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