Re: Election results on gay equalityPerhaps those on the list might be interested in this site:
http://www.unmarried.org/
Below is a snippet from the site:
Fighting for Fairness and Equality for Ten Years and Counting! The Alternatives to Marriage Project (AtMP) is a national nonprofit organization advocating for equality and fairness for unmarried people, including people who are single, who choose not to marry, cannot marry, or live together before marriage. More about us. We invite you to fill out our online survey.
Best,
Ericka
Ericka Tucker
Office of University-Community Partnerships Engaged Teaching Fellow 2008-9
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Philosophy
Emory University
561 S. Kilgo Circle
Atlanta, GA 30322-0001
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: Marilyn Frye
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Election results on gay equality
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 "taxed" 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