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.

Sex and Relationships

Finally, Marriage Licenses for All

By Susie Bright, SusieBright.com. Posted June 18, 2008.


The legalization of gay marriage is a huge milestone in the fight for equal rights. Still, it begs the question: why do people get married, anyway?
Advertisement

Everyone I know in California is getting married this weekend. Everyone queer, that is.

Even some of my heterosexual friends are getting in on the action, because no one wants to miss the groovy free-love-and-a-license party down at City Hall. There are some spoilsports, of course. The County Clerk of Bakersfield, (our Country-Western music epicenter!), has outlawed ALL wedding ceremonies so she wouldn't have to face the horror -- the horror, I tell you! -- of watching a groom and a groom kiss each other with tears in their eyes.

Or, maybe her phobia is dykes in tuxes. She says she "doesn't have the resources" to perform marriages of any kind, but behind everyone's back, she was writing a right-wing freaker group begging for solace and legal support.

I can't believe someone this ignorant is still hanging around the State bureaucracy, a gay enclave if there ever was one.

Back in San Francisco, there wasn't a dry eye in the house when Daughers of Bilitis founders, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon got married in City Hall yesterday, by the studly mayor who started the whole gay wedding stampede in 2004, Gavin Newsom.

Del and Phyll are so frail, at their age, it makes you choke up to think of how they've been together since the 1950s, asking for nothing more than a little respect. They are more radical than young people a third their age!

In one California local newspaper after the next, we see the photo story behind gay marriage: it's largely an elderly revolution. These are couples who've been together for decades, coping with the health and legacy issues than any old person does, wanting their beloved to be by their side without harangue and humiliation.

I remember when Newsom first declared San Francisco a "get married!" zone; it was Valentine's Day and the whole city spontaneously broke out in red balloons and pink garlands. You couldn't walk down the streets without people smiling at you like they'd just been dusted with sugar and kissed by the Easter Bunny. It felt as if, for one day, Love Prevailed. And that was a real love, not a romance, because we were celebrating a long-overdue social justice that would not be denied.

Newsom's wedding licenses were subsequently scrapped by the state, under pressure from the homophobic evangelical lobby -- and for the five zillionth time, marriage activists went back to the drawing boards ... how many times do we have to say, Yes, I Do?

This time, even Arnold Schwarzenegger, our improbable governor, cannot put on the pretense that he gives a shit about the Haters. (This is a guy who gave Penthouse an interview in 1981, his weightlifting prime, boasting that American men were too uptight about getting their dicks sucked by other guys; that it's not such a big deal in Austria ... really!)

So, marriage licenses for all, freshly minted, are finally here. It's already a fact in life in so many states and countries; soon the only hold-outs are going to look antediluvian.

However, there are good friends and lovers ... who just don't wanna get married. They are all for justice under the law -- and toasting the bride next door -- but they don't want to be swept into the nuptial tent themselves.

One of our readers, Chris, commented on a previous post:

What should I do about my long-term lesbian relationship? My wife keeps saying she wants to get married, and I don't, because I think marriage is bullshit. It's propagated by a misguided human delusion that we won't die alone and that we can belong to someone -- or whatever people who believe in marriage think.

Chris isn't the only one to wring her hands and hide from the bouquet toss.

I'm not married myself. I never thought twice about getting married, to a man or a woman, for the first few decades of my life. It was never part of my parents' scheme for me, nor did I feel any peer pressure in the 70s, when I was first falling in love. I came of age at a time when weddings were seen as square, anti-feminist, state-pimping bullshit.

My friends who did tie the knot, squirmed as they made their announcement, apologized profusely, and choked out explanations that their parents were putting in the screws.

I patted them on the back and said, "Hey, don't worry about me; I'm your friend no matter what!" As if they had admitted war crimes!

Marriage was seen, in my milieu, as a bourgeois millstone, likely to end in divorce, that was better left uncommented upon, for the sake of sparing everyone the humiliation.


Digg!

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

Susie Bright is an author, editor, and journalist known for her original and pioneering work in sexual politics and erotic expression. She writes about sex and politics every day at her blog.

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


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:
Naive....
Posted by: CatDad on Jun 18, 2008 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author writes this as if this struggle has been successful. FYI: California has a same-sex marriage ban on the ballot this November...California is not all San Francisco, LA and Palm Springs...There are plenty of people in places like the Inland Empire and the Central Valley to help pass this ban.

As a gay man living in a Red State(KY), I want to scream at how this issue has been botched. Civil unions should have been pursued FIRST. It would have been much less incendiary. Instead, marriage was pursued first. People, we don't even have the right to serve openly the armed services...how naive to think that we can push this all at once.

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

» RE: Naive.... Posted by: rg
» RE: Naive.... Posted by: SkeeterVT1
» RE: Naive.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Naive.... Posted by: Docent
» RE: Naive.... Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
» Uninformed Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
You want marriage, you got it
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jun 18, 2008 1:18 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
suckers...lol

jdfu!

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

JLR esq
Posted by: JLR esq on Jun 18, 2008 2:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There’s going to be a live Gay Marriage on KPFK Radio Los Angeles on Friday at 11am (Eastern). Check this historic broadcast on www.kpfk.org - two women will be getting hitched live on radio! An expansion of human rights in America! 90.7fm in L A!

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

How's about...
Posted by: Philip Newton on Jun 18, 2008 4:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We secure a safer and better life for ALL people.

We can start by defeating the Republicans in the fall.

Niche issues do not excite me -- but they sure do motivate the Republican base.

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

Is there a limit?
Posted by: davidhhahn on Jun 19, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am curious to know if the author believes that marriage can be among two women and one man, or two men and one woman; if they really love each other and want to commit for life. If the right to marry is based on an equal rights argument, then why not extend it to these groupings.

I do not believe that marriage could be for two and one (or other combinations), but would be very interested to know how the author could argue against it.

And, if the argument is that a threesome, or foursome, etc. is "not natural," well there you go. Back to square one.

I have asked this question of many supporters of same-sex marriage and have yet to hear any resembling a rational explanation.

So, Susie Bright, now is your chance. Please respond in this public forum.

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

» You didn't answer the question. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Is there a limit? Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: Is there a limit? Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: Is there a limit? Posted by: Pax99
» Why should there be any limits? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Is there a limit? Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: Is there a limit? Posted by: Pax99
freshlemon2
Posted by: freshlemon on Jun 19, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As in the Tina Turner song:"What's love got to do with it?"

Since the beginning of marriage it has always been about the empowerment of the individuals getting married. Marriages have been arranged to strengthen the social and financial status of families, the alliance and power of nations,the production of heirs,and when women were considered chattel to extend to them protection and support.

Today those same reasons come into play along with many more including the fear of being alone and somehow being less of a person because of single status. Marriage is also rewarded as being a sign of stability in a person. It is considered a holy union by religious institutions and the IRS grants a lower tax rate for marrieds than for singles.

The list of government,social and religious kudos for marrieds is a long one, while singles are still looked upon as being odd or as outsiders.

Then there is divorce....shame, shame,shame. The laws in most states deal with divorce with a blindfold that often causes one of the people in the marriage to unjustly end up giving half of their assets to an undeserving spouse. There are actually people who make a career out of marriage and divorce for financial gain at the expense of the people they marry.

Without expounding further,marriage as it exists today regardless of gender or sexual preference is a cultural scam that pigeon holes us all. If you plan to marry...don't forget to have a pre-nuptial agreement!

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

Civil unions...
Posted by: phatkhat on Jun 19, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the first poster that civil unions would be the way to go.

BUT. I will take it one further. I think civil unions are the way to go for ALL couples, not just gays and lesbians. In Germany, for example, every couple gets a license and goes before a magistrate to exchange civil vows. This means that in the eyes of the law, they are a couple for tax purposes and everything else.

If the couple desire the church to sanction or bless their union, they are free to have a church wedding, but they are not required to do so. Many do, many do not.

Not that Germany sanctions same-sex unions, but the idea of civil unions is appealing for many reasons, not the least of which is the economy of such a ceremony.

No one has really mentioned the religious pressure to marry, either. You aren't supposed to just live together. The people who support laws against gay unions are the same ones who support laws against any kind of sex that their interpretation of the Bible prohibits.

Go with civil unions, and if you want a "marriage blessed by the church", find a suitable church and have one.

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

» This works Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Civil unions... Posted by: elf
» RE: Civil unions... Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
» RE: Civil unions... Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
I live in Bakersfield
Posted by: shannasmusic on Jun 19, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just for the sake of fair reporting, I will say that the county clerk reported that they did not have the resources available to deal with the expected flood of marriage ceremony requests after the ruling.

Not that I buy it. This town is pretty backwards as far as California thinking goes. They did, however, allow for the building of a second strip club. Shallow hetero sex activity is more tolerable than committed gay relationships in bako. Go figure.

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

What, indeed, is "marriage?"
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 19, 2008 10:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It all gives new meaning to Voltaire's remark, "Liberty, they cry - but they mean license." What does marriage mean? Well, you have to wait until the next political faction and the court that kowtows to them decides.

It will be most interesting to see the result of it all, including the aftermath of all this "love," but perhaps all of those who have so ardently supported and demanded "gay marriage" (won't it always be that - doesn't the obvious speak anymore?) would care to tell us what has actually been accomplished.

People at large will now respect homosexuality? They will believe that the state has power to change reprehensible to blessed, impotent to potent, infertile to fertile, frustrated to fulfilled, with the stroke of a pen?

Society will now be blessed with a flood of new brains and talent - new Isaac Newtons, Abraham Lincolns, Albert Schweitzers, Albert Einsteins, and the like; a Beethoven, Goethe, or Steinbeck - babies born of the unions newly made fertile by decree of a court?

What has been contributed to society? What, really, has been contributed to the homosexual? How is he better, now that the court says he (or she, or what the hell ever the court has decided that is) is normal?

And - "horror of horrors" - he's blown his nose in my soup; but I can't do anything about that - a court says that being "normal" (everyone blows his nose, after all) behavior. it's legal.

I guess never going to a public place to eat will become normal, too.

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

» RE: What, indeed, is "marriage?" Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Leave Holy Matrimony to Religions, Civil Unions for all who desire them
Posted by: srseleen on Jun 19, 2008 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep wondering how our nation got into the Holy Matrimony business. It seems to be a violation of the separation of church and state to me. Perhaps the fuel for the controversy over gay marriage would be mostly gone, if we made marriage licenses a civil document for all marriages. If people wanted Holy Matrimony, they would go to their place of worship and ask for whatever sanction from the gods that would be available there.

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

» All ready there Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
not really for all
Posted by: just john on Jun 19, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I'm perfectly okay with state recognition of same-gender matrimony and can understand your enthusiasm, the "Marriage Licenses for All" claim is a bit overblown.

There are still millions of us out here dancing by ourselves.

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

Gotta love the gay guys....
Posted by: Landbaron on Jun 19, 2008 2:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If every other guy was gay, imagine the leverage the straight guy would have with women.

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

Jean Clelland-Morin
Posted by: Velda on Jun 20, 2008 6:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, the question really is, Why do people get married anyway? We all should pay taxes and receive benefits as individuals. If laws protect each of us, particularly children, why the marriage contract? It doesn't guarantee anything. People wanting io enter into a relationship can choose the kind of celebration or lack of with NO legal ties. That way neither the church or the state can dictate with whom consenting adults live and love.

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

so called "freedom" is actually slavery to wickedness
Posted by: rick shade on Jun 24, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So called individual freedom of expression by those who openly persist in obvious deviated behavior further lowers the status of a human being created in the image of God to a being lower than an animal. Your freedom comes at a cost. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were not only real, but a testament to how those who practice abhorrent behavior are viewed.

It further testifies to where we are at in the stream of time. sad...so sad...

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

» Be more clear with your words. Posted by: hankhawk