Why Are Heterosexuals Marginalised By Current Marriage Laws?
October 30th 2006 22:46
Category: No Category
In reaffirming marriage as a heterosexual-only institution, heterosexuals only continue to marginalise their sexual preference by limiting their ability to grow and expand their understanding of love, sexuality and commitment. There are as many ways of loving someone as there are people, and to de-emphasise the validity of one type of love is to punish heterosexuals with the notion that their unions are somehow more tenable than that of homosexuals. Current marriage laws relegate same-sex marriage to a second-class status, which makes people like me (young bisexual/pansexual/pomosexual women) lose interest in the institution of marriage. I'm not interested in having marriage as an option if it's conditional. Heck, I'm not interested in marriage to begin with, as I'm not that interested in having my partnerships validated by third parties.
(Part of what makes heterosexuality unattractive to me is that it has an unfortunate history as ‘conventional’. Interesting as it may be, I am turned off by the baggage that accompanies romantic relations between men and women. If there’s anything being attracted to both women and men, coming out and becoming a gay rights activist has taught me, it’s that finding yourself romantically intrigued by another is a unique phenomenon, and nothing makes love more stagnant than an expectation that it should unfold within some ill-advised, society-endorsed boundaries. The people I fall in love with are people who treat every individual as a potential romantic interest, as they know that it's possible to fall in love with anyone- or anything (such as the idea of falling in love in the first place).)
Unfortunately not having access to marriage means gay couples don't have access to the same kind of financial security, the right to legally participate in the concept of 'family' or automatic go-to power in case something goes wrong, also various other sorts of services (such as the ability for your partner to immigrate via marriage if they are of a different nationality), which is why I support the idea of gay marriage... and besides, if gay people also want to buy into the idea that a formal ritual will somehow enhance/re-inforce their relationship, they should have the same right to rejoice in the social construction of marriage as is currently being afforded to straights.
What do you think?
P.S. Want to read up on the latest press relating to same-sex marriage?
Go to the Williams Institute in the UCLA School of Law's homepage.
Unfortunately not having access to marriage means gay couples don't have access to the same kind of financial security, the right to legally participate in the concept of 'family' or automatic go-to power in case something goes wrong, also various other sorts of services (such as the ability for your partner to immigrate via marriage if they are of a different nationality), which is why I support the idea of gay marriage... and besides, if gay people also want to buy into the idea that a formal ritual will somehow enhance/re-inforce their relationship, they should have the same right to rejoice in the social construction of marriage as is currently being afforded to straights.
P.S. Want to read up on the latest press relating to same-sex marriage?
Go to the Williams Institute in the UCLA School of Law's homepage.
| 64 |
| Vote |
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
In the eyes of the government, you're already married if you live together.
The only purpose to getting married is, apparently, to have some iron-clad law preventing your partner from running away.
What do you mean by pornosexual? Aren't we all?
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Being married means that your fortune/belongings are seen as linked to another, so if something should happen to your spouse you automatically inherit their personal effects. I've read of a lot of sad stories of ppl who haven't been able to gain access to their lover's possessions upon their death as they automatically go to their closest family member/s, and the family may or may not recognise their bond.
Also, if you were to meet someone from another country and wished to live with them, marriage allows one of the spouses to immigrate and gives you the opportunity to become a citizen of your adopted nation. Not so if your partner is of the same sex.
These are the only reasons I think gay people should have the right to get married- equal rights issues. If civil unions carried teh same weight then I'd support them, but I see them as a MarriageLite affair.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc