I don't have kids, so this isn't a contribution motivated by self-interest: 

In this bizarre country of mine (USA) in which no needy child is seen as deserving of automatic health care, the trend on the part of higher education institutions across the board is to offer less and less to faculty with kids: higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-pays.  Recent presentations in Maryland at the state level of the increasing impossibility of paying for higher health insurance and also paying full cash value for most care has been met with the statement that "families should take care of their own."  

My point is not to deny the injustice of giving roughly equal employees different benefits.  My point is just that in the wider context -- of the rampant injustices of a country which simply will not bring itself to guarantee health care for its citizens of all ages --  faculty with dependent children are not coming out quite as ahead as the identification of their insurance benefits may suggest.

But one of the root causes of the injustices to needy children and their parents, to singles, to lesbian and gay faculty whether parents or no, is the same: Blasted heteronormativity.  Why is a sick kid or a nonheterosexual adult something to be resisted, and thrown back on the luck of having (or not having) a nuclear family to take care of them when in need?  Why does my college *offer* my husband a full tuition waiver to our education program, which he doesn't want or need because he has a job and no desire to teach, and *refuse* a full waiver to my friend's partner, who has no job, a high desire to teach, and can't afford the tuition?  Because my husband is in a heterosexual and state-sanctioned arrangement, and as he jokes cynically, he apparently deserves a medal for that. Or in this case, a large cash prize.

I despair of universal health care or recognition of equal partnerships, and I see no reason to expect the U.S. to be less Christian, less heteronormative, less capitalist in the future.  McCain got 47% of the popular vote in the course of calling taxes and minimal, inadequate health care "socialism."  The extent to which nonwealthy people agreed with him because it demonstrated their righteousness to do so is stunning.

Apologies for the length of this post.  I usually try not to do that.


Kathryn J. Norlock
Associate Professor of Philosophy
St. Mary's College of Maryland
18952 E. Fisher Rd.
St. Mary's City, MD 20686
240-895-4471 (ph)
240-895-2188 (fax)
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Feminist ethics and social theory [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gaile Pohlhaus
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 5:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Election results on gay equality

Some of my colleagues without children would really like to have their pets' health insurance covered... :)  Or those of us without kids could perhaps have the money contributed to our retirement accounts.


--- On Fri, 11/7/08, Marilyn Frye <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Marilyn Frye <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Election results on gay equality
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 3:30 PM
> Hear, hear.  I entirely agree.
> I have thought of the issue of my university giving health
> coverage to
> married people and not to single ones as simply an
> equal-pay matter.  Same
> job, same benefits package!  If anyone gets to name an
> additional person on
> their health coverage, then everyone should be able to. 
> Have to figure out
> how to work the benefits for minor dependents into the
> picture. People with
> kids just get a bigger benefits package than people without
> kids...
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> On 11/7/08 12:51 PM, "Julia Balen"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > Wish I had more time to articulate this more fully,
> but it seems appropriate
> > to share my thoughts here.
> > 
> > Let me propose that, given that the majority of adults
> in this country are now
> > singles<not married<the more important question is
> why does the government
> > give benefits to some adults that they do not give to
> others?  Why are single
> > people effectively ³taxed² for the benefit of those
> who choose/are able to
> > marry.  When I die my social security will go to the
> government instead of to
> > someone of my choice when I die.
> > 
> > Given the unwillingness of some to share even the
> opportunity with others, I
> > say we just even out all the rights for all adults. 
> For example, give every
> > adult the right to petition for the immigration of
> (perhaps) one person in
> > their lifetimes and might petition for more.  Everyone
> might just check off
> > many of the other choices<like who gets my social
> security benefits should I
> > die this year<each year on our tax forms.
> > 
> > Anyone want to work with me to start the Singles Unite
> for Equal Rights
> > movement?
> > 
> > Let me know.
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Julia Balén
> > Associate Professor, English
> > Faculty Director, Center for Multicultural Engagement
> > California State University Channel Islands
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Rebecca Kukla <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Reply-To: Rebecca Kukla <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 17:10:23 -0500
> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Subject: Re: Election results on gay equality
> >> 
> >> Marilyn - Thank you so much for your post, which
> was a wonderful and
> >> optimistic way of thinking about this.  I have
> already shared it with several
> >> people.  I wanted to bask completely in the joy of
> Obama's election and the
> >> Republicans' defeat and this helps me find a
> way.
> >> 
> >> Rosan is right that part of what is so
> 'monstrous' (that was my word) about
> >> the FL amendment is that it explicitly blocks
> civil unions, benefits for
> >> domestic partners, or other progressive ways of
> joining one's life with a
> >> loved that are alternatives to marriage.
> >> 
> >> But you're right too.  39% of Floridians voted
> to defeat that amendment and
> >> keep the way open for other forms of love and
> life.  That's several million
> >> of us.  I was moved to see 'No to Amendment
> 2' signs on black community
> >> centers, inside Cuban coffee shops, on windows of
> convenience stores in
> >> working class areas, and all sorts of other places
> over the last month or so.
> >> 
> >> Rebecca
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Marilyn Frye
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>> Rosan,
> >>> 
> >>> Well, I didn't realize they had that
> clause in there,
> >>> 
> >>>  but that is only one state...in other states
> various kinds of civil unions
> >>> are still progressing toward appropriate
> establishment, and after a while
> >>> that Florida thing will be looking more and
> more backward, backwater, so to
> >>> speak.  As I see it, a cultural change is
> going on, and such local
> >>> set-backs, even a lot of them, are to be
> expected.  What % of Florida voters
> >>> voted AGAINST this hyperbolic amendment? 
> Whatever it is, it is a LOT of
> >>> people.  Than number will grow, only assuming
> the Floridian gay/lesbians and
> >>> their allies just keep on keeping on, and the
> changing times keep on
> >>> a-changing. There is no law or constitution
> that cannot be reversed or
> >>> changed.
> >>> 
> >>> I have no idea where this awash-in-optimism
> came from...  but it seems like
> >>> a good thing, for now.
> >>> 
> >>> Marilyn
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Nov 6, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Rose A. Larizza
> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> I so agree with you. But.
> >>>> Ah Marilyn, the drafters of Florida's
> Anti-same-sex marriage amendment have
> >>>> already thought of what you write about
> toward the end of your email (see
> >>>> highlighted lines in your text).
> >>>> The ballot language
> <http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_title>
> >>>> says, "This amendment protects
> marriage as the legal union of only one man
> >>>> and one woman as husband and wife and
> provides that no other legal union
> >>>> that is treated as marriage or the
> substantial equivalent thereof shall be
> >>>> valid or recognized."  (emphasis
> added)
> >>>> 
> >>>> That language is vague, and could (and has
> in other jurisdictions) allow
> >>>> for legal challenges to the granting of
> any rights or privileges under any
> >>>> type of legal union other than marriage.
> >>>>  
> >>>> Rosan Larizza
> >>>> Writing Specialist
> >>>> Florida Costal School of Law
> >>>> Phone: 904-680-7791
> >>>> Fax: 904-680-7679
> >>>>  
> >>>> From: Feminist ethics and social theory
> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Marilyn Frye
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:33 PM
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Subject: Re: Election results on gay
> equality
> >>>>  
> >>>> On these anti-gay votes...
> >>>> 
> >>>> Apart from the fact that I have
> considerable political reservations about
> >>>> the movement for gay marriage [the usual
> things: marriage is not an
> >>>> institution worthy of feminist respect (I
> think) though socially respected
> >>>> fairly stable and erotically involved
> unions of two or more people forming
> >>>> something like households may be a good
> thing in a society and worthy of
> >>>> state support; civil rights, entitlements,
> and access to health care should
> >>>> have nothing to do with whatever
> couple-ish things people form up, nor with
> >>>> employment; lobbying to be included in
> marriage feels to me like just
> >>>> lobbying to get privileges that no one
> should have....oh, and on and on.]
> >>>> Anyway...
> >>>> 
> >>>> When my state (Michigan) passed an
> anti-gay-marriage constitutional
> >>>> amendment in the last election, I had this
> thought:  Hmm.  So 40-45% of my
> >>>> fellow citizens voted FOR something they
> thought of as a benefit to and
> >>>> approval of gays and lesbians coupleing to
> form domestic
> >>>> something-or-others.  That is amazing! 
> Had they had the chance to vote for
> >>>> something that had that meaning for them,
> say 30 years ago, I'll bet about
> >>>> 10-12% would have voted for it, if that
> many.  We've really made progress.
> >>>> 
> >>>> So...for those who want the institution of
> the status of marriage for gay
> >>>> or lesbian pairs, and the rest of us who
> at least can see "gay marriage" as
> >>>> some sort of indicator of admission of
> lesbians/gays to civil and social
> >>>> okay-ness, I think we just have to keep at
> it.  We'll see-saw on, and move
> >>>> by inches to a worl