Discussions on Same-Sex Marriage

Here is a mapping of the conversations students had on the discussion board regarding same-sex marriage.

Gay Marriage - Maria 10:39:57 3/17/99 (8)
          Re: Gay Marriage - Justin 13:14:38 3/21/99 (0)
          Re: Gay Marriage - Justin 20:17:34 3/17/99 (0)
          Re: Gay Marriage - Elizabeth 19:53:35 3/17/99 (0)
          Re: Gay Marriage - Mimi 15:04:21 3/17/99 (0)
          Re: Gay Marriage - Dara 13:13:20 3/17/99 (0)
          Re: Gay Marriage - Rebecca 11:34:25 3/17/99 (0)
          Re: Gay Marriage - Emily 11:01:01 3/17/99 (1)
            Re: Re: Gay Marriage - Omar 19:56:10 3/17/99 (0)

Students' Postings....

Posted by Maria March 17, 1999 at 10:39:57:

I was just wondering how people felt about this subject. The readings show us two different points of view and speaking to a friend of mine I got a third. She was "married" for seventeen years and said that relationships don't usually last that long for homosexual couples. She feels that making gay marriages legal would tie up the court system even more. Because there would be rise in the divorce rate. According to her a straight couple has difficult time making a marriage work and that a gay marriage has a more difficult time because of all the added stigma. People should have the legal right to do so if they want but I don't really know where I personally stand on the topic of gay marriage.

Follow Ups:
     Re: Gay Marriage Justin 20:17:34 3/17/99 (0)
     Re: Gay Marriage Elizabeth 19:53:35 3/17/99 (0)
     Re: Gay Marriage Mimi 15:04:21 3/17/99 (0)
     Re: Gay Marriage Dara 13:13:20 3/17/99 (0)
     Re: Gay Marriage Rebecca 11:34:25 3/17/99 (0)
     Re: Gay Marriage Emily 11:01:01 3/17/99 (1)
          Re: Re: Gay Marriage Omar 19:56:10 3/17/99 (0)

Posted by Justin on March 17, 1999 at 20:17:34:

In Reply to: Gay Marriage posted by Maria on March 17, 1999 at 10:39:57:

HMmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Well, I think that this is a losing battle for the queer community. I personally don't ever want to get married and frankly, with proper planning the queer couples do not need to be married to receive most of the benefits. In fact, for many married people they are penalized on their taxes because the joint income pushes them into a higher tax bracket making them pay more as a couple than they each would have individually. As far as inheritance rights, with proper estate (will) planning same-sex partners can inherit whatever, their beloved choses to give them. What really sucks as far as material things go is not getting time off to care for a sick loved one and have the same job protections as a married couple. However, this is being answered in both the public an private sector by Executive Orders, Municipal and County ordinances and voluntary programs in large companies. I recently notarized a friend' Domestic Partner Statement to allow his boyfriend of two years to be added on to his health Plan offered by his empolyer, Nordstroms. It was pretty cool.

Back to the problem. Marriage as an istitution is on the rocks and if gays want to join it then there is the possibility of being blamed for its failure. Further by arguing that we want the same economic "benefits" that marriage provides, our position is weakened by being framed as interest group politics. Like, "Oh, God, the gays want tax breaks now," or something like that. Its a double whammy for the queer community to approach the fight like this.

However, using a social constructionist tactic and arguing that the influence of having a state sponsored institution only recognize heterosexual couples IS damaging to queer people is a far better track. This kind of thing leads to and encourages cultural homophobia. I think that this a far better strategy in the culture wars.

There was a quote in Advocate Magazine a couple of months ago that was by John Waters (the gay film maker whose latest movie was Pecker) and I liked it then and I really like now, after taking this class:

"I just don't understand it. When I was younger, about the only good things about being gay were that you didn't have to get married and you didn't have to join the army..."

I don't want to disparage those of any gender who support marriage, all I am suggesting is a tactic or strategy for the fight in this area of the culture wars.

--Justin

Posted by Elizabeth on March 17, 1999 at 19:53:35:

In Reply to: Gay Marriage posted by Maria on March 17, 1999 at 10:39:57:

Marriage is about commitment, love, and the ability to communicate with one another. So why is there a problem for Gay couples to get married in today's society? It should no be. People, regardless of who or what they are should have the right and freedom to pursue happiness. If happiness to them is expressing their love through the sacrament of marriage, so be it. Society should not dictate who can or cannot get married. I had the choice and the freedom to marry my significant other, who happened to be a man. If I were a lesbian, I should have the same right as well!

Posted by Mimi on March 17, 1999 at 15:04:21:

In Reply to: Gay Marriage posted by Maria on March 17, 1999 at 10:39:57:

Sometimes I wonder if marriage is overrated. I've learned a lot about sociological theory and about how our society works (through women's std classes and the like), and I've discovered that marriage, and the "nuclear family" can sometimes be used
to fulfill other means. For example, before the whole 2-heterosexual-parents and 2.5 kids idea became popular, people lived in extended kinship networks. If there were problems in the family, there were more people to count on. If both parents worked, then maybe an aunt, uncle, or grandparents would take care of the kids. Sometimes friends lived together. After WWII, however, the whole idea of family structure and values came into play. There was a push for knowledge and information, which created a market for "experts". People were isolated already in there clean and freshly mowed suburban homes. So, instead of walking over to your parents' house or asking your neighbor, you would seek "expert" advice on parenting, relationships, cooking, etc. Husbands worked and wives stayed home. Of course, we all know what problems can arise with such rigid gender roles.

I'm not here to completely knock down the idea of marriage. But I think people should think about WHY they want to get married, what type of marriage they want, and who they are marrying. You shouldn't just jump into it simply because it is the "normal" and "standard" thing to do.

Mimi

Posted by Dara on March 17, 1999 at 13:13:20:

In Reply to: Gay Marriage posted by Maria on March 17, 1999 at 10:39:57:

What is marriage all about? For heterosexuals and for homosexuals. Many times love is only one factor that goes into the decision to get married. Other reasons are monetary, age limits people place on themselves, as well as ages set by society (e.g. a single 40 year-old woman is looked at oddly because she is not/has never been married), immigration reasons, and familial reasons. By not allowing homosexuals to get married, we are stigmatizing them even more. If their marriages were recognized by both the church and the state, maybe their marriages will be stronger, and thus last longer than your friend claims. When two people get married, many perks, besides the wedding bliss, accompany the marriage. The couple can file joint taxes and get tax breaks, they can share insurance policies as the "spouse" of the claim holder, they can get days off of work for their spouse's relative's funeral, they can visit their spouse in the hospital when it is "family only," and if two people fall in love - one a U.S. citizen and one not - the partner who isn't a U.S. citizan can apply for legal residency in the U.S. to live with their spouse. All these perks are allowed to heterosexual couples, and may even strengthen their marriages - when you are doing something approved by society, it is a lot easier to continue doing it. By denying homosexuals the right to marry, we are also denying them the privelleges that heterosexual couples receive, and in effect, are ranking them lower in the hierarchy of acceptance and saying it is okay to discriminate against homosexuals. It is just one more means of control that society has over the queer community. As long as we keep people in chains, how can we say we are living in a "free" country?

Posted by Rebecca on March 17, 1999 at 11:34:25:

In Reply to: Gay Marriage posted by Maria on March 17, 1999 at 10:39:57:

I just want to respond to the whole idea that gay marriage would tie up the judicial system even more. I do not think I necessarily agree with that. I mean if people want to vow to spend the rest of their lives together and whether they end up doing it or not, is their business. The divorice rate is going to be there no matter what. I would rather see two homosexuals get married than for someone who is homosexual to end up marrying someone who is not, and then they end up getting divorced anyway. I know quite a few homosexuals who have married someone who is not, and are now divorced. I mean basically what we are saying then, is for homosexuals to be alone for the rest of their lives and to not allow them marital benefits. That is wrong. I do not think any one person has the right to tell someone else, no matter what sexual orientation, who to marry. I did the analysis on gay marriage, and the website that I analyzed discussed how homosexual relationships have been viewed as necessary in other cultures. For example in the early Japanese culture, Greek and Roman cultures. I think that America is one of the onnly nations who views homosexuality as perverse. Most other cultures recognize it even as a possibility. However we say that homosexuality is corrupt and perverse. Why should we deny any human being of marital benefits? the marriage of two homosexuals does not affect the lives of anyone else, so why do we care so much? Screw the whole religious ideas, church denominations are the most corrupt institutes in existence. Who are they to judge. On the same religious note, the number one sin in the Bible is to judge others, what do we do, we judge the lives of homosexuals.

Anyway, sorry to go off into a tangent! I just think that the question of whether we should accept gay marriage or not is ignorant! Of course we should. They are humans too! Sexual orientation has nothing to do with two people loving each other.

Posted by Emily on March 17, 1999 at 11:01:01:

In Reply to: Gay Marriage posted by Maria on March 17, 1999 at 10:39:57:

About gay marriages... well, I think even if the observation that homosexual marriages may last shorter periods of time than heterosexual marriages, gay marriages should definitely be recognized and be made official. Everyone should have the right to
legally marry the person that he or she is in love with regardless if the marriage is going to last or not. I know of many heterosexual marriages that lasted for only a couple of months. How can we judge them and say that they should never have gotten marry simply because it will tie up our court systems with divorce proceedings. I feel like that everyone should have the opportunity to at least experience marriage life if they want to. Who are we to say no you can't simply because you're gay? I don't think the short term period of marriages has anything to do with homosexuality. I think it's a society problem in which everyone, both homosexuals, heterosexuals and other sexualities, needs to realize the seriousness of marriage. Some people don't realize the complexity of this life long committment and don't know what they're jumping into.

I think marriage is a wonderful and blessed opportunity and I feel everyone should have the freedom to partake in this.

Follow Ups:
Re: Re: Gay Marriage Omar 19:56:10 3/17/99 (0)

Posted by Omar on March 17, 1999 at 19:56:10:

In Reply to: Re: Gay Marriage posted by Emily on March 17, 1999 at 11:01:01:

In regards to Gay Marriages, I too agree that they should be legal and recognized. I believe that homosexuals should have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples now do and enjoy. In regards to the question that Gay Marriages would last a shorter period of time. I disagree because homosexuals haven't even had the chance to go through a legal marriage. I believe that many people assume that Gay marriages will be shortlived because many times we see that Gay relationships are short lived. I think gay relationships are short lived because in the Gay community there seems to be a lot of empahsis on just having sex and not having a long term relationship. I believe these attitudes stem from the belief among gays that they are not allowed to get married, so many believe in the "carpe-diem"(sieze-the-day) philosophy and enjoy life by having many sexual partners. In conclusion, I believe that if Gays and Lesbians are allowed to be legally married; we will see a different type of attitude developing among Gays and Lesbians, a more long term relationship minded one. I would also like to point out the reason why the "Right", doesn't want Gay marriages to be legal is because if Gays and Lesbians are in long term marriages, it would be more difficult for the "Right" to criticize and label their lifestyles as deviant and abnormal, due to the fact that marriage is morally respected.

Posted by Justin on March 21, 1999 at 13:14:38:

In Reply to: Gay Marriage posted by Maria on March 17, 1999 at 10:39:57:

HMMMMMM....

Two comment upon measuring the merits of allowing gay marriage based upon the estimated success of gay marriages. First, who
knows whether married queers would stay together as long and as frequently as heteros do, it really doesn't matter either way. As
many people are aware, the national divorce rate is 50% hmmmm doesn't really seem like a passing grade for those who are allowed to
marry. When one considers that in California, the divorce rate is over 60%, it seems to me that based upon criteria of sustainability,
then heterosexual marriage should be outlawed in CA! Further, assuming devils advocate that queer marriages would result in higher
rates of divorce, thus putting undue "burden" on the justice system, let me say something here. We may all be aware that in pursuing
legal action there are various fees that the courts (not the attornies) charge parties. However, these fees are miniscule relative to the
actual costs ($$$) to the courts for processing a typical divorce case let alone a difficult one. Most of the Court's budget comes from
taxes that everybody pays. Queers are paying into this system. Queers are "financing" heterosexual divorce and have been for years. I
think that if Queers are not allowed to marry, then they should get a tax refund, or better yet, get preferential treatment when filing
cases in court because we are forced to wait so long to get our case heard because of all of the time that is being used in the courts
for heterosexual divorce cases. That would be cool.

The point is that queers pay into a system that gives back more services to straights than to them across all economic and social
strata.

Hope this helps.

--Justin