Can I get a hell yes? I am in complete agreement with Mattilda, and I think that way too much mainstream LGBT organization's dollars (HRC, I'm looking at you) is going towards this fight for marriage rather than a fight for equality.

I'd only want marriage if its definitions were vastly redrawn.

However, I'm not going to argue against same-sex marriage and I'm going to do a little victory dance every time it gets legalized because we need a band-aid on the problem, even if marriage isn't the solution.

Totally, I have heard this said before, but not anyway in the MSM.

Why not talk about *concrete* things like justice instead of pursuing an idea that has lost its agreed-upon meaning in modern culture, and which has no power as a word, other than emotional currency?

I don't think these two goals are mutually exclusive. I'm in full agreement that a lot of the social-safety-net benefits that are currently structured around marriage should be re-formulated to make sure they're citizenship rights. But I also think marriage should be open as an option for all adults, in both a religious and secular setting (although I know the government can't--and shouldn't--step in where the religious definitions are concerned).

I agree that we need to fight for univeral benefits for people even those not in marriage, certainly we have to fight within the context of the system. Currently heteros get this through marriage and so we need as a first step to getit for gays through marriage too.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com/

This is actually a fairly old argument. It was briefly brought up during the debates about same-sex marriage which is now legal here in Canada. There were some feminists (not necessarily lesbians, but most were) who were hoping that the unconstitutionality of the Marriage Act would mean that the government would get out of the marriage/legal sanctioning of relationships business in its entirety because marriage has also historically been an oppressive institution toward women.

My argument then, as it is now, has been to say that allowing all people access to this institution will allow for a reevaluation of the institution and allow for a redefinition of the terms and traditions.

Intersectionality is a reality.

"Gay rights" will only ever mean "upper middle class, mostly white, mostly male gay rights" unless the fight is expanded and allied with movements for fair immigration policies, for equal opportunity for women and minorities, for an end to domestic violence and abuse, and for the reduction of extreme income inequality (among other non-traditionally "gay" causes).

Nonetheless, this victory for marriage equality is progress, and I would argue that it is a necessary component of the broader struggle for gay rights. Without this step forward for granting equal treatment to monogamous, 'normalized' relationships, I cannot see the potential for progress toward queer justice in general. Ideals are worthless without a workable plan to implement them. The reality of politics in the United States is that we are not going to be able to make giant leaps forward any time soon. That's the compromise we have to endure for the sake of democracy. There are a lot, probably a slight majority of people out there extremely uncomfortable with queerness in general, and we have to dismantle that prejudce gradually, or their votes will always overwhelm us. I think marriage equality is the most effective step forward we could make in that process at the moment.

Basically, while I think the author's correct in pointing out that marriage equality is definitely not where the fight ends, I think she is wrong to write it off without considering that it could be where the fight begins.

I don't know. Isn't that an issue regardless of orientation? Non-married het couples also don't have those rights.

I used to be pretty against getting married. I didn't think a piece of paper mattered or should matter. Afterall, I could always draw up a contract to get those rights like visitation and inheritance. Then I realized that's all that a marriage contract is to me, so why protest it?

It would be nice if a lot of those benefits extended to all couples who desire it regardless of marital status or orientation, but I don't see this as a gay issue.

It seems to me that there's an issue of scope: when you say that gay marriage does nothing to address serious inequities in our society that don't concern personal relationships, you might as well complain that the latest variety of Starbucks coffee does nothing to solve the problem of corruption in the Justice department, or that the new GI bill does not improve the quality of the programming on Lifetime. Well, no, it doesn't, but that's not what it's meant to do.

Gay marriage addresses one straightforward and limited instance of inequality. The world will remain an unfair place when it is universally instituted, but overall fairness will be significantly improved. We can work on the rest later.

Does gay marriage improve the well being of some people who were previously suffering from inequality? Yes. Does gay marriage solve all issues of inequality? No. Should we wait to solve any issues of equality until we can solve all issues of equality? Hell NO!

QED

I agree with a lot of the previous commenters, and I think our society would benefit in a number of ways if insurance, for example, was uncoupled (pun, sorry) from both work and family.

However, I do think a formal relationship IS useful for things like hospital visitation and child adoption because it creates a way for both partners to agree about the nature and seriousness of the relationship and it's long-term commitment. Maybe we need some other kind of formal relationship that's not tied up in sex, since you don't need a sexual relationship to care for each other or a child together.

Mike B explained my thoughts on this perfectly. No, gay marriage doesn't solve all issues of inequality, because that's not what it's (currently) designed to do. Since many of the benefits of marriage are tied into the federal definition, the current state-by-state piecemeal efforts aren't tackling some of the major inequality issues. But no one ever said they would.

I'm also with sitmon - this isn't something that's unique to gay marriage. Any non-married person has these rights/benefits/privileges extremely restricted. It would be best if many of these things weren't tied up in marriage, but since they are, let's keep fighting for the rights of everyone to enjoy legal recognition of their partnership.

THANK YOU for finally paying attention to this argument. I frequently lament the (relatively) recent shift from actual queer liberation to the "we're just like you" push for gay marriage, AT THE EXPENSE of other, more serious and (in my opinion) worthy causes. What good is it if you can get married, if you have to stay shut up inside your house together?

It is a reality that many a married or partnered queer couple still does not have the freedom to walk down the street together too closely, or heaven forbid, holding hands, for fear of verbal and physical retribution. Gay marriage does NOT solve this problem.

Many queer kids in middle and high school are harassed, beaten, etc., and internalize such a low sense of self worth that the suicide rate for queer kids is ridiculously higher than that of their hetero-identified peers. Gay marriage does NOT solve this.

And the push for gay marriage is really saying, "We're just like you! Really! See, we're harmless and mainstream-approved! [I'm talking to you Ellen] We won't rock the boat, promise!"

Well, we're not just like them. Many of us have different experiences growing up and living queer. We should not be pushing for assimilation, but for the freedom to acknowledge and honor those experiences, and to pay tribute to the legacy of the brave homos that came before us, when times were much more dangerous.

We've been doing real relationships right for a LONG time, without the label of marriage. If we push to be included on the definition of marriage, then we acknowledge that state sanctioned 'marriage' is the only real relationship. What does that say about the queers that came before us, and those of us whose relationships are just as real without the marriage license?

Find out what we were fighting for before the marriage debate took over. We still don't have those things. I can still legally be denied housing and a job in lots of states because I'm queer. Gay marriage will NOT solve that. Conformity is not the answer.

Props to Mattilda. If you have not read hir before, ze's an awesome writer and true to hir radical queer roots. Also try this- Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity

If we didn't have marriage we would have to invent it. It's a set of legal connections that simply make sense if you're in a long term relationship. The older I get and the longer I'm in my now 20 year relationship with my partner, the more the set of benefits of marriage simply make common sense for people who have formed a long term or life bond.

If we got rid of marriage, it would be a bonanza for attorneys, who would be required to at great expense secure each and every individual specific right like inheritance, hospital vistation, child custody, etc. Gay people who have had to deal with this legal obstacle course understand just how many things you need to cover with individual contracts and agreements and court orders.

Or maybe we could just get the legislature to create a legal vehicle that has all those benefits. Whatever could we call it? Oh yeah, how about marriage.

Yes, some benefits should be more equitably distributed. Yes,

Access to marriage has become a very public spotlight for equality. It is a very visible sign of inequality, and I'd liken to what Loving vs. Virginia did for civil rights to what marriage for non-hets could do for equality. Marriage may not bring peace and joy and equality to homosexuals across America, but it's an important fight nonetheless. To stop fighting now would be a symbolic surrender to the neoconservatives. Such a blow would be damaging to the moral of the LGBT community.

As for the underlying commentary that Sycamore is making on marriage itself, such problems of inequality are not limited to the gay community. However, I must disagree with her scorn for marriage.

The secular marriage contract is a way to communicate to the government to whom you wish to confer certain rights. The right to visit you in the hospital, receive your insurance benefits, inherit from you, compute taxes with, etc. It makes sense that someone in your life should have access to these things, and the government and other institutions need a solid, legal way of determining who gets it. There are privacy issues involved with things like hospital visitation, and if you're out cold on the hospital bend, the marriage contract is a way that a hospital has legal assurance as to your spouse's right to be there with you. These rights cannot be given to too many people as that would be a burden for institutions to identify.

When I hear people make comments on how they don't need the government or a religion to validate their love, I think, "well that's great that you know that you love each other, but the secular marriage exists for other more practical reasons." Sycamore is ignoring these reasons in her call for extending these rights beyond married couples.

Legalization of gay marriage doesn't necessarily fix the societal stigma of homosexuality, sure. There will still be a lot of people out there who are homophobic, just like how there are still people out there who are racist and judge interracial couples. There's a fundamental belief system that needs to be addressed, and that's a whole lot more work than legalizing marriage.

However, I'm pretty sure the problems mentioned in that article aren't exclusive to gay couples. If I were dating a man and he were in the hospital, they could restrict my access for not being married or family. I wouldn't get his health insurance (side note: that's the only reason my brother and his girlfriend have even considered marriage, he's a freelancer and she has a steady job with benefits). If he died, I wouldn't be left anything unless it was explicitly in a will for me.

So now we're getting into sticky territory. It doesn't seem fair for a couple to have to be married to share those things, because not every couple wants to get married. But where do we draw a line so that those things can be legally shared but it isn't marriage?

I think it's definitely an extremely important point to remember, as Mattilda asks, that marriage rights aren't necessarily the most important ones to fight for. I also fully support anyone, queer or straight, who refuses to get married because of inherent issues with the institution. But I'm not willing to stop fighting for gay marriage as one of a set of deserved but denied rights, because it seems to me that to do anything else is to allow a different form of Jim Crow segregation to continue happening. I don't see a hell of a lot of difference between "you can have civil contracts, but not a marriage contract" and "you can drink from that fountain, but not this one." It doesn't seem to me that the gay marriage fight is doomed to be assimilationist, although I can understand that fear. It just seems like an extension of equal rights that should be there anyway.

I think this is one of those arguments that has a subtext of "let's our movement about everything and every issue, so that it becomes thoroughly diluted and we have the least impact we can possibly have on issues affecting our base constituency". Open borders and universal healthcare are not queer rights issues, they're human rights issues, and not establishing borders as to what constitutes a queer rights issue means that queer rights becomes meaningless.

By the way, this site does some of that too (feministe does a lot more) with redefining feminism to mean any kind of progressive anti-discriminatory politics, to a degree that subverts the central concept fo feminism which is combatting sexism.

Marriage isn't just an agreement between its members; it's a contract with the larger community. (This argument is elucidated here.) If the law allows gays to be able to establish such a social contract, whether they do or not, that means that the law considers them (at least closer to) equal to straights.

I recognize that there are those in the gay community who don't want to be part of the larger community, and who consider attempts to do so "assimilation". Fine -- but that should be an individual choice, not a status enforced on gays as a class.

And of course gay marriage isn't a cure-all. That doesn't mean it's not important, or that we have to drop other struggles to the wayside to focus on it.

The marriage question is a plain old fight for equality before the law. That doesn't harm the struggle for other kinds of social justice and humanitarian aid any more than trying to stop cat callers hurts the fight for equal pay.

I just wrote a paper for a gender studies' conference next semester on this topic. Specifically, i looked at how the gay marriage movement is furthering the racist, classist, and marriage-elitist problems already surrounding heterosexual marriage -- giving rights only to specific families based on the "nuclear family" structure, giving benefits which mostly help the rich, and furthering the consumerism of weddings instead of celebrating relationships and families.

There are some great books on this; the most recent and popular is Nancy Polikoff's "Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage."

As for the gay marriage movement... well, i disagree with a lot of people here in saying that the movement (and people/huge amounts of money involved) shouldn't just push "marriage equality." We have to recognize what we are putting our time, effort, and finances into backing. Marriage won't help many, many GLBT families (and other types of families). GLBT families have tended to be more non-traditional: 2 lesbians and a donor raising a child together, polyamorous couples, etc. Marriage doesn't give rights and benefits to these families. It doesn't give health care to poor families or guarentee jobs. Yet marriage has become the main focus of the movement in the last 5 years...

Just as ENDA excluded trans people, and the HRC loves to exclude people of color, bisexuals, and trans people in their activism... shouldn't we focus on a movement which looks at all GLBT families' needs, not just upper-class white gay/lesbian couples?

Ironically, the christian right's response to the gay marriage movement has created some of these "universal benefits" laws. Weird, right? To prevent giving rights to just gays, in some places they gave rights to everyone (yet in other states, gay marriage bans killed domestic partnership laws and common law marriages -- we have such a convoluted system!!). VT passed a law (in addition to civil unions) allowing adults to partner with other adults (ex. a mom and a daughter) who live in a household and are financially dependent, giving them tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc. This way non-married couples, multi-generational households, and other inter-dependent individuals could get the same benefits without being in a "marriage".

Currently there are a mess of tiers for state-governed rights -- marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships (recognized by public and/or private sector), common law marriages, etc. At some point all people need to have access to state-governed benefits and rights, not just those who qualify for marriage. Why wait until a small group gets rights (and i'm queer and having a committment ceremony next year, so that would be ME)... instead of recognizing the needs of all people?

I just wrote a paper for a gender studies' conference next semester on this topic. Specifically, i looked at how the gay marriage movement is furthering the racist, classist, and marriage-elitist problems already surrounding heterosexual marriage -- giving rights only to specific families based on the "nuclear family" structure, giving benefits which mostly help the rich, and furthering the consumerism of weddings instead of celebrating relationships and families.

There are some great books on this; the most recent and popular is Nancy Polikoff's "Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage."

As for the gay marriage movement... well, i disagree with a lot of people here in saying that the movement (and people/huge amounts of money involved) shouldn't just push "marriage equality." We have to recognize what we are putting our time, effort, and finances into backing. Marriage won't help many, many GLBT families (and other types of families). GLBT families have tended to be more non-traditional: 2 lesbians and a donor raising a child together, polyamorous couples, etc. Marriage doesn't give rights and benefits to these families. It doesn't give health care to poor families or guarentee jobs. Yet marriage has become the main focus of the movement in the last 5 years...

Just as ENDA excluded trans people, and the HRC loves to exclude people of color, bisexuals, and trans people in their activism... shouldn't we focus on a movement which looks at all GLBT families' needs, not just upper-class white gay/lesbian couples?

Ironically, the christian right's response to the gay marriage movement has created some of these "universal benefits" laws. Weird, right? To prevent giving rights to just gays, in some places they gave rights to everyone (yet in other states, gay marriage bans killed domestic partnership laws and common law marriages -- we have such a convoluted system!!). VT passed a law (in addition to civil unions) allowing adults to partner with other adults (ex. a mom and a daughter) who live in a household and are financially dependent, giving them tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc. This way non-married couples, multi-generational households, and other inter-dependent individuals could get the same benefits without being in a "marriage".

Currently there are a mess of tiers for state-governed rights -- marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships (recognized by public and/or private sector), common law marriages, etc. At some point all people need to have access to state-governed benefits and rights, not just those who qualify for marriage. Why wait until a small group gets rights (and i'm queer and having a committment ceremony next year, so that would be ME)... instead of recognizing the needs of all people?

I very much agree with Mattilda and hotpinko. I picked up a poster at a conference (during a workshop titled: Gay Marriage Can be Deadly) a few months back that says: "Marriage is the proverbial burning building. Queers should be stoking the flames, instead of pounding on the door to be let in." I kind of love it.

It sounds to me, though, from some of the comments, that the argument against gay marriage isn't really coming across like I've heard it expressed from most people I've talked to in the camp. It's less about an approach that begrudges advancement in equality unless we get everything in a single go, but rather looks at the way that the discourse surrounding gay marriage has been given a dominant position when it comes to gay rights, and that that is problematic for a variety of reasons.

1. A focus on marriage rights, particularly by the organizations and activists with the most money (HRC, quite notably), distracts attention from other causes and issues that affect queer folks. I find it particularly troubling that in the same year that HRC backed down from a trans-inclusive ENDA, they spent significant amounts of money on advocating for gay marriage. Rather than prioritizing people's job safety and security (which likely does more to provide people with healthcare than marriage benefits), or working to pass legislation to protect kids in schools, for HIV prevention and education, or any number of other issues that impact far more queer people than marriage, HRC and some of the other big-name and -money groups focus on marriage (and this is the kicker) - at the expense of other needs and issues. Advances in marriage equality don't just happen, and there are plenty of people who would be better served by that money and those person-hours being spent toward a different goal or issue. But they weren't and aren't going to be, because gay marriage still holds the center stage.

2. This is connected to (1), particularly in terms of where funding comes from and is thus directed, but I don't know that it's obvious for everyone, so it's worth pointing out separately. Gay marriage proponents promote an image of queer people that is palatable and marketable to mainstream heterosexist America. That process necessitates making invisible those queer people whose bodies aren't "marketable" or "palatable" so as to not upset the masses too much. In short, rather than challenging intersecting oppressions within mainstream society, the gay marriage movement promotes an image of queer people that is profoundly racist, classist, transphobic, and ableist. The comfort and acceptance of primarily white, upper-middle class, non-trans gay men comes at the expense of everyone else. This is not to say that POC, and poor people, and difabled people, and trans people don't get married, or wouldn't want to - but the big donors and the face of HRC and the various images used to advance and represent gay marriage aren't representative of the diversity of the queer community, and that in and of itself is perpetuating oppression.

3. Furthermore, as a religious and legal custom, marriage has primarily existed (until VERY recently) to control the exchange of women's bodies. Marriage has profoundly sexist roots and implications, and it still serves to govern the "right" kind of relationships. Insofar as the institution of marriage has the power to dictate what kind of relationships are acceptable and which are not, it is not an institution I am comfortable with governing my relationships.

4. I also question the model of activism based on gaining certain "rights." I understand why this has proved to be effective, but I'm not so sure that I want to go about realizing social change by continually running to catch up to people and institutions with power and privilege - it's that power and those privileges that screwed things up to begin with. Particularly, I find this model of activism particularly suspect in light of the ways in which the fights for women's rights and gay rights have prioritized particular kinds of women and gay people. Certainly, feminism and queer movements have plenty of introspection to be engaging in when it comes to perpetuating oppression ourselves (racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, transmisogyny, ableism, etc.), and I'm not trying to say that shifting away from a rights-based activism model would change that. However, I do think that there is a connection between activist movements with goals of wresting power from "the man" and activist movements that perpetuate oppression within their ranks. You know, power corrupts and all that jazz. I also question the way that rights-based discourses and activism privileges a particular standard toward which we should strive. There are plenty of feminists who wonder whether we should be trying to prove that women are "just like/just as good as" men, and I think there's something to that. Not so much in terms of the perpetuation of gender binaries and the essentializing that sometimes comes out of those camps, but rather questioning the way in which the whole "I'm just like a man" approach privileges masculinity at the expense of femininity - further marginalizing and oppressing the feminine. I see the same thing happening within gay and lesbian movements (I use only those two terms on purpose), and this ties back to points (1) and (2), in which expressions of non-normative sexuality that are TOO alternative or transgressive are dismissed in favor of a model of homosexuality that more closely models normative heterosexuality, thus reinforcing heterosexism.

That all being said, I understand having religious or other convictions that make marriage a meaningful and important ritual for partners. I plan to, at some point in my life, probably draft a ketubah and have some sort of Jewish ceremony with my partner. However, I think that the attendant legal benefits of marriage give it a problematic weight and importance.

Admittedly, I was proud of my home state for realizing that queer people are people, too. I didn't begrudge those people who wanted to get married, and I'll probably enjoy any weddings I go to. But it's for all of the reasons I listed above that I don't give my money (not that I have that much of it, really) to HRC or other groups focusing on gay marriage. I'd rather donate to an organization like the Silvia Rivera Law Project. (And I'd TOTALLY urge other people to check out the work that they do and consider supporting them.)

I very much agree with Mattilda and hotpinko. I picked up a poster at a conference (during a workshop titled: Gay Marriage Can be Deadly) a few months back that says: "Marriage is the proverbial burning building. Queers should be stoking the flames, instead of pounding on the door to be let in." I kind of love it.

It sounds to me, though, from some of the comments, that the argument against gay marriage isn't really coming across like I've heard it expressed from most people I've talked to in the camp. It's less about an approach that begrudges advancement in equality unless we get everything in a single go, but rather looks at the way that the discourse surrounding gay marriage has been given a dominant position when it comes to gay rights, and that that is problematic for a variety of reasons.

1. A focus on marriage rights, particularly by the organizations and activists with the most money (HRC, quite notably), distracts attention from other causes and issues that affect queer folks. I find it particularly troubling that in the same year that HRC backed down from a trans-inclusive ENDA, they spent significant amounts of money on advocating for gay marriage. Rather than prioritizing people's job safety and security (which likely does more to provide people with healthcare than marriage benefits), or working to pass legislation to protect kids in schools, for HIV prevention and education, or any number of other issues that impact far more queer people than marriage, HRC and some of the other big-name and -money groups focus on marriage (and this is the kicker) - at the expense of other needs and issues. Advances in marriage equality don't just happen, and there are plenty of people who would be better served by that money and those person-hours being spent toward a different goal or issue. But they weren't and aren't going to be, because gay marriage still holds the center stage.

2. This is connected to (1), particularly in terms of where funding comes from and is thus directed, but I don't know that it's obvious for everyone, so it's worth pointing out separately. Gay marriage proponents promote an image of queer people that is palatable and marketable to mainstream heterosexist America. That process necessitates making invisible those queer people whose bodies aren't "marketable" or "palatable" so as to not upset the masses too much. In short, rather than challenging intersecting oppressions within mainstream society, the gay marriage movement promotes an image of queer people that is profoundly racist, classist, transphobic, and ableist. The comfort and acceptance of primarily white, upper-middle class, non-trans gay men comes at the expense of everyone else. This is not to say that POC, and poor people, and difabled people, and trans people don't get married, or wouldn't want to - but the big donors and the face of HRC and the various images used to advance and represent gay marriage aren't representative of the diversity of the queer community, and that in and of itself is perpetuating oppression.

3. Furthermore, as a religious and legal custom, marriage has primarily existed (until VERY recently) to control the exchange of women's bodies. Marriage has profoundly sexist roots and implications, and it still serves to govern the "right" kind of relationships. Insofar as the institution of marriage has the power to dictate what kind of relationships are acceptable and which are not, it is not an institution I am comfortable with governing my relationships.

4. I also question the model of activism based on gaining certain "rights." I understand why this has proved to be effective, but I'm not so sure that I want to go about realizing social change by continually running to catch up to people and institutions with power and privilege - it's that power and those privileges that screwed things up to begin with. Particularly, I find this model of activism particularly suspect in light of the ways in which the fights for women's rights and gay rights have prioritized particular kinds of women and gay people. Certainly, feminism and queer movements have plenty of introspection to be engaging in when it comes to perpetuating oppression ourselves (racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, transmisogyny, ableism, etc.), and I'm not trying to say that shifting away from a rights-based activism model would change that. However, I do think that there is a connection between activist movements with goals of wresting power from "the man" and activist movements that perpetuate oppression within their ranks. You know, power corrupts and all that jazz. I also question the way that rights-based discourses and activism privileges a particular standard toward which we should strive. There are plenty of feminists who wonder whether we should be trying to prove that women are "just like/just as good as" men, and I think there's something to that. Not so much in terms of the perpetuation of gender binaries and the essentializing that sometimes comes out of those camps, but rather questioning the way in which the whole "I'm just like a man" approach privileges masculinity at the expense of femininity - further marginalizing and oppressing the feminine. I see the same thing happening within gay and lesbian movements (I use only those two terms on purpose), and this ties back to points (1) and (2), in which expressions of non-normative sexuality that are TOO alternative or transgressive are dismissed in favor of a model of homosexuality that more closely models normative heterosexuality, thus reinforcing heterosexism.

That all being said, I understand having religious or other convictions that make marriage a meaningful and important ritual for partners. I plan to, at some point in my life, probably draft a ketubah and have some sort of Jewish ceremony with my partner. However, I think that the attendant legal benefits of marriage give it a problematic weight and importance.

Admittedly, I was proud of my home state for realizing that queer people are people, too. I didn't begrudge those people who wanted to get married, and I'll probably enjoy any weddings I go to. But it's for all of the reasons I listed above that I don't give my money (not that I have that much of it, really) to HRC or other groups focusing on gay marriage. I'd rather donate to an organization like the Silvia Rivera Law Project. (And I'd TOTALLY urge other people to check out the work that they do and consider supporting them.)

Oy, sorry for posting that twice. It was really long to begin with, too.

... talk about taking up space

oy. sorry for posting that twice, it was really long to begin with. mods, feel free to delete one of my comments.

... talk about taking up space, right?

love mattilda and love the argument. how about we stop trying to mimic straight relationships?

Marriage isn't necessarily about mimicking straight relationships. As has been mentioned above, when people live together for a long time there are good reasons for having a legal relationship. My girlfriend and I are saving money so we can spend thousands of dollars so that we have some of the protections that straight people get just by getting married.

And straight people who aren't married often do have it easier in terms of things like hospital visitation rights--a friend of mine just said "I'm his fiance" and they let her right in, no problem. I don't think it would work if I tried that.

There is value in pointing out that same-sex marriage (and, eventually, I hope, marriages that include more than two consenting adults) does not solve most of the problems of our society. But it will solve a few problems, and it will help change many people's minds about whether or not queer people are inferior.

It is a reality that many a married or partnered queer couple still does not have the freedom to walk down the street together too closely, or heaven forbid, holding hands, for fear of verbal and physical retribution. Gay marriage does NOT solve this problem.

As a thought exercise, replace "queer" and "gay" with "interracial." Yes, when interracial marriage was decriminalized, it did not stop interracial couples from being harassed on the street and otherwise persecuted. HOWEVER. It marked a huge step forward in protecting and establishing their legitimacy. It meant that their unions could no longer be discriminated against by the state. And it was part of a larger struggle against deepset racist attitudes. No, Loving v. Virginia did not solve all or most of the bread-and-butter issues facing minorities in this country. But it helped pave the way for wider acceptance that has made it possible for a child of such a union to be (god willing) our next president.

Or, to put it more succinctly: recognition of marriage is necessary but not sufficient for broader equality.

Word @ Jo.

Also (I don't think this has been said?): just in response to everyone who has said something along the lines of "wait, but we *need* some sort of formalized arrangement through which one can confer benefits and privileges to another important person in their life?"

Well, yes (hospital visitations, etc come to mind)---but the idea that benefit distribution in our society is premised on being in a romantic relationship is both completely arbitrary and completely heteronormative. Queer activists who want to move away from a marriage model towards more democratized forms of benefit distribution have pointed out that the gay marriage push further enshrines the monogamous couple at the expense of the myriad of other existing household formations. If I'm a heterosexual senior citizen, say, and I live with my sister, or even just a close friend, shouldn't I be able to confer health care benefits, hospital visitation, or other privileges to that person? Why on earth should it be a prerequisite that I be romantically engaged with the primary person I share my life with? I think the main point (as others have already gotten at) is that marriage is a completely broken system of benefit distribution and the gay marriage frenzy is indeed a lot like banging on the door to get into the burning building.

I think it's also worth pointing out that conservatives have increasingly been trying to use marriage to take up the slack of our vastly dwindling supply of social services (social security privatization, anyone?). HRC even argues on their website that letting gays marry will save taxpayers money--an argument which any halfway progressive person should realized is like, too messed up for words. I'm also reminded of instances in which gay activists have tried to get marriage bills passed that would have eliminated domestic partner arrangements in their states (was it Iowa? I can't remember). Also like, completely fucked up and counterproductive.

Anyway, the only other thing I'd echo is the rightful critique some of the other commenters have raised of the whole trickle down social justice philosophy--that marriage is somehow a 'necessary step' on the road to full equality and everything will be REALLY GREAT for everyone REALLY SOON as long as we just get this one thing first. Baloney. Take a history class if that's how you think it works.

Well, to quickly amend my earlier comment: "take a history class" is a rude thing to say. A better thing for me to have said might have been, for instance, the fact that the trans movement is like decades behind the LGB movement is a pretty good example of how a 'necessary step' system that always seems to take the steps most beneficial to the most privileged simply doesn't come back around to fix everyone else's problems in the end. Which is not to say categorically that marriage cannot possible ever be beneficial to a poor queer person (for instance), but that it remains a fundamentally flawed approach to social justice.

Hot pinko, mattilda, etc

You're argument is wholey academic, and is not based in the lived experiences of people. I'm sick of this sort of "queerlympics", where the person who is out there the most is assumed to be the most righteous.

Queer people everywhere want marriage rights, they may not include you and your academic, elitist friends, but folks want it.

Is everything intersectional? Sure. But the gay marriage fight was taken to us by right wing people, and letting them define gay marraige as evil ain't doing anyone a favor.

Also Mattilda thinks trans ppl who pass are evil, so yeh....

Lol, maybe you should speak from the "I" perspective, irishgirl1983. Sure there's a support for gay marriage but there's also a grassroots anti-marriage queer movement... suggesting that everyone who's critical of gay marriage is some sort of hifalutent academic really just makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about (also a lot of ppl are going to be offended by that intimation).

Unfortunately, I can't really comment on Bernstein's passing politics, heh.

I dunno, I've seen no "grassroots" movement against queer marriage. It's hardly something that can be organized around.

I see it mostly come out of people in academia who need things to write about, rather then a movement of people wanting change. Plus random activisty people who are into it for it's radical cache.

There's people who think the whole thing is a bit overblown - but that's not the same as saying "it's bad".

@ irishgirl1983: I think i can empathize with you a bit insofar as ppl who are politically committed to being extremely culturally anti-assimilationist can sometimes come across as being sort of unselfconscious about how they exercise their own privilege (which is why I think the cultural argument against gay marriage, as in "ew gross, why would you want to be NORMAL?" is the least compelling one-- there are more important things to fight for than your prerogative to stick it to the man). It's probably worth pointing out that most people who write articles for journals and established lefty publications like alternet indeed tend to be formally educated, hence some of the academic speak.

But in terms of the broader activist community, there are all kinds of people doing queer organizing that is critical of the marriage framework. I live in NYC for instance and can probably think of a dozen POC and economic justice-based queer groups here who organize around intersectional issues as part of a conscious critique of the same-sex marriage movement. Anti-marriage LGBT activism doesn't necessarily identify itself first and foremost as such, but there are certainly plenty of people working to accomplish the kind of movement that people like Bernstein want us to envision--ie, organizing around broad, intersectional issues that are most critical to the more marginalized members of the LGBT community.

Mathilda's argument is totally bogus. Housing and health care are what people need, regardless of orientation.

But gays need equal treatment under the law about their sexual orientation.

WTF is wrong with people who can't see that the two are orthogonal??

I'm not sure gay equals queer does not equal straight, if that makes any sense. In thinking about my friends and family, some are gay, but not particularly queer, and would absolutely love to be married. Others are straight (or bi), but quite queer, and have no interest in marriage at all.

My personal take on it is that gay marriage makes it more difficult for bigots to paint GLBT folks as the "other", when so many of them clearly want fairly mainstream domestic arrangements.

The very mundanity of what's being demanded is what makes it such a powerful claim.

OF COURSE we need to fight for health care for everyone, for a minimum income, etc. But also, there needs to be a way to signal that one is in a committed relationship (and, as I said above, I don't think it should matter how many people are in said committed relationship, as long as all are consenting adults). For the sake of knowing who is a parent of a kid, for the sake of knowing who gets visitation rights in the hospital, for the sake of getting one's partner's social security benefits if she/he dies. People should have the right to set each of these issues out individually, or, if they would like, as most would because it is a pain in the ass and expensive to deal with each issue individually, to grab all thousand and something rights that go with marriage in this country and say "all of these apply to this person in my life."

The idea that committed relationships are contrary to leftist politics makes no sense to me. Love, solidarity, loyalty, compassion--these are at the heart of leftist politics for me. And my committed relationship does not take away resources for me to fight other battles for equality and justice--in fact it helps give me the emotional resources to not get burnt out too quickly. If I didn't have to waste energy thinking about what would happen if I ended up in the hospital and they wouldn't let her visit me, that would be even better.

And the most marginalized members of the queer community--probably would like some social security benefits.

Interesting....
I do want to put a disclaimer here before reading ahead...I am in favor of gay marriage in a legal context, not as something I think is a priority for queer culture. I am simply against discrimination of any group of people, and against any amendment that works to discriminate, even if its something I don't agree with to begin with, like marriage.

The part of the argument in the passage that struck me as the most important is that we live not only in a heteronormative culture, but we live in a culture that prioritizes and privileges monogamy, which is completely unfair to numerous individuals. The argument that *everyone* deserves so-called 'benefits' like health insurance, that anyone should choose who can and cannot visit them in the hospital, that people should not get tax breaks for marrying and reproducing, is extremely valid. The point is, *why* are putting value on committed relationships btwn two people in the first place? There are plenty of other forms of relationships...think about it...and how many do we value that way? Not many. I, as an individual, should not receive less rights because I choose never to be committed to one other person, no matter what gender or sexual orientation.

In that respect I do agree with Mattilda's argument.

Interesting....
I do want to put a disclaimer here before reading ahead...I am in favor of gay marriage in a legal context, not as something I think is a priority for queer culture. I am simply against discrimination of any group of people, and against any amendment that works to discriminate, even if its something I don't agree with to begin with, like marriage.

The part of the argument in the passage that struck me as the most important is that we live not only in a heteronormative culture, but we live in a culture that prioritizes and privileges monogamy, which is completely unfair to numerous individuals. The argument that *everyone* deserves so-called 'benefits' like health insurance, that anyone should choose who can and cannot visit them in the hospital, that people should not get tax breaks for marrying and reproducing, is extremely valid. The point is, *why* are putting value on committed relationships btwn two people in the first place? There are plenty of other forms of relationships...think about it...and how many do we value that way? Not many. I, as an individual, should not receive less rights because I choose never to be committed to one other person, no matter what gender or sexual orientation.

In that respect I do agree with Mattilda's argument.

Interesting....
I do want to put a disclaimer here before reading ahead...I am in favor of gay marriage in a legal context, not as something I think is a priority for queer culture. I am simply against discrimination of any group of people, and against any amendment that works to discriminate, even if its something I don't agree with to begin with, like marriage.

The part of the argument in the passage that struck me as the most important is that we live not only in a heteronormative culture, but we live in a culture that prioritizes and privileges monogamy, which is completely unfair to numerous individuals. The argument that *everyone* deserves so-called 'benefits' like health insurance, that anyone should choose who can and cannot visit them in the hospital, that people should not get tax breaks for marrying and reproducing, is extremely valid. The point is, *why* are putting value on committed relationships btwn two people in the first place? There are plenty of other forms of relationships...think about it...and how many do we value that way? Not many. I, as an individual, should not receive less rights because I choose never to be committed to one other person, no matter what gender or sexual orientation.

In that respect I do agree with Mattilda's argument.

As I am a straight, married, white, middle-class, educated woman, many of these issues we're discussing don't directly apply to me, but I would like to contribute a little, anyway. First, I agree with MikeT (and several other commenters who have hinted at similar issues): it's counterproductive and dangerous to feminism and GBLT activism to say "gay people are like this and straight people are like this." It's unnuanced, to say the least.

Also, for the several people who despair of marriage in general, yes, it originally came about as a method of controlling possession of property, through and including women's bodies. But Tang, Velcro, and memory foam were originally developed for use in space. That's admittedly a bad example, so how about this: How many of you married people out there got married exclusively to form a political alliance between two powerful families/nations/groups? Did you get divorced when the alliance dissolved (or vice versa)? My point is, people can and do change the meanings and purposes of institutions. Marriage has meant a hundred different things and gone by the same name the whole time (allowing for translation, of course). It shouldn't be the only way to legally entitle the important people in your life, because no one should have to get married, and you may want to entitle people you can't or wouldn't marry, such as family members. But as many have pointed out on this thread, it's easier and cheaper than the alternative (and oftentimes all those entitlements are going to the same person, anyway).

I don't think I'm qualified to comment on whether the gay marriage movement is harmful to other issues in the GLBT community--a lot of the posts on this thread are quite eloquent and thought-provoking. But for those who want to see marriage done away with altogether, I see that as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because we don't like any of the forms it has taken in the past doesn't mean we can't work to make it look like we want it to.

In the long run, she's right: marriage shouldn't be the distribution system for a set of rights--including the rights of inheritance, parenting, power of attorney, health care proxy, etc.--that should be available to everyone. And giving it to the few of us who can marry definitely doesn't resolve basic inequalities. In the short term, I'm pretty freakin' grateful that my same-sex marriage will make it possible for me to be by my wife's side if she's ever hospitalized. (Note to JH: Honey, wear your helmet when you cycle!)

I don't think I buy it.

"Legalized gay marriage means only that certain people in a specific type of long-term, monogamous relationship sanctioned by a state contract might be able to access benefits."

What is the alternative, that anyone be allowed to access someone else's health care benefits? Or, if the alternative is that the country have universal health care (here here) how is an extension of marriage rights detremental to such an alternative? The way I see it it would be a step in the right direction.

If the only point of the article is that there are other inequality issues besides marriage, my response is: Yes. There are.

"I don't think these two goals are mutually exclusive. I'm in full agreement that a lot of the social-safety-net benefits that are currently structured around marriage should be re-formulated to make sure they're citizenship rights. But I also think marriage should be open as an option for all adults, in both a religious and secular setting (although I know the government can't--and shouldn't--step in where the religious definitions are concerned)."

Yeah, they're totally not mutually exclusive.

If you're lesbian or gay and risk getting beat up, getting fired, getting evicted, etc. if you come out of the closet, then isn't recognition of same-sex marriage a mooter point because you have a harder time finding a partner in the first place? I get the impression that access to marriage depends in part on access to other equal rights.

"Does gay marriage improve the well being of some people who were previously suffering from inequality? Yes. Does gay marriage solve all issues of inequality? No. Should we wait to solve any issues of equality until we can solve all issues of equality? Hell NO!"

Right on!

"What good is it if you can get married, if you have to stay shut up inside your house together?"

...or if you two can't meet and date and share a house in the first place? I wouldn't be surprised if economic discrimination even closes off the meet-online-and-fall-in-love-while-pen-pals possibility for some people.

"Many queer kids in middle and high school are harassed, beaten, etc., and internalize such a low sense of self worth that the suicide rate for queer kids is ridiculously higher than that of their hetero-identified peers. Gay marriage does NOT solve this."

OTOH, solving this can help gay marriage. If two consenting adults are going to marry each other, they need to live to adulthood first...

This country is fascinated with revolutionary change as the solution to everything. Maybe it's the short attention spans or possibly just a lack of patience that drives it, but quick fix revolutionary change doesn't happen very frequently.

The alternative is incremental change. You make small steps towards your goal and let people get used to the new "normal" so that you can push a little further. This often culminates with a very large change in the end (ie: the slippery slope). This is far easier to accomplish than revolutionary change and can ultimately take less time.

Recognizing that gay marriage is not the final step on this path is important. We should never lose sight of the ultimate goal or stop pushing for it. However no one should expect the world to change overnight. It will take time.

I'm reminded of my time in the early Punk movement, starting in 1976 (yes, I am a geezer.)

We had our own crowd, our own bands, our own clubs, our own way of expression. We were about breaking the rules. We openly hated that rock music had turned into vapid pop and disco, and wanted noting to do with it. Selling out was the greatest sin - take that record contract and shove it, corporate pimps! This isn't just music, this is our life.

I remember riding a bus in San Francisco with a gaggle of fellow punks in 1977, decked out in spiked hair, safety pins and leather, and people asking us, "um, what are you supposed to be, anyway?" They didn't even have a name for us. We were aliens in normal society.

And we liked it that way.

Then along about 1978, the media discovered Punk Rock [tm], and the normal people descended on us, packed our clubs with "tourists" to gawk at us - we were a fad. And soon we became "respectable", as bands signed big recording contracts, artists got gallery shows, writers cashed in on "cyberpunk".

Going mainstream killed Punk rock, at least as far as the first Punks were concerned. So I can understand the author's fears that going mainstream will not do any good for the Queer "underground", but will possibly marginalize them even further. They won't be the "nice Gays", like that polite couple down the street that dress and act like normal people.

Ok, it’s midnight here, and I’m really tired, so maybe I’m missing the point, but…
I get so sick and tired of other people trying to tell other people what they can and can not do and to try to regulate morality (and now it seems as if it is on both sides of the coin). And to me, (granted, I’m not gay), that is what the gay marriage debate is all about. If you don’t want to get married, don’t get married. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get an abortion. If you don’t want to smoke pot, don’t smoke pot. But don’t tell me what to do! Don’t tell me that I can get married but my best friend, who is gay, cannot. It should be available to everyone. Maybe gay marriage isn’t the most important cause, but to someone else, it may be. Talk about taking time and effort away from a cause – aren’t the people who are fighting against gay marriage within the gay community taking time and resources away from other causes that they think are more important?
I also just have a really hard time with this because, again in my opinion, the entire argument is based upon religion. The conservatives want to keep gay marriage illegal because “marriage is a sacred union ordained by GOD between a man and a woman� gag gag gag (you know, because the sanctity of marriage is so respected in the USA – see “Farmer Takes a Wife!)! I can’t believe that with the supposed separation of church and state marriage is even a government institution. My husband and I are both atheist – we were married by a minister only because he is a close friend of the family. It was outdoors, as faaar away from a church as we could possibly get. There was no mention of any religion at all. My sister married her husband with a justice of the peace in the courtyard of a hotel. We don’t believe in God, how is it that we can be married within the eyes of the government? The fight for gay marriage just seems to me to be another stick in the eye for the Christian conservatives – which I’m all for! ;)
My idea has always been to have civil unions for everyone, gay or straight. This is what would confer the rights and benefits of the union. Then, if religion is important to somebody, they could have a separate ceremony in a church or synagogue or what have you of their choosing, but would be symbolic only, no benefits incurred.
I’ve just reread what I wrote, and I realize that my post is a little off-topic. I realize that the original author was making more of point regarding working to give everyone health benefits, etc., and that gay marriage doesn’t further this cause. I guess I just saw it as “ok, maybe it doesn’t, but I do think it does convey some positive pushes towards equality.�
Again, forgive me for the ramblings! Just some thoughts.

Finally!

What is needed, in my humble, radical queer opinion, is for the state to stop giving special rights to people because they are in a long term (supposedly, anyway) monogamous relationship. As we should all know if we've rad our history, marriage is about social contract, which is why they were made for financial reasons and not love. This new idea that heterosexual marriage is sacred is not only ridiculous, but also inaccurate.

I think the government should just butt out of everyone's relationships, and stop giving people special rights for being married. How about you take those tax breaks and government bonuses and give them to people who are struggling to feed their children?

Here's what we REALLY need: Domestic partner benefits for everyone. EVERYONE. If an aunt and niece want to be financially dependent on each other, why not? If two brothers want to give power of attorney to each other instead of someone they are dating or a parent, who's to say they shouldn't? If a polyamorous quad wants to buy a house together jointly, what reason is there to stop them?

Same-sex couples have already proven that loving, stable relationships are possible without governmental recognition. But queer people have also proven that the choice to be single, the choice to be consensually non-monogamous, and the choice to just have rollicking good sex with strangers are all equally valid and fulfilling to some. So why should people's ability to depend on each other be restricted, and why should these other relationship styles be denigrated by the holier-than-thou idea of "marriage"?

When the Catholic and the Anglican church first split, it was considered horrible and even illegal for those of different sects to marry. Later, it was considered heinous for people to marry across faith boundaries. Then race became the next characteristic that could deny a person legal marriage. This change, to add same-sex couples to the ranks of those allowed to marry is great in theory, but does nothing to fix a broken system. I agree with the OP 100% that what we need is reliable healthcare for individuals, not just couples who have access to it and the means for it. What we need is clean water for everyone, no matter what their income. What we need is safe and reliable housing for those with no roofs. This is what we need. Not another newly-expanded version of the same, tired contract.

I agree that we need reliable healthcare, clean water, safe and reliable housing, etc., for everyone.

And I agree that many different lifestyle choices can be fulfilling and meaningful.

But for those of us who want to get married, who are committed (which may or many not mean monogamous--the government doesn't usually check on who is sleeping with whom), and who would like to share parenting (legally), to create an official family (no matter how many adults are involved), we should have that right.

I want my girlfriend to be able to visit me in the hospital. I don't want my dad, my current legal next-of-kin, to be anywhere near me. I want the family that is my real family to be my legal family. I don't want to worry that if I die there will be all kinds of drama about who gets our kids--my incredibly bigoted father would do anything he could to make sure that our kids do not go to her, if he has any say. And in our current system, without same-sex marriage, he would have a fucking lot of say. No matter how much money we spend trying to protect our family, the courts get to decide whether to accept our choices about where our kids go. That's how it is in North Carolina.

I'm all for changing the system radically, but meanwhile I want as much protection as I can get.

And honestly, if someone wants their siblings to make decisions about their medical care or whatever, our current system is much kinder to those choices than it is to people in committed gay relationships. You can call your sister your next-of-kin.

The hospital thing is, unfortunately, not that clear cut. A hospital generally will let you decide who can and cannot come to visit you, but you can only set that up if you're conscious and mentally present when you're admitted, which is very often not the case. The designation of "husband" or "wife" is useful societal shorthand, and being able to claim that designation is a strong indication of status. That's not to say that there aren't wives in the hospital that need to be protected from their husbands, and it's not to say that there aren't girlfriends, roommates, aunts or brothers that are close enough to you that you'd want them to have power of attorney, make medical decisions, pick out your clothes, or whatever.

Marriage, really, is just a particular kind of bond that is common enough that society finds it convenient to put it in a little box and sell it pre-packaged, as it were. That doesn't mean there aren't others, just that this particular one is pretty darn popular. Gay marriage, in my opinion, doesn't change what's in the box, you're just changing the picture on the label and who's allowed to carry it through the checkout lane.

Insurance, on the other hand, shouldn't be tied to your workplace, but that's a different battle. But as long as it is, some companies have had a lot of success offering "plus one" instead of "plus spouse" insurance. So if you want to cover your brother, your roommate, or your aging parent, you can, as long as you live under the same roof. It's a great idea, and I wish it was more widespread.

Oh, and there's no rule that says marriage needs to be monogamous. In fact, they generally aren't. Mine is, but that's our choice, and lots of people choose otherwise.

Oh, and the "religious freedom" side of this is such bullshit. My parents' church is very gay-friendly and would start performing gay weddings tomorrow if it were legal. What about their religious freedom?

I do admit that there is an interesting libertarian case to make against special government approval for private contracts (then again, government does that all the time). Also, I admit that many writers I love have made similar "queer" arguments against marriage and the dubious enticements of normalcy (Warner, Bersani, et al.).

At the same time, however, part of me cannot believe this argument is getting such a positive hearing from Feministing readers -- who are usually more than willing to trumpet their support for "small" issues of equality before the law and in the culture (equal access to sports; humane treatment in the workplace; making sure there are enough women engineers; representations of women in commercials).

Imagine that this were an issue of far less importance -- like the right of gay couple (or a woman, or a black American) to receive accommodations at a hotel or to be served at a lunch counter. Would anyone think that these inequities should not be addressed by a state government because, say, giving people equal access to public accommodations would not guarantee that all people could take advantage of those services? Imagine this reply: "Sure, changing this law would allow some more people to eat at these restaurants, but what about people who can't afford the meal -- or the underpaid people who have to clean up afterward? And this change wouldn't make people treat those customers any better on the street, would it? And how does this help get us out of the War?" I think that most people would see the shortsightedness of those arguments, even if they agreed with their concerns.

But we're talking -- as far as civil rights are concerned -- about something much more important and basic than fairness in the marketplace (i.e., the equal opportunity to give someone your money). We are talking about equality before the law -- the demand that you no longer be a stranger to your own country's institutions. How could you fight for equal access to restaurants (or hotels, or colleges, or jobs) and not fight for equal access to marriage?

Maybe I'm taking this too seriously. As JoeMax implicitly notes, it seems more like posturing than politics -- a way to prove your radical bona fides, at extremely low cost. More charitably, I might say -- as others have -- that some are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. And in doing so, they're losing sight of the fact that gay marriage is very good, indeed.

Peter: I'm very impressed with your arguments. I have been on and off the fence on this issue and your comment is a persuasive prod towards the side that would view equal marriage rights as a solid--yes, an equivocal one, but a solid one, nonetheless--step in the right direction.

I left a comment on this post and it never showed up. Is there a reason? I don't think it was offensive in any way.

It probably got eaten due to the recent troll invasion.

"I remember riding a bus in San Francisco with a gaggle of fellow punks in 1977, decked out in spiked hair, safety pins and leather, and people asking us, 'um, what are you supposed to be, anyway?' They didn't even have a name for us. We were aliens in normal society.

"And we liked it that way."

Meanwhile, what about minority members who don't like it that way because they don't want to be starving artists and being an alien in normal society can be a big disadvantage for an architect, doctor, accountant, etc.?

"So I can understand the author's fears that going mainstream will not do any good for the Queer 'underground', but will possibly marginalize them even further. They won't be the 'nice Gays', like that polite couple down the street that dress and act like normal people."

In other words, some people in an underground scene having a problem with some people outside that underground scene and in the same demographic group not wanting to be stuck underground...

The problems Sycamore mentions--"universal access to basic necessities like housing, health care, food, and the benefits now obtained through citizenship"--are not just those faced by gay couples. Most heterosexual people and even married (straight) couples in this country are one paycheck away from homelessness and life sans health insurance.

Okay, so maybe allowing same-sex couples to get married isn't a panacea to all the issues facing the so-called gay community, but this is about civil rights and chipping away at homophobia the same way the civil rights movements of the 20th century have chipped away at racism and sexism. Yes, racism and sexism still exi