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 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. . . . .