New York axes marriage-for-all
Good thing I'm living in the liberal haven of New York State... oh wait. Maybe we're not that far along after all: the court of appeals here (not surprisingly) reversed a Manhattan judge's decision that would have allowed gay folks to get married.
Some astute and dead-on commentary from Gawker this morning, though: "It's more the language that was used in upholding the status quo. No 'we're sympathetic but the court overstepped its bounds'; no 'it's fundamentally unfair but a matter that must be left to the legislature.' Oh, no. Instead it was grafs like:
The law assumes that a marriage will produce children and affords benefits based on that assumption. It sets up heterosexual marriage as the cultural, social and legal ideal in an effort to discourage unmarried childbearing. ...
Because of course gay marriage would be detrimental to 'the well-being of children and society.' Even here in good ol' blue-state New York."
And guess what? I'm taking this opportunity to talk about the framing of the issue. Much like the problem I had with the term "women bloggers," I have a problem with calling it "gay marriage" because it frames the issue in a way that it sounds like it's somehow special, different. (And we all know how the Right loves the special and different.)
People need to be given access to all their rights, and there's a whole section of society that's not afforded the basic civil right of being able to marry the person they love. This isn't about allowing special privileges, about straight marriage (which we never say) or gay marriage -- this is about marriage for everyone who wants it. What's so wrong with love, anyways?