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, I¹ll bet about
10-12% would have voted for it, if that many.  We¹ve 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 ³gay marriage² 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.  We¹ll 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.

Don¹t 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. . . . .
>>  
> 
>  
>