Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

Why I Fought for the Right to Say 'I Do'

By Greta Christina, The Blowfish Blog. Posted May 26, 2008.


The right to marry will change how we feel about society and our place in it. And it will change -- officially -- how society feels about us.
Advertisement

Editor's Note: To read a different take on the California Supreme Court decision, read Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore's story, Why One Queer Person Is Not Celebrating California's Historic Gay Marriage Decision.

As you all no doubt know unless you've been hiding under the blankets for the last week and a half, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the state Constitution. In a little less than a month, same-sex couples will be able to legally marry in California.

My partner and I are going to be one of those couples.

And I want to talk a little bit about why.

One of the questions that gets raised a lot when the subject of same-sex marriage comes up is, "Why is marriage so important? Why aren't civil unions or domestic partnerships good enough?"

The usual answers are practical ones. And I'll certainly second them. Marriage is recognized around the country and around the world, and all its practical and legal rights and responsibilities get carried with you everywhere you go in a way that is most emphatically not true for civil unions and domestic partnerships. Besides, it's a well-established principle that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal. The very act of saying, "No, you can't have this thing that everyone else can have, but you can have that other thing we created just for you that's almost exactly like it -- isn't that special?" It's the creation of second-class status, pretty much by definition.

But I want to talk about something else today. I don't want to talk about the legal and practical benefits of marriage. I don't want to talk about hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, inheritance rights, tax benefits, all that good stuff. That's all important, but it's also well-covered ground.

I want to talk about something more intangible. I want to talk about why we're getting married apart from all that.

Marriage is an unbelievably old human institution and human ritual. My parents did it. My grandparents did it. My great-grandparents did it, and theirs, and theirs. The word and the concept carry a weight, a gravitas, intense and complex social and emotional associations, from centuries and millennia of people participating in it. And as far as I know (admittedly my anthropology is a bit weak), it's existed in one form or another in almost every human society, in almost every period of human history. There may be exceptions, but I don't offhand know of any. Getting married means being a link in a chain, taking part in a ritual that's central to human history and society.

Yes, much of that history and many of those associations are awful. Sexist, propertarian, oppressive. But the evolution of the institution from its complicated and often terrible history into what it is today is part of what gives it its weight. The history of marriage, and its growth away from ownership and towards equal partnership, is the history of the human race's maturation. Participating in it means participating, not just in the history and the ritual, but in its growth and change.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships just don't have that.

Let's look at the recent Supreme Court ruling in California. Let's look at what it won't change for my partner and me and what it will.

On a day-to-day level, it probably won't change much. We're domestic partners, and California domestic partnership does afford most of the legal rights and responsibilities that marriage offers. Within the state, anyway. As long as we stay in the state, not much changes in any practical sense. And I doubt that much will change between her and me. We had a commitment ceremony two and a half years ago: a joyful, exuberant, larger- than-we'd expected celebration that we spent many months planning. That ceremony and celebration, and everything we went through to make it happen, did change our relationship, profoundly, and very much for the better. I doubt that our legal wedding in June will have anywhere near that same impact on how we feel about each other.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gay rights, gay marriage, california

Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Overriding democratic ideals for the perceived greater good is not always good.
Posted by: aouie01 on May 26, 2008 2:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Relative values for underlying issues will vary and hence people may feel differently as to the best choice, but hopefully all reasonable people will recognize that there is a conflict between avoiding (unjust) discrimination and democratic ideals when the majority wants to (unjustly) discriminate.

When the majority wanted to (unjustly) punish people for engaging in sex with people of the same sex, overriding the wishes of the majority for justice can be seen as worth giving up on democratic ideals.

In a state where most of the benefits of marriage is available to (monogamously) committed adults regardless of their gender, overriding the desire of the majority to (unjustly) discriminate against same-gendered couples with respect to the state recognizing their marriage in a legal sense may not be a good thing, as not much is gained by overriding democratic ideals. People with such a view should recognize that the right thing for the California Supreme Court to have done is to stay the decision till the voters have the chance to redefine the constitution in a way that furthers the wishes expressed in the 2000 elections (61% wanting to discriminate against same-gendered couples with respect to recognizing (or facilitating) their marriage). Hopefully people will recognize that much work is needed to change the majority's desire to (unjustly) discriminate on this issue and (any so inclined will) keep working on it.

Unlike incestual couples, couples that violate an age barrier, polygamous cross-gendered couples, etc., California was not going to arrest same-gendered adult couples for having a marriage ceremony, but was merely not going to recognize the marriage (as specified in Prop 22). Anywhere except in legal or state matters (unofficially) married same-gendered couples could refer to each other as spouses and (I think that) it would not be a violation of any law.

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why, oh why?
Posted by: nomoreblinders on May 26, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why in the world would you want the state to be involved in your affairs? I could see fighting for legislation to have financial benefits, insurance.....but now there is involvement in a tangled web, and the only ones benefiting are the lawyers. It's gonna get messy---look what straight couples have to go through when things sour!! You folks fought the wrong fight!! NEVER LET THE STATE INTERFERE WITH YOUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, DUMMIES!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why, oh why? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Why, oh why? Posted by: mindtrvlr
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: next up: Posted by: deeannef
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Mindtrvlr Posted by: magiquarian1969
» RE: magiquarian1969 Posted by: mindtrvlr
Why same-sex marriage is a good thing
Posted by: hagwind on May 26, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, much of that history and many of those associations are awful. Sexist, propertarian, oppressive. But the evolution of the institution from its complicated and often terrible history into what it is today is part of what gives it its weight.

Eh wot? What exactly is marriage today, and how far is it evolved from "its complicated and often terrible history"? More to the point, take a look at how much of that evolution has taken place in the last generation. Anyone else wonder how widespread and deep the evolution has spread at this early date? I do. You bet progress has been made: when I was in my teens, people got busted in Boston for passing out birth control information, and when I was in my twenties, in many jurisdictions a husband could not, by definition, rape his wife because he had the right to her sexual services whenever he chose to exercise it; if her consent wasn't required, then how could a sexual act be "against her will"? This has changed, and the change is huge -- even though we know that it takes more than the law to guarantee a right. The right to say no, like the right to free speech and a free press, is still on shaky ground, and will continue to be as long as the economic and social consequences of exercising that right are formidable.

In this supposedly new age of enlightened (heterosexual) marriage, I see many young women taking their husbands' names, often under pressure from husband and husband's family that ranges from subtle to blatant. I still see many relationships, even long-term relationships, change once "the knot" is tied -- due at least in part to the deep, not always conscious expectations the parties have about how a wife should act and how a husband should act.

When both parties are men or both parties women, the expectations are far less clear and much less can be taken for granted. This is good. I hope that the spread of same-sex marriage will accelerate the evolution of marriage away from its patriarchal roots and practices, and support heterosexual married people as they try to recognize and climb out of the cultural ruts.

I also hope that the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage, and of gay and lesbian rights in general, will prompt more and more lesbians to distance themselves from the GLBT coalition. The GLBT agenda, like the (male, mostly class-privileged) gay rights agenda, is based on assimilation: "We're just like you except for our sexual identity! Let us join the club! We won't break anything, we promise." Assimilating into the same old same-old may be the end of the journey for class-privileged white gay men, but the rest of us have a ways to go yet. Here's hoping more lesbians divorce themselves from the privileged gay guys and marry (or remarry) the feminist movement. It's become awfully staid in the last couple of decades and could use some waking up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: A Good Thing? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: A Good Thing? Posted by: xenocyd
» Just like eating shellfish! Posted by: fanny666
» RE: A Good Thing? Posted by: blitzmesser
» Perverted act? Posted by: magiquarian1969
Mind your own business.
Posted by: HughScott on May 26, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been married to the same person almost 50 years. During that time, which had its ups and down, the last thing I cared about were the relationships of other adults, legal or otherwise, gay or straight.

Life is hard enough. Why make it more difficult minding other people's business, especially when they are grownups perfectly capable of deciding what is best for them?

PS: I live in California, which has once again demonstrated it is the most progressive state in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly! Posted by: fanny666
Hooray for same sex marriage and BOOOOO for the ballot initiative in California
Posted by: ptown on May 26, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hooray for same sex marriage and BOOOOO for the ballot initiative in California that is trying to make a constitutional amendment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Separation of Marriage and State
Posted by: Libertine on May 26, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's get the government out of ALL our bedrooms, gay and straight. I'd like to see legal marriage abolished for everyone, as I don't think it's the government's place to define, legislate, or promote any particular type of intimate relationship between consenting adults. Private relationships should be just that, private.

So far as the practical benefits of marriage go, I think domestic partnerships would be the way to go for all long term relationships of a long term nature -- and not just sex-based relationships, either. This would include adult siblings sharing a household, adults caring for elderly parents, grandparents who have adult single parents and their children sharing a home, older adults caring for disabled adult children, and so on.

Thus, a "domestic partnership" would be based on the practical considerations of sharing a household, not the nature of the personal relationship of those involved.

Those people, gay or straight, monogamous or non-monogamous, who wanted weddings or commitment ceremonies to publicly announce their personal commitments could still do so; the only difference would be that the government wouldn't be involved in any way. After all, it is those involved who make these commitments real, not the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am thrilled
Posted by: helenwheels on May 26, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am happy because this is an important landmark for fair treatment of all citizens. Marriage, to me, is a silly and needless institution, and it is based on Christian mores, which should have never EVER become something the government legislates. However, the fact that along with making it legal to marry, now same sex couples can actually have the same sorts of benefits financially that hetero couples have makes all the difference.

My doctor said he started fighting for gay rights and gay marriage after a patient of his died of AIDs and the patient's partner of 30 years was kicked out of the house, inherited nothing, and the patient's long-lost and hated family came swooping in to take everything that the couple had built in their 30 years together. That couldn't happen if the had the same legal rights as hetero folks.

And if you gay bashers want to be thrown a bone, just remember now gay folks will have to go through the same messy divorce crap that you do.

What I'm waiting for is a year from now. Will the rightwingers who swear up and down that gay marriage will completely ruin heterosexual marriages have any proof to show they were right? My guess is, no.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am thrilled Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: I am thrilled Posted by: maestra
» Proof... in Massachusetts Posted by: LeaderofMen
your point is?
Posted by: arthurread on May 26, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good thing you added your own "snicker" to your right wing claptrap because , if you needed one, it would be the only one you'd get for a tired, overused, facetious comment like yours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but what would they do?
Posted by: arthurread on May 26, 2008 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your informative post rates a "5", but what would the haters do if they didn't have the bibble-babble (bible) to "quote" to justify their hate and hate crimes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is about civil marriage.
Posted by: Longdream on May 27, 2008 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not anything at all to do with any religion whatsoever.

It's about being able to go before a judge or a Justice of the Peace, fulfilling the state's requirements for marriage, and then being married to the person you choose. No church involved. Nobody's religious opinions solicited or accepted.

The good thing about the California law is that gay people will be married, same as heterosexual couples. They don't have to have a separate designation, e.g. domestic partnership. Legal commitment ceremonies are good, but this is true equality, and equality feels better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: This is about civil marriage. Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
» Precisely. Posted by: LeaderofMen
Same-sex unions
Posted by: Hypercognate on May 29, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granting the same rights and responsibilities currently enjoyed by cross-sex couples who marry to same-sex couples is the lynchpin in the struggle for full equal civil and human rights for people who are same-sex erotically attracted. This, along with ending policies that discriminate against serving in the military, is the real “slippery slope” that the opponents of fully recognized same-sex unions fear. People who have been oppressed and whose civil and human rights have been abridged can’t be granted some rights without being expected to demand and receive all of them.

Marriage is a contract in which the state has no compelling interest beyond the contractual aspects of such arrangements made between individuals of legal age and the physical protection of any minor children born into or adopted into such relationships. Our association of marriage with religious ceremonies blinds us to the obvious – that the legitimacy of a marriage relationship doesn’t require the approval of any religious body or organization and that the refusal of a religious institution to recognize a marriage doesn’t affect the legality of that marriage in the eyes of the law. Further, the dissolution of a marriage through the process of divorce is strictly a legal proceeding. It does not and cannot take place in a church nor can it be granted by a church; it’s the sole purview of the law and the courts and it must be granted by a judge of the court or other official so-empowered by the government. As for the “slippery slope" argument that this will lead to polygamy and cross-species marriages, no one who seeks equal legal recognition of same-sex unions is suggesting anything other than same-sex civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities currently afforded to couples in cross-sex unions.

Both the term and the concept of marriage have become inextricably conflated with religion in our society, in part, because we have permitted religious officials, individuals with absolutely no position within the government, to act in place of government officials with regard to marrying couples. The only clean way to put an end to this is to remove all references to marriage from the law, to replace the term “marriage” with “civil union,” and to relegate the term “marriage” solely to religious use, to be used by religions in conjunction with their own internal rites of matrimony. If, on the basis of its tenets, a given religious organization chooses not to recognize such unions between individuals of the same sex and, therefore, to deny same-sex couples access to the rites of marriage within that church, that’s its prerogative. However, its right to recognize or to withhold recognition of a same-sex couple’s union ends on the church steps. This accords with what ought to be the law’s concern which is the contractual aspects of civil unions and the rights and responsibilities attendant to such consensual and legally recognized agreements.

Just as the law is blind to the erotic attractions of individuals in matters of birth and death, so the law should be blind to the sexes of the individuals who choose to enter into the relationship currently described as marriage. The term used in the law to describe the contract and relationship must be the same for everyone. Granting and nationally recognizing all of the rights and responsibilities of the legally recognized relationship currently defined as “marriage” to all couples, regardless of the sexes of the individuals in those couples, and then to call it marriage for cross-sex couples and civil union, domestic partnership, or anything other than marriage for same-sex couples continues to stigmatize same-sex erotic attraction and those who experience and express it. It implies that the relationship of same-sex couples is inferior and less valuable than the same relationship when it is entered into by cross-sex couples.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Majority Rule Can Be Perverse
Posted by: sloopy312 on May 29, 2008 3:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it interesting that some in California want the majority to decide what is best for all.
I have lived long enough and studied enough history to realize that if we always had majority determining what is right, then it would still be illegal for women to vote; for the black man not to be lynched if he married a white woman, and he must ride in the back of the bus, drink from separate water fountains, and pass a special test, that whites could not pass, to be able to vote [when they were reluctantly allowed to}. I well remember the speaker from the pulpit who said, "Separate but equal is God's will", and those who are in favor of the crossing of "God established racial boundaries" are falling into a communist trap. Also MLK was a communist etc etc. I also lived across from Central HS and heard the remarks of a Christian lady who had nothing Christian to say about the black students and their supporters.
I have seen the sometimes evil of this majority rule in all areas of our country.
There was also a law on the books that homosexuals should be beheaded.
When I taught in Russia I asked my students questions on their new-found democracy. This was after the ruble fell 75% in value and crime was on the increase.
What I found interesting was that my students in the mid 40s entertained the idea of going back to old Russia, i.e. the USSR. However, not a one of my students younger then 40 said they never would, or even had a desire, to go back to old Russia.
The cork of freedom had been pulled out of it's bottle and it could never be put back in.
Today, in California, the cork on the bottle labeled, "Freedom and Justice for all", has been removed from the bottle by thoughtful men, and I am confident the youth of California will not let that freedom be put back into the bottle.
Hakuna Matata,
blaine, USAF Retired

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abolish marriage
Posted by: Landbaron on Jun 2, 2008 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With DNA they can find out who the children belong to and that's the main reason marriage was invented. But they will never abolish marriage 'cos if you check the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ statistics that weddings and divorces bring in,,,,it ain't gonna happen. The same with most holidays, it's good business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By allowing gay marriages it will....
Posted by: Landbaron on Jun 5, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reduce the chance of gay people hiding in heterosexual marriages. I once read in Dear Abbey, she said it is very cruel for a homosexual man to marry a heterosexual woman to hide... Makes you wonder how many lesbians married to have a child(ren) and then take the heterosexual man to the cleaners, "Maytag style" with that extra cleaning power that the family courts are notorious for,,, wiping the tears of the mother with the fathers checkbook...Makes a good case for Misanthropy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]