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 world that is not systematically hostile to same-sex lovers. >>> >>> Another thought: These gay marriage prohibitions may contribute >>> psychologically and politically toward making marriage irrelevant to the >>> rights and entitlements that people try to get by marrying. As various >>> alternatives like civil unions become available, more non-gay/lesbian people >>> will go for them, and more of the good stuff that has been attached to >>> marriage will be available in more ways. It may work in favor of taking >>> marriage out of its privileged place in the social/political map. That might >>> be good for all of us, whatever our sexual inclinations. It might be good, >>> by the way, in general, for women. >>> >>> Don't despair! >>> >>> Marilyn >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/5/08 11:09 AM, "Rebecca Kukla" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> And Florida, despite finally turning blue and bringing it home for Obama, >>> also seems to have passed one of the most monstrous of the anti-gay-marriage >>> constitutional amendments around, by a narrow margin. >>> >>> >>> Rebecca >>> >>> On 11/5/08, Callahan, Joan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> This is a GREAT day for the U.S. >>> >>> But please don't forget that Americans continue to ensure that certain >>> inequalities will be written into law -- >>> >>> >>> >>> Yahoo News, November 5, 2008 >>> >>> >>> LOS ANGELES - California's proposed constitutional amendment banning >>> same-sex marriage - and with it the personal lives of thousands of gay >>> couples - hinged on about 3 million absentee and provisional ballots early >>> Wednesday. >>> >>> Sponsors of the ban - widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 >>> ballot measures - declared victory, but the measure's opponents said too >>> many votes remained uncounted for the race to be called. >>> >>> The amendment would limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time >>> such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal. >>> >>> Even without the wait, gay rights activists had a rough day Tuesday. >>> Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and gay >>> rights forces suffered a loss in Arkansas, where voters approved a measure >>> banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. >>> Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target. . . . . >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > ------ End of Forwarded Message