Gay vs Straight Marriage - Yes or No Poll

[Amy Z]

It never fails.  If I want topics I love to proliferate on this list, 
all I have to do is step away from my computer for 10 days.  

I now log on, appropriately enough, from the Bay Area to find a 
fascinating discussion on gay marriage. 

Amanda wrote:

> I hear way too much "we should get
> the same stuff hetero marriages get" without (in most cases) a 
commensurate
> burden. 

Well, having just departed the only state in the union that has gay 
divorce, I hear quite a lot about the burdens as well as 
the "stuff."  It's not the part you hear about in an op-ed piece 
arguing for gay marriage, but it's a very well-understood part of the 
package.  After all, everyone knows that married couples are 
penalized by the tax sytem (I thought they got rid of that, but I 
guess it hasn't kicked in yet, because in April I noticed that once 
again our standard deduction was less than it would be if we were 
single *fume*).

Most of us don't pay much attention to either the pros or the cons of 
the bundle of civil contracts that are legal marriage.  In my 
experience, hetero couples don't get the piece of paper because they 
want the 1000 privileges that go along with that legal contract; they 
just do it because it's what most people do when they love someone 
and intend to be their partner for life, and because they think that 
if you want the orange blossoms and the white cake, you automatically 
do the trip to city hall as well.  

In fact, of course, the two things are totally separate, and hetero 
couples are often unpleasantly surprised to discover some of the fine 
print, e.g. that the state has the right to adjudicate the terms of 
property and custody arrangements if they get divorced.  That's all 
in the piece of paper we call a marriage certificate, but most people 
don't know that, nor give it a thought unless and until it becomes 
relevant to them, just as most people take for granted that they have 
durable power of attorney, inheritance rights, etc. vis-a-vis their 
spouse.  It's only those who cannot sign that contract who insist 
upon its value.  

That, IMO, is the reason gay rights activists harp on the legal 
rights and responsibilities of civil marriage--not because that's all 
marriage means, but because it is the part of the meaning of marriage 
that is denied to same-sex couples.  The spiritual and emotional 
aspects, though they are more important to the vast majority of 
married couples (gay or hetero), have been carried out by same-sex 
couples since time immemorial, even without the blessing of 
legislatures and courts.  If you hear about those bits, therefore, 
it's within the confines of a church, where some may press their 
religion to create ceremonies to recognize the sacredness of their 
relationships while others maintain that those relationships are far 
from sacred.  That isn't a matter for the courts to decide, thank 
heaven.  And you won't hear it much in your church, Amanda.  Go to a 
church where it's under debate, say your fellow Catholics <grin> of 
the Anglican communion, and you'll hear a lot about the real meaning 
of marriage, beyond any talk of legal rights and obligations. 

BTW, bboy, "Gay vs Straight Marriage" itself seems a misnomer, with 
its implication that one competes with the other (pardon me if this 
has been said already; I'm catching onto the thread late).  I'm 
bisexual, and find it both bizarre and disturbing that the rights I 
take for granted in my marriage to a man would be denied me if I were 
married to a woman.  In short, that they are not rights in the eyes 
of our government, but privileges bestowed upon those in heterosexual 
relationships.

Amy Z