[UUPoly-L] Beyond Marriage: Ready for Prime Time?

Beyond Marriage is a statement written by people who genuinely want to see legal equality and social acceptance of all households, regardless of family forms or relationship structures. I don't fault their motives. Equality and justice and good things. The authors of the Beyond Marriage statement are our friends.

On the other hand, I don't agree with their approach for two reasons:
(1) the Beyond Marriage statement incorrectly rejects the value of same-sex marriage as an independent issue, and
(2) the Beyond Marriage statement is an idealistic vision and not a practical strategy.

I put my arguments for each reason below in case anyone wants details.

So, what do others think? Is Beyond Marriage ready for prime time in the current politics of marriage?

Kelly

*********
Reason 1: The Beyond Marriage statement incorrectly rejects the value of same-sex marriage as an independent issue

The Beyond Mariage statement rejects the value of same-sex marriage as an independent issue both indirectly and directly. Indirect rejection comes in statements like: "Winning marriage equality in order to access our partners? benefits makes little sense if the benefits that we seek are being shredded." This statement implies same-sex marriage as an independent issue is senseless. More directly, the Beyond Marriage statement says "Rather than focus on same-sex marriage rights as the only strategy, we believe the LGBT movement should reinforce the idea that marriage should be one of many avenues through which households, families, partners, and kinship relationships can gain access to the support of a caring civil society." This statement clearly says the LGBT movement should stop looking at same-sex marriage as an independent issue.

I see value in same-sex marriage as an independent issue. The model for this perspective is interracial marriage.

The legalization of interracial marriage was one battle in the war to eliminate the legal segregation of races. One doesn't win the war in one battle. The legalization of interracial marriage did not eliminate all forms of legal racial segregation, and certainly did not eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. Even today interracial couples sometimes experience racial discrimination. But the legalization of interracial marriage was a real step in ending the legal segregation of races and a legitimate civil rights victory. The legalization of interracial marriage had value as a stand-alone issue.

I think it's useful to look at same-sex marriage as one battle in the war to eliminate legal discrimination based on sexual orientation. If interracial marriage is any indication, the battle to legalize and gain acceptance for same-sex marriage will be long and difficult. According to the Religious Tolerance Web site ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm ):
(a) In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry.
(b) In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.
(c) In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time.
Winning the legalization, and then the acceptance, of interracial marriage took decades. The good news is fewer people oppose same-sex marriage than once opposed interracial marriage. We have a good start. But we should not expect to win the legalization of same-sex marriage easily or quickly.

I feel legalizing same-sex marriage would be a real step in ending legal discrimination against LGBT folks and would be a legitimate civil rights victory. This makes it valuable as an independent issue.

**************
Reason 2: The Beyond Marriage statement is an idealistic vision and not a practical strategy.

The Beyond Marriage folks want to expand the battle for same-sex marriage into a major front extending legal and social equality to all forms household arrangements. This just seems unrealistic to me. Of course, the authors of the beyond marriage statement disagree. They write: "Our call for an inclusive new civic commitment to the recognition and well-being of diverse households and families is neither utopian nor unrealistic." They then try to prove how realistic their approach is by offering four examples. I think each example falters.

Example 1: Canada recognizes couples as families whether they are legally married or not, and some have called for couples to be recognized as families whether or not they have a relationship similar to married spouses.
Problem with the example: We are talking about families based on households run by couples. It doesn't make any advances for the following households listed in the Beyond Marriage statement:
Adult children living with and caring for their parents
Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
Single parent households
Extended families living under one roof, whose members care for one another
So the Canadian approach is a limited approach. Why is Canada's limited approach exemplified and the limited struggle for same-sex marriage considered insufficient?

Example 2: A group in Arizona reduced support for a constitutional ammendment banning same-sex marriage by pointing out how the ammendment would adversely affect more traditional families and households.
Problem with the example: What if politicians craft an ammendment banning same-sex marriage that does not harm heterosexual marriages and households? The strategy used by the Arizona group will no longer work. Besides, there's a big difference between not wanting to hurt traditional marriages and families (which the Arizona ammendment apparently did) and wanting to extend legal equality and social recognition to all forms household arrangements mentioned in the Beyong Marriage statement.

Example 3: A group in South Carolina is adopting a strategy more in line with what is called for in the Beyond Marriage statement.
Problem with the example: What has this group accomplished? The Beyond Monogamy statement mentions no concrete accomplishments. The statement simply says "...the Coalition?s efforts to work in this broader way are being further strengthened by emphasis on the message that 'Families have no borders.We all belong.'" What does this mean, exactly? Has their morale is improved? Has their membership grown? Have they helped get any laws passed? Have they won any court cases? What exactly have they accomplished in concrete terms that demonstrates the practicality of their approach?

Example 4: A mayor in Utah decided to extend benefits to couples even when the couples are not married and do not have relationships similar to married spouses.
Problem with the example: This is similar to the Canadian example discussed above. It's limited to couples. Why is this limited approach exemplified, but a limited approach to same-sex marriage insufficient?

I am under-whelmed by the examples offered as evidence that the Beyong Marriage statement is realistic and practical.

_________________________________________________________________
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.