Beyond Marriage

[markomalley]

Executive Summary (click here to read the full statement)

The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States. Conservatives are seeking to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment. But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a thirty-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources.

Meanwhile, the LGBT movement has recently focused on marriage equality as a stand-alone issue. While this strategy may secure rights and benefits for some LGBT families, it has left us isolated and vulnerable to a virulent backlash. We must respond to the full scope of the conservative marriage agenda by building alliances across issues and constituencies. Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a “wedge” issue that pits one group against another. The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families. To that end, we advocate:

Ø Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status.

Ø Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.

Ø Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.

Ø Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

· Single parent households

· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

· Blended and extended families

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.

The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary. It follows in the best tradition of the progressive LGBT movement, which invented alternative legal statuses such as domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary. We seek to build on these historic accomplishments by continuing to diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition. We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households.

We call on colleagues working in various social justice movements and campaigns to read the full-text of our statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision,” and to join us in our call for government support of all our households.

Source: Beyond Marriage

Note: the full statement and the signatories to that statement can be viewed by clicking on the above link

So, what do you think?

We had the discussion here a while ago within the (apparently) limited scope of same-sex marriage. Now these folks, apparently, want to broaden the definition of marriage even wider. To re-emphasize, they said, Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.

Are they right? Should the very concept of marriage be considered restrictive and bigoted? Should it simply be thrown out the door? Should people have official endorsement of their living arrangements regardless of what those arrangements are?

My belief? I'll share that later...because I don't want the discussion centering on my beliefs, but on their opinion of the statement given above.

[Ron G.]

The libs want laws to legitimize homosexual marriage, issue licenses to same sex couples, etc.

The cons want laws defining marriage as....well...we all know the drill.

My question is WHY does the state need to be involved in any of that? Why does a free citizen require a "license" in order to marry, shack up or anything else he/she/it wants to do?

Get the state OUT of all those issues altogether...maybe get rid of a lot of the entitlement programs...and just let people be free and do what they're gonna do, anyway.

The states job should be to provide for the common defense, arbitrate disputes and protect the integrity of private property. Anything they do beyond that is meddling.

Edited August 3, 2006 by Ron G.

[karmicdebt]

Has anyone ever calculated the cost in lost tax revenue to states and the feds if these people could file joint rather than single? Could that be more the factor than the protection of "marriage"?

Just curious...

[rhino]

My question is WHY does the state need to be involved in any of that? Why does a free citizen require a "license" in order to marry, shack up or anything else he/she/it wants to do?

I think it is the masses of lawyers figuring out rules that benefit them. They want their hands in every transaction possible ... and most politicians are lawyers ...

It is easy to get married with a minister, but when it comes to dividing assets you need a lawyer to take his cut. Then when you die, if you didn't pay a lawyer to set up a trust, lawyers will take 5 or 10% in probate. Many things you can do without a lawyer, but you risk getting taken to the cleaners by someone with an aggressive lawyer.

Overlawyered.com is good though depressing.

Why do they bury lawyers 20 feet deep?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Cause deep down they're good people.

[Bramble]

I have some friends who are a lesbian couple. They would like to be legally married. One big issue for them is the next of kin issue. If they were legally married they would be next of kin and able to make medical decisions etc for their spouse if need be. One of the ladies has a loving family, but the other has an awful family that kicked her out and has nothing to do with her--yet they are legally next of kin. They could bar her spouse from the hospital room, and from any end of life decisions. If there are legal ways around that, they are either not aware of them or not able to afford them.

Health insurance is also a big issue. Heck it has been an issue in my family adn we are legally married. A lesbiamn couple would ahve even a more difficult time with health insurance $$.

The state already is involved--inheretance laws etc.