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

Is Marriage Worth Fighting For?

By Courtney E. Martin, The American Prospect. Posted July 31, 2008.


Recent steps legalizing gay marriage have made me reevaluate my aversion to the institution. But I still have my doubts.
Advertisement

First it was my history professor friend from Indiana -- "We're heading to CA for a friend's wedding (and while we're there ... we're getting married, too!)" she emailed me, using an uncharacteristic amount of exclamation points throughout. Then it was a colleague from Austin -- "busy summer with planning a San Francisco wedding in July :) (hurrah for the CA Supreme Court)." Now it looks like Massachusetts will become the next summer vacation state of choice for gay couples looking to tie the knot; last Tuesday the state senate voted to repeal a 1913 law that kept out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying there.

I'm happy for them. I really am. But part of me can't help but feel a little confused by the whole affair. You see, I'm a 28-year-old feminist who apparently wears a sign on my forehead that says, "Ask me when I'm going to get engaged." For the past eight years, I've been in a relationship with a great human being who happens to be male. We share taste in movies, a rascally kitten, and a mutual discomfort with the institution of marriage. I've spent more time than I'd like to remember in the past three or four years explaining to family, friends, and perfect strangers why I'm not dying to walk down the aisle (note: he has spent at least half as much time doing so, an incredibly irritating discrepancy). Usually my answer goes something like this: 1) I don't want to participate in an institution that's been historically sexist and currently discriminates against my gay friends, especially considering that my partner and I couldn't have been married in some states just 40 years ago (we're miscegenators), and 2) I'm uncomfortable with the "till death do us part" rhetoric that seems to suggest that two people parting ways is an inherent failure, rather than, as is so often the case, a necessary moment of growth and change.

For the latter explanation, I usually get a pitying look and an onslaught of romantic counter-argument, as if I am a princess in a fairy tale who has suddenly lost faith in the glass slipper. (Never mind the cold, hard fact that over half of marriages end in divorce.) For the former, I get little more than skeptical silence; people always suspect that the political argument is just a big cover up for my boyfriend's frozen feet.

Public reaction aside, I'm starting to doubt my own justifications. What am I to make of my commitment to not participate in a sexist, historically racist institution when my own gay friends are flocking to the coasts so they can join in the gift registry and the white-dress hoopla? Of course they deserve all the legal protections and economic benefits of a legalized marriage; according to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, there are over 1,400 state and federal rights guaranteed by marriage, while there are only 300 state benefits and no federal protection for civil unions. But do these rights really trump the woman-as-property history and discriminatory present (on a state by state basis, of course)? Why do so many of my gay friends have such faith that they can transform the institution when I'm still so unsure?

I've always been partial to Audre Lorde's insight that "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." But professor of Chicano/a studies, Lisa Justine Hernandez, who is getting married this month, sees the radical potential in marriage. "I think it works both ways," she told me. "Jane and I are being transformed by the outpouring of love and support from our families. Our marriage has opened positive conversation and also transformed others."

Loved ones often try to counter my resistance to marriage with the plausible argument that marriage is what you make of it. My own father repeated that old wisdom to me recently. "There are as many kinds of marriages as there are married couples," He said. Okay, I get it. I have faith in my partner and my capacity to re-imagine lots of things. He's never brought me flowers; instead our idea of romance is silly dancing on Saturday mornings before we go out and get our bacon, egg, and cheese sandwiches. I think we have a good a chance as any two creative people of making marriage over in our own image.


Digg!

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

Courtney E. Martin is the author of Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body. You can read more about her work at www.courtneyemartin.com.

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:
Fight for marriage for everyone!
Posted by: jesus christ on Jul 31, 2008 8:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello, Courtney, I liked your article. You seem to have a deep understanding of gender, sexuality, and racism, and how they are related. These issues have become even more complex with the legalization of gay marriage. You seemed perplexed about your gay friends who ran off to get married. I might be able to shed some light on their reasoning for abruptly getting married, or not. I'm a gay guy, so I'm speaking from my heart. Let's rewind to 8 years ago when Bush became president, although the drive for marriage goes way further back. Bush has been a throwback on gay rights, and has even perpetuated hostility towards gay people. He, and his right-wing Christian lunatics are still upset about the US Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws against gay people. They would rather us be labeled sexual deviants, and predators, locked up behind bars. This is a fact, and the current reality. Now gay marriage is legal, no thanks to the baffoons just mentioned. In fact, these same lunatics are trying to outlaw gay marriage. These people piss me off, and maybe they piss your friends off too, but this isn't a very polite conversation to have with straight friends, because they're unaffected by the Christian zealots. So, there is a tremendous feeling of joy that has taken a hold inside, instead of animosity. You may have experienced it yourself once the court outlawed a gay marriage ban. In some gay people, that feeling is tenfold, coupled with the reality that Christian bigots might succeed in repealing it, makes me want to run to city hall for a marriage licence. Does that answer your question? For me it's the spirit of liberation. Thanks for writing your article. Best wishes towards you and your boyfriend. I wish I had one. Flex.

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

How many people realize that marital rape is still legal in most states?
Posted by: Zenobia on Jul 31, 2008 9:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My very Victorian, genteel grandmother used to tell me, "Marriage is no bowl of cherries, honey. And make sure you finish your education before you get serious with a boy."

My rugged, outdoorsy grandmother used to tell me, "Never rely on a man for your happiness." She says that she only got married because she really wanted to be a mother, and being a single mom had a fierce social stigma in the late 1940s. (It must have been damn difficult economically, too, since career options for women were few. It is STILL hard economically.)

So no princess fairy tales growing up, thankfully. I am 37, never married, and no intention whatsoever of supporting an institution that was once a means of controlling and owning women.

That said, I was shocked to find just last year that in many states, marital rape is not recognized as a crime!!!!!! We are STILL functionally considered property. Some states started getting better, then there was a backlash where laws were actually repealed! California law states that raping your wife is legal, but it is illegal to pay someone else to rape her so you can watch and get off on it.

Nice, huh?

Stay strong in your resolve, sister.

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

Register Your Car With the Government, Not Your Intimate Relationships
Posted by: Libertine on Aug 1, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author mentions her commitment to not get married because it is sexist, heterosexist, and racist. She also mentions the nearly ubiquitous slide into stereotyped sex roles that often occurs after marriage.

These are all valid reasons, but for me, personally, it's the obligatory monogamy that makes marriage a bad fit for me. Even the author of the article does not question this sacred cow, as she writes about seeing the validity of her father's words: "There are as many kinds of marriages as there are married couples,". That is, even when marriage rights are fully extended toward gays and lesbians, it will still be an exclusive box.

Even more central to my objection to marriage -- and this applies to any relationship, gay, straight, single race, interracial, monogamous, nonmonogamous -- is that I think it's an inappropriate governmental intrusion into the private, personal relationships of consenting adults.

It shouldn't be up to the government to make personal relationships "real"; it shouldn't be their place to define, legislate, or promote any type of intimate relationship above all others.

The idea that people must get a license and register their intimate relationships with the government to make them "real" in the same way they get a license to drive and register their cars is really kind of offensive, if you take the time to sit down and think about it.

In the same way that a driver's license is the government's permission to drive, a marriage license is the government's permission to have sex with just one registered partner and to have "legitimate" children with said official sex partner. I don't know about you, but I'll be damned if I register my sex partners with the government, and I certainly don't need it to make my son "legitimate".

People can still have their private weddings and parties to celebrate their relationships with their friends and families, if they so choose. They just shouldn't have to inform the government about it.

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

» Alternatives to Marriage Posted by: Libertine
Marriage Equality is worth fighting for, "marriage" is NOT
Posted by: lelandt on Aug 1, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage Equality is having ALL of the rights of marriage, including the 1138 federal marriage rights, not a legal category labeled "marriage" which is devoid of those rights. Massachusetts and California do not have Marriage Equality! They have civil unions with a fancy title. Barak Obama supports federal civil unions and other "legally-recognized" unions (including domestic partnerships and marriage) and wants to give All of them the 1138 federal rights of marriage. Presently, that includes 10 states! That would be Marriage Equality whatever it is called. When will our community start putting reality before rhetoric. True Marriage Equality can only be won in Washington, DC. www.EqualityWithoutMarriage.org

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

Another solution
Posted by: Rod on Aug 1, 2008 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage also creates a legal basis for joint ownership,end of life decisions etc.

Couples without this basis are a lawyers dream.

I feel Marriage is primarily a religious thing. The government needs to get out of it completely.

The government can issue a co-habitation certificate, that invokes the financial, health insurance, medical etc. of marriage, even child custody if they occur.

Churches can issue marriage certificates to anyone they choose, which are valid for the church and have no legal standing. You want to have a partner you live with get the co- habitation cert. You want to be married too, find a accommodating church.

Separation of church and state. Problem solved.

Only the lawyers will be unhappy.

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

If We Can Tell the Government to Mind Its Own Business...
Posted by: DivadNhoj on Aug 1, 2008 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Then what about society as a whole? It seems as if you are just in a relationship, you're sub-human. And how come no one told me it's not okay to say that marriage's overrated? It's apparently criminal to think that way.

Love can't be dictated by a damn piece of paper. If I were in office, I'll make sure of that.

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

It may be cliche, but it's true nonetheless
Posted by: Kym525 on Aug 1, 2008 4:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem isn't marriage per se, but society's outdated notions of what it is. We're still dealing with 18th century Eurocentrist ideas of what a marriage should be. We're in the 21st century and marriage needs to start reflecting that.

Firstly, women have got to stop being afraid of being single. It's not a death sentence. The world is still large enough to travel and to live it up in. It is far more honest to be alone than to marry someone you kinda like because it's expected.

Women still do the bulk of the housework, in spite of working outside the home and few men are actively involved in the raising of children. We look askance at any man who is willing to give up being principal breadwinner in order to take Janie and Johnnie to soccer practice. We need to show the realities of marriage--that it isn't all hearts and flowers and harlequin romances. After awhile, people change--waistlines thicken and hair goes gray (or balding). People should marry understanding that it is a PARTNERSHIP, not a guy gaining a mommy he can sleep with or a woman looking for daddy. The chores need to be divided equally and that means men putting on an apron and making out like Jamie Oliver (do that and you're guaranteed to get laid more often)!

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

Can this institution be saved?
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 2, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article, and it captured my own ambivalence very well. That by itself is encouraging: I'm a single lesbian who's almost three decades older than the author. ;-)

The small-town neighborhood where I grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s could have been #1 case study for Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. The "problem that has no name" was endemic, epidemic -- all over the place. My impression of marriage and the nuclear family was bad from the get-go, and it didn't get better when as a young adult I started learning more about what marriage was about. In our culture it was pretty much 1 + 1 = 1, and that one is the man. Plenty has changed in my adult lifetime -- more women staying single longer, more options for women in abusive marriages, more women keeping the names they grew up with. "Marital rape" may still be legal in some states, but 35 years ago the concept didn't exist: a husband was entitled to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted it, so her lack of consent was irrelevant, and if her consent wasn't required, how could she be "forced" to have sex?

In the late 1970s and well into the 1980s I knew many heterosexual feminists around my own age who got married thinking they were going to do it differently, change the institution, make it more egalitarian. Often they were marrying men they'd been living with for several years -- they weren't dewy-eyed Cinderellas. But in many cases the institution changed the couple, especially the woman, far more than the couple changed the institution. Outside expectations -- of family and friends and society at large -- played a major role, but so did the internal, not always conscious expections of the two parties. Marriage turned non-issues into big issues: Why won't you take my name? What do you mean you don't want to have children? Of course we're going to move halfway across the country -- this is my career we're talking about. And so on.

Institutions are powerful. They shape our behavior and our thinking at every step, even when we're determined not to let them have their way. Marriage affects the lives of its participants 24/7, and no, it's not just a matter between a man and a woman; it's a matter between a man and a woman in a culture that privileges the man. What that means is that the man can commit himself to a more egalitarian relationship, but he doesn't have to, and it will mean that he has to give up some patriarchal perks (and maybe get razzed about it by friends and family).

Love, commitment, and creativity can flourish under these conditions. I rarely saw it and could barely imagine it when I was growing up, but I've seen it since. Human beings can form deep, loving relationships even when their culture accords more privilege to one party than to the other, whether the divide is based on class, race, sex, or some other factor. But it's not easy, and self-delusion is an occupational hazard. Will the growing number of gay and lesbian newlyweds be able to change the institution? Or will it change them more than they change it? It'll be interesting to see how these relationships are doing five or ten years from now.

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

The legitimacy of marriage
Posted by: AtheistInsurgency on Aug 3, 2008 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage should be abolished altogether. There shouldn't be privileges or penalties related to marriage that are above and beyond the individual.

The status of two persons living together should not be an issue.

Those kinds of issues are for people who believe they are being directly addressed, by posted signs that have the word "you" in them. Unfortunately there are too many of those kinds of people.

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

Marriage is manmade and hence flawed
Posted by: nfamous on Aug 4, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anything manmade is flawed and marriage is one of the most glaring historical examples. Marriage provided roles for familiar stability many years ago. Now all it does is make people feel obligated and smothered. Most people don't want to have sex with the same person for the rest of their lives. Almost no one puts the energy, effort and commitment into maintaining a long term, vibrant sex life with the same person. Why? Because it's just easier to screw someone else and I'm all for it. If there are people that feel comfortable and fulfilled spending their entire life knowing exactly what someone is thinking or going to do and say then more power to them. I find it completely boring and devoid of imagination.

Everything is this country has become commoditized and human beings are no exception. We are slaves to the elite and their corporations. They have all but destroyed everything that makes us human and we will not stop them. Only the destruction of this planet can and that will certainly spell the end of all human and most, if not all, other life as well. Only humans would and could destroy themselves, violating the basic survival instinct that has kept the planet alive for so very long.

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

Tax Protest Growing Nationwide
Posted by: John Bisceglia on Aug 4, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The LGBT community will not wait for the country to decide upon our rights.

THREE WORDS - GAY TAX PROTEST

http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/

Not ONE PENNY until FULL EQUALITY.

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

Marriage is only for the stupid
Posted by: blogbooks on Aug 4, 2008 2:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any intelligent man knows better than to enter into a contract that the other party can terminate at any time, taking his children, property, and money with them.

A quaint cultural relic fit only for the peasantry.

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

Civil Rights
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Aug 4, 2008 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My partner and I were married in CA on June 30 after being together for over 20 years. We did it because we're members of HRC and Lambda Legal and have given lots o' cash to further this endeavor.

And we had our day. Now we are LEGAL. This is the point of being married for gay people. To make it legal. LEGAL.

The point? Inheritance. Do you have any idea how much money we had to spend to make sure our 'stuff' is secure for the other person if one of us dies? This is something you straight people barely think about. We have to go thru so many disgusting ridiculous bizarre and totally unethical hoops to make sure our stuff stays with the other one. Stuff. Assets. The money we made. Little things like that.

For you straights who have had a 'bad reaction' to a marriage gone sour: too fucking bad. It's just another day for you people. But we have to FIGHT like dogs to get just the right to give the other person our 'stuff'.

This is the civil right you disparage and kick around like it's nothing. I don't feel sorry for you people who screw like animals, have children like they're nothing, then suddenly discover you don't love each other. Then you hire your lawyers, fuck up your kids' lives, and create a lifetime of hard feelings like it's a walk in the park when you get divorced. You did that to yourselves then say marriage is for the birds.

That's not what marriage is all about. It's about forming a more perfect union and making it LEGAL. For us it's about passing our hard earned cash to the other person 0NE DAY - since that's not happened just yet.

But it will. And when that day comes we will have our true EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

You can continue to disparage the whole point of marriage, calling it quaint and old fashioned and a relic, but it's the LEGAL value I wanted.

And by god, I've got at least a little slice of it now.

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

» RE: Civil Rights Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: Civil Rights Posted by: LeaderofMen
Marital Equality
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Aug 5, 2008 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage will never be an equal arrangement as long as women are predominantly (as in practically 100%) the ones to change their names. Many of he most "radical" and feminist women I know have elected to change to their husbands' names upon marriage - a circumstance I am unable to comprehend.

Women often say they change their names because of the children. They think everyone in the family should have the same name. But having worked in a school system for 22 years, I can vouch that very, very, very few families are made up of members who all have the same last name.

I've talked to women who kept their ex-husband's last name after even the most horrific divorces "for the sake of the kids," but when they remarried, they took their new husband's name. Hm. I guess the kids didn't count all that much after all. And in those cases, the woman often said her new husband couldn't stand the idea of his wife having "another man's name."

I know women who really liked their birth name, but married men who were "traditional that way," so they changed for "his sake." Others actually hated their names and were thrilled at the opportunity to change it. (Self image is a real problem with many women who hate their hair, their bodies, their eye color, and even their last names!)

When my husband of 14 years and I decided to get married, his reaction to my changing my name was, "why in the world would you change your name? I wouldn't change mine to marry you!"

I thought, "Holy cow! A man without an ego problem." And, although this might not be the ultimate test, it's a good one.

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