or shouldn't recognize (also what Mattilda Bernstein says).

This is an incredibly conflicting issue for me. On the one hand, I really don't like the fact that marriage is regulated by the state, or that many rights, like healthcare rights, the ability to get some welfare (TANF) benefits, inheritance (which, by the way, could mean that the house you own could go to your partner for FREE instead of being taxed 40% estate tax), etc. are linked to marriage. I wish they were separated, and then religous institutions (or whomever...) could decide to marry who they chose to (or chose not to) as a "joining of two people in a socially-sanctioned relationship".

But the reality we face is that it is state-sponsored.
As a lesbian (and one who knows lots of couples with children and without), I understand how not having this right is huge. What if your partner gets health through her employee benefits, but they won't cover your children because they aren't "hers"? For many couples who can't afford expensive health insurance, that's a reality. Plus things like death taxes, which are some of the highest -- can you imagine losing your car b/c it was in your partner's name? Or not having rights to plan a funeral for the one you love?

I think it is a huge GLBT issue. But I don't think it is "the biggest." I see housing discrim and work discrim as worse, seeing as those affect every GLBT -- not just the % who marry. There was a message sent out, endorsed by almost EVERY major lobby group last year, which said basically that "marriage should not be the primary GLBT issue, but just one of them... and less resources should be devoted to it."

But I think it's also a quesiton of what other people throw at us, as to how we have to field it. Gay marriage has been a political smear campaign for democrats and liberals -- it pushed swing voters to the right. Someone has to argue against that?

As for commercialization... weddings (and dowries) have ALWAYS historically been a way to show others how much you have -- it is a measure of wealth. Just like the size of your house, how good your car is, the size of your land, your jewelry and clothes, etc. Ideas of status and wealth haven't changed much. It kinda sucks.

But businesses have pioneered SO MUCH for the GLBT and other minority communities. Money talks. Corporations have adopted anti-discrim policies for sexual orientation and gender identity years before the government -- because it's good for business. They are the ones who dreamed up healthcare benefits, which affect people in states like mine (LA) even when marriage and unions are banned. And while I'm very put off by corporate America, I can't name how many problems they cause in other areas... and how they contribute to the wealth gap, etc... from a purely GLBT point of view, they have been a pushing grace for equality.

It’s difficult to try to solve two different problems simultaneously, and I think that’s what’s really at hand here: discrimination on the one hand and on the other hand, distaste for much of how people handle their weddings/marriage.

Discrimination in itself should be overcome at every turn, shouldn’t it? Even if the goal is to allow people to participate in something that you find questionable or distasteful.

I think the objection is not that marriage is merely "questionable" or "distasteful" when engaged in by individuals, but is, in fact, an oppressive and/or retrograde social practice.

My opinion is not "oh, weddings are tacky," but rather that governments should not be doling out benefits to certain people and not others based on their romantic relationships to other people. This is inherently coercive, and will always be a tool for official control of our sexuality.

I totally agree with what Chris was saying - we need to ensure that all people live with dignity and social esteem, and that we provide for the well-being of everyone.

Why should I have to get married to get healthcare? Why should I have to get married to be able to immigrate legally? Why should I have to get married for people to approve of my sexual partner(s)?

One thing that puts me on my guard about the whole marriage issue is that it seems to have become a way for those "nice middle of the road" people to co-opt a social movement into endorsing their very conservative value-systems. Just as those "Women are Choosing To Stay Home In Increasing Numbers! Housewifery Is The Natural State For Women!" articles infuriate me, so do the "Gay men are choosing to get married, buy expensive furniture, drive SUVs and move to the suburbs! That means it's Okay For Everyone!" stories.

I agree *strongly* with that very first reply by EG, and frankly am kind of appalled with the post. I mean, are we seriously proposing that we NOT work for LGBT equality, or even speak out against it, just because we're privelaged enough to think either marriage doesn't matter or is a corrupt institution one should shun? I mean, clearly many LGBT individuals want the right to marry, want the same rights that straight people have, and I don't think we have any right to wag our fingers and say "Tsk tsk, marriage is a tool of commercialism and patriarchy" in the face of that. It just seems like the height of naive conceit.

GRATE posts, Chris and minger! I have so many questions and issues with marriage, and I love hearing other peoples thoughts on this. I wish most people (and again, I'm speaking from a Western, middle-class perspective) asked these questions about the relevance of the institutions of marriage to heteros, homos, and everyone inbetween. Why does it dictate society so? Why should it be the ideal, the ultimate goal as a person to acheive, and one which is reinforced by the government in its affording of health insurance to spouses, tax breaks, and other such benefits?

Though I can understand others' frustrations (like the_becca) who may think raising and discussing the institution of marriage from this sociological perspective mitigates the fight for the right for all people to be able to marry whomever they want.

I don't see why all conversations can't go on at the same time. One doesn't necessarily cancel out the other.

“I think the objection is not that marriage is merely "questionable" or "distasteful" when engaged in by individuals, but is, in fact, an oppressive and/or retrograde social practice.�

To say that marriage is “in fact� oppressive/retrograde is to place yourself in the position of having omniscient knowledge of every marital relationship and to have deemed them all oppressive. I would call this an overreaching “opinion� and not “fact�.

I know many people who are happy with their decision to get married, no cattle were swapped by the fathers, and the couples aren’t suffering the weight of historical oppression to which I’m guessing this statement refers. Should we inform these happy people that they are delusional and are actually oppressed and miserable without realizing it?

In the absence of marriage, how should the right to make medical decisions for your partner be determined? If I’m out cold, I don’t want someone I’ve dated for 6 weeks to try and overrule my brother or parents. Seriously, how do you transfer that decision-making power without something official? Tattoo it in your armpit?

I agree that special government treatment lands on the side of coercion (although the ‘marriage tax’ was actually a disincentive), but it does seem like there are a number of cases (like the medical one) where…well, how else to you handle it? Marriage doesn’t have a great batting average, 50% at best, but codified discrimination is still worse than divorce, vulgar weddings, and even the voluntarily-entered bad/oppressive marriages.

ccall:

I think minger was referring more to the concept of marriage itself as being inherently oppressive, rather than the material condition of "every marital relationship". Certainly, the institution has come a long way since the days of "swapping cattle", but the fact remains that it originated as a patriarchal system, as Simone de Beauvoir, Carol Pateman, and other feminists have shown, and that it still retains some of its oppressive elements.

"She asks, shouldn't we invest our resources in fighting poverty, homelessness and discrimination?"
I despise this argument, the old "You can't whine about issue A, because issue B is sooooo much more important." It's a classic shut-up tactic. Something is ALWAYS going to be "more important" and what's "important" is determined by the indivudual. Someone else's "most important" issue could be something I could care less about. That doesn't mean I get to denigrate it. It's important to them. How often have we heard, "Why are you whining about sexism on a TV show when women are being killed in Afghanistan?" or variations thereof? It's not an either/or equation. Both are important, and just because there's something worse out there doesn't mean you must ignore or have no right to complain about something that's merely bad.

"She also points out that we shouldn't be fighting for inclusion in a system that is corrupt and has inherently racist and sexist histories."
I'm afraid this just sounds like sour grapes to me. "I didn't wanna get married anyway, so there!" *razzberries* Some people do want to be able to marry. I think some want it for the legal or tax benefits, and some just want to stop hearing "Are you still with...?" when their "relationship" has lasted longer than the marriages of the people who are asking. The fact that they can't get married even if they want to is the injustice. Those who don't want to marry or think marriage is a lousy institution in general might not care if they're not allowed to marry, but those who like it and want to be married certainly do. In my book, as long as there's some law out there that says "These two human beings can do x, but those two can't", I'll continue to say, "Why the hell not?"

Re: Commercialism
If you've got 30K lying around and you want to blow it on a big wedding with an elaborate ceremony and tons of guests you barely know, go right ahead. Some people want that. Some are content to celebrate a small ceremony with only close friends and family. Some would prefer to skip the whole thing entirely. And all have their reasons, and all are right. It's a personal decision, whatever you choose to do, and I don't like having my personal decisions dictated to me, so I don't do it to others. I personally think it's pretty foolish to put yourself into hock for a dress you'll wear once and a few hours spend with distant relatives you barely know, but that opinion will only determine the shape my wedding (should I choose to have one) takes, not that of my friends', my family's, or complete strangers' weddings.

As for the reasons behind getting married and whether marriage deserves all the fuss around it, I agree with ccall. Some things in life just go more smoothly with that official stamp of partnership, be it hospital issues, or issues of legitimacy, or purely social benefits. You don't have to love it, but I think the official distinction is important. I certainly wouldn't want every relationship I've ever had to be elevated to the equivalent of marriage. There are a lot of Mr. and Mrs. Wrongs out there, and I think Mr. or Mrs. Right should get a little something to distinguish them from the rest. Just my 2 cents.

Re: Commercialism

I am planning a wedding right now and set out for it to be very intimate and affordable. But keep in mind before we judge those who spend $30,000 on a wedding, that in a big city and with a larger immediate family and several close friends who I would like to be there, the total pricetag for the rehearsal dinner, church rental, flowers, photographer, reception space, hotels, and honeymoon will STILL be nearly $20,000. Some of this will be paid by my folks, some of it by his folks, and the rest by us. It is very difficult in a major city to do an event like this (even one as small as ours) for much less.

I'm rather big critic of the WIC (Wedding Industrial Complex) and the idea that it is not a real wedding without monogrammed cocktail napkins, but I'm unsure how gay marriage advocates are promoting it. The public push for gay marriage wasn't about making the WIC recognize and sell to them, it just had an unintended effect of exposing an untapped market.

Plus I think there is something to be said for changing the institution from the inside. The more people who get married w/o buying into the patriarchical traditions, the less those things will be expected.

Word, Vervain. You eloquently said pretty much every single thing I was having trouble articulating.

She also points out that we shouldn't be fighting for inclusion in a system that is corrupt and has inherently racist and sexist histories.

"Marriage" right now means "consistent and durable rights." A civil contract ("marriage" or "union," take your semantic pick) is the only way for a committed couple to secure all those thousand-plus rights we consistently cite, and the vast majority of those rights were never even conceived of under the first several thousand years of that system that's alternately held up as a sacred monolith that can never be changed or a profane monument to sexism and oppression that should never be emulated. Regardless of the history of marriage, people entering into one aren't bound by it, but have the power to build marriage--the window dressing for all those legal rights and official public approval--into whatever they want.

Chris, yes, i think you are correct and I don’t dispute the historical baggage that marriage has, or that there are oppressive elements and indeed many oppressive marriages, many of which were probably conducted just this past weekend.

But I think that since there has been much progress with marriage, and because there are many “good� marriages, perhaps it is better to continue to make progress within the context of marriage rather than to reject it outright and cite that rejection as a reason to passively allow discrimination to continue.

I wasn't arguing that it's great that marriage provides legitimacy, just noting that it happens.

What appalls me about this post is that the issue of whether marriage is good for anybody is being framed as, "Marriage is racist and sexist; so LGBTQ folks shouldn't want it anyway." Why LGBTQ folks? What is it about this particular group of people that they ought to lead the way toward non-sexist, non-racist institutions? The real issue is that the writer thinks that marriage inherently is sexist and racist, so why frame it so specifically? If marriage is sexist and racist, it's not as though it is only such for LGBTQ folks.

For the record, I don't find marriage's sexist and racist histories to be any reason not to participate and use it to my own advantage and purposes. I'm also in law school--another sexist and racist institution. Isn't the idea that people remake these institutions from the inside?

ccall,

To be sure! It seems like the majority of us commenting here agree that marriage ought not be abolished, despite its problematic past. This, however, doesn't mean that we can't interrogate its premises and its exalted place in Western society, nor does it mean that such a critique excludes the possibility of advocating same-sex marriage rights. We can participate in it even as we attempt to subvert it. We cannot not want it, to steal a line from Gayatri Spivak. But we also should not accept it uncritically, as some here are on the verge of doing.

But we also should not accept it uncritically, as some here are on the verge of doing.

Like who? Care to name names?

The fact that someone differs strongly about whether or not to support marriage as an institution does not, ipso facto, mean that that person "accepts it uncritically."

EG,

You're right, I shouldn't have stated it so strongly. After reading through the previous comments, I realize it was an incautious statement. I apologize.

I'd have to say I'm with the "radicals" on this. I wouldn't condemn someone for getting married, but I believe we should question why the mainstream gay rights movement has made marriage their priority. As a lesbian, whether I can get married or not really isn't my biggest concern. Many members of the heterosexual left latch on to the issue to convince themselves that they are not at all homophobic. I known I might be unpopular for saying that, but I know from personal experience that just because someone supports gay marriage doesn't mean that they are very accepting of queer people, especially if it's their child. Also, many conservatives have manipulated the issue to get homophobes to vote for them.

No worries, Chris. I reacted to your comment a bit strongly myself; it's just that I've spent a lot of time thinking and learning about marriage today and its history, and while my feelings are pretty much in favor of continuing pro-same-sex marriage activism, I definitely understand criticisms of the institution, so I bridled a bit at the implication.

In all honesty, it is lousy that necessary life items such as health care are distributed on the basis of marital status; one of the many reasons why I'm in favor of universal health care, etc.

This is a really interesting post and set of comments. I understand the point made by those who point out the legal and social provisions that marriage makes available, but it seems to me that there's a strong argument for extending those rights to long-term partners, whether straight or gay. My boyfriend and I are not getting married for many of the reasons discussed above, but we are taking our relationship seriously and investigating non-wedding ways to make clear our commitment and sense of responsibility and sharing -- things like writing wills, applying for Enduring Power of Attorney (I don't know what equivalent there is in the States), adding each other to our pensions, etc. In my view, and in line with the original post, those are the kind of rights we should be fighting for, since they return the marriage choice to the real decision that's being made, which is about people's social, religious, moral associations and commitments -- commitments I personally think have a very questionable history and continuing problematic connotations.

It sounds like maybe changing legal marriages into "civil unions" for everyone might be a good solution, then. I'd, personally, be fine with that, if that were the case for everyone. I don't have any problem with the intellectual seperation of "legal marriage" and "religious marriage", but it seems like that's a point that people get hung up on. If I ever get married, it will be a legal marriage, not a religious marriage. I'm not religious, and have no interest in the religious aspects of a marriage. If I get married, it will be for the social and legal reasons.

I think that everyone should have access to those rights, regardless of their sexual orientation or their choice of partner. If you're in a relationship with someone, and you want them to have the legal benefits that come from a long-term commitment (power of attorney, inheritance, custody rights, etc), then you should be able to.

Just chiming in here because I haven't seen anyone here mention immigration, which I think is a huge reason why the LGBTQ community should care about legalizing marriage. The easiest way to immigrate is usually through marriage and I have known more than one couple struggling to find a way to live in the same country because they are gay and denied the right to marry.

"Getting worked up over same-sex marriage directly contradicts the whole concept of "queerness", of going against social norms and refusing to be assimilated."

My being a lesbian isn't a political statement. I didn't choose to be gay, and I resent the hell out of the fact that I don't have the same rights as everybody else because of something I can't help being.

Here in the UK we've got civil partnerships. While that's a start, imho it isn't good enough. We still can't get married and while we can't, we don't have equality. I'm not saying there aren't many other issues of equal importance, but this one winds me up. My own mother refers to gay marriages as 'Ahem, "married".' 'So and so's "wife".'etc, and she's very supportive of me. I realise in part this is a language issue that will hopefully ease up as people get used to the idea, but at the end of the day while we can't marry we're still second class citizens.

For straight folk to say, 'Oh well marriage is a poor institution for this, that and the next reason and lgbtq people should be pleased they can't do it' is a real smack in the face.

Getting worked up over same-sex marriage directly contradicts the whole concept of "queerness", of going against social norms and refusing to be assimilated.

Well, the problem with this statement is that it assumes that all gay/lesbian people identify as "queer" in this way. If that was the case, we wouldn't need the LGBTQ abbreviation--we could just say TQ. But many gay and lesbian people do not identify themselves with this concept of queerness. I'm bisexual, and I do not identify as queer--for me, bisexuality doesn't mark me has having in inherently counter-culture identity; I do not understand my sexuality to be constantly fluid and in opposition to categorization; I don't really have any problem with being "assimilated" because I don't feel particularly counter-culture to begin with. So while this is a good reason for queer people to decide not not marry, it's not a good reason for gay/lesbian people and their allies to stop agitating for same-sex marriage.

It's easy to suggest that we not fight for the rights we should already have by virtue of being American citizens -- especially easy when it's suggested by someone who has never had to worry about not having those rights.

That's like when progressive men tell feminist women to stop focusing so much on the legal abortion issue -- as there are so many other issues out there that need progressives' attention.

I call BS on both.

My friend Miriam (the author) directed me to this post, and as someone who attended the GWE (and made a student documentary) about it with her, I'm really interested in this conversation! There are a few things that I wanted to throw out:

I think a lot of us who may self-identify as "queer" (in a political/ anti-assimilationist sense) also tend to assume that others share our goals or vision of a more socially just society, which often involves an elimination of forms of oppression, as well as an equitable distribution of resources. I think that's where a lot of our "queers should" etc. statements and politics begin from. So I'll be up front that that's where my following thoughts come from.

Another thing that I'm hearing is that this is about "equality," but equality tends to be framed solely in a heterosexual vs. LGBTQ framework (someone posted an interesting line: as long as there's some law out there that says "These two human beings can do x, but those two can't", I'll continue to say, "Why the hell not?" ). What many of us "queers" are interrogating are concepts AND legal definitions of "love," "commitment," and monogamy. For example, as someone stated, why does someone need to be married to receive healthcare or the ability to select someone to inherit their home or care for their children? Why is it "these two," and not "this person takes care of this," and "this person takes care of that?" Why are these rights being tied to sex (since marriage/commitment is assumed to be formed around love AND sexual relations)? What about other types of relationships that may be "close" or "committed" in different ways (siblings, other family members, neighbors, close friends)? My best friend (a straight woman) and I (the faggiest of fags) often "joke" about how we should do something to spiritually/socially recognize our relationship. At the same time, as two early-twenty-somethings living on the opposite coast from our families, I would love to be able to easily designate her to have certain legal relationships to me (ie. to make medical decisions if that came to it, or even to share health insurance, or rent a car together) without being married (and we don't even live together). Another hypothetical situation is two single mothers (of whatever sexuality), who share a duplex or live down the hall from each other, and who watch out for each others' kids: wouldn't it be great if they could file their taxes together?

So what I'm saying (and I think others are too) is not that "other issues" are necessarily more important, but that there are other ways of framing questions about rights that can perhaps build broader alliances, and not rely on ideas of "monogamy," thus discriminating against individuals or alternative types of communities. And this is something that I would argue that the mainstream "gay and lesbian" organizations have failed to do. Yes, they may just be watching out for their own rights, but in that case, they must realize the limitations of their movements and accept the fact that the "change" they are making simply redefines who is in the categories of "haves" and "have nots," rather than making structural changes to abolish these categories entirely. Some folks have mentioned healthcare, which is a great example. What would the LGBTQ movement look like if, instead of saying "we want marriage so our partners can have healthcare," it said, "we want to work in a coalition to ensure that all Americans have affordable healthcare?"

I realize I'm writing a lot, so this will be my last thought: I think that the issue here is not so much whether commercialism as a whole is good or bad, or to what extent a $30K wedding is valid/useful or demonstrates a commitment, but rather about a) the efficacy of using "gays/lesbian weddings are a huge market" as an argument for activism, and b) the use of political activism/rhetoric as a marketing tactic (ie. "same love, same rights" as a marketing slogan, as well as a political one). I think these are dangerous in ways that aren't about individual choices people make regarding their own weddings, but the co-optation of movement rhetoric for personal profit, in ways that do not necessarily create social change, or perhaps not benefit LGBTQ communities. A related example (tho not weddings) is the 12th St. Gym in Philadelphia, which was in the heart of the gayborhood and was a predominantly gay-male gym; but it was owned by a huge homophobe who took fags' dues and then donated to Rick Santorum's campaign. Just because a business owner is willing to deal with us doesn't mean they support us (in myriad ways).

I'll also just throw out two excellent articles from the Nation, (co-)written by Lisa Duggan who is a brilliant professor of American Studies at NYU: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040315/duggan and http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/kim.

I agree with almost everything you say Harris; I just don't see how any of the points you make or the society to which you aspire is in conflict with expanding the definition of marriage. I don't think anyone here doesn't think that access to health care shouldn't be determined by sexual congress; but the fact is that in this country it is. I think that we, as leftists, can have both long-range and short-range goals, and that a long-range goal of universal healthcare does not preclude a short-range goal of equal marriage rights.

I may just be cynical and pessimistic (that's always a good possibility), but when you ask "What would the LGBTQ movement look like if...it said, 'we want to work in a coalition to ensure that all Americans have affordable healthcare?'" my gut response is that it would be consideraby more marginalized that it already is. I would also ask how that question would be of particular service to the LGBTQ community.

When it comes to purchasing/financial power, though, I agree that a willingness to sell things does not mean that a business is gay-friendly; I'm always in favor of people doing their homework before shopping and trying to direct their dollars toward businesses with a modicum of moral backbone.

I would also be in favor of a system like the French PACS, which allows any two people to register a partnership, regardless of sexual relationship--I certainly would have trusted my best friend with making major medical decisions on my behalf before any of the people I slept with (of course, if there were same-sex marriage, she and I could have been married). But none of this, as far as I can see, is an argument against agitating for same-sex marriage. It's pointing out that same-sex marriage isn't a universal panacea. Well, nobody has argued that it is (or, nobody should argue that it is). Getting the vote for women did not do away with all, or even most forms of sexism, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a worthwhile and important thing to do.