Beyond Marriage

[randy_byers]

As some of you may have heard, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled the other day that the state's Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as occurring between one man and one woman and is intended to discriminate against gays and lesbians -- and let's not even mention polyamorists!

Or should we mention polyamorists? And much, much more! Dan Savage, on the Stranger's blog, has pointed to a statement from beyondmarriage.org called Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships: 'The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States. Conservatives are seeking to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment. But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a thirty-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources.'

I've only read the executive summary of their statement, but I find their list of non-traditional (or should I say non-nuclear?) households that are worthy of state recognition and support to be fascinating. Amongst other things, they list "Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers," which might just describe my situation with D. We've joked before that it's like we're married, except without the sex. In any event, it's an interesting -- albeit radical -- attempt to broaden the scope of the marriage rights discussion.

Comments

[spikeiowa.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting the link!

Our society would crumble without this array of "family" support systems. All these relationships are not very "New Testament," but they are important and they are really much older.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's really worth reading their full list of "alternative" households/families, which they claim to be the majority of households in the country. Lots of food for thought there.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

That strikes me as a remarkably smart move. One of the objections I've heard to gay marriage is that it privileges gay couples over, say, elderly spinster siblings, in terms of legal rights of mutual support. Extending the right to the elderly siblings, and people like you and D., would knock the pins right out of that argument.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

At this point I'm not aware of any substantial political movement behind broadening the scope of the marriage rights movement, but it does seem to make sense. Because after all, if you let gays marry, pretty soon people will want to marry their dogs!