The Fight for Marriage, and Marriage Equality

A Tale of Two States

    Coming back to roost from a season of volunteerism for pro-same-sex marriage campaigns, I honestly thought I would be writing a very different column.  The greater struggle for marriage and equality should have been in Minnesota, not in Illinois.  After all, Minnesota had Michelle Bachmann and a large Tea Party Caucus with which to contend.

    What happened?

    I propose that there are three key differences between the Minnesota experience and that in Illinois.  Minnesota did not have prior “civil unions” on which to fall back, Minnesota’s pro-same-sex marriage coalition was broad and deep, and Minnesota’s LGBTQ community is not irrevocably tied to the Democratic Party (DFL).  In fact, Libertarians and Independents formed a significant block of pro-same-sex marriage supporters in Minnesota.

    Last fall, on-line interactions between bloggist Will Kohler and IL State Representative Rita Mayfield indicate key differences between Illinois’ challenge and Minnesota’s movement from struggling to defeat an anti-gay amendment to passing full marriage equality.  Mayfield’s now famous comment is… “A civil union between two men or two women is supposed to be fundamentally the same as a civil union between a man and a women[sic]. What am I missing?”

IL Rep Rita Mayfield (D)

    Mayfield seemingly felt that gays and lesbians already had it all.  She was barraged by religious lobbyists while according to her comments, no one from her district had yet bothered to sit down with her to discuss how the differences between same-sex unions and marriage-equality impact their personal lives as her constituents. 

    In Minnesota, I watched the floor debate in Sen Jim Carlson’s office with a couple, Jim and Steve, who had personally taken the time to confront Carlson with the issue and to educate him with the real-life consequences of not being able to marry to his constituents.  Carlson admits that they changed his mind.

    To many outside of the LGBTQ community, civil unions for gays seem like a huge “gift” to a new-fangled and still too-little understood minority group. 

My 3/5’s of a Marriage

“The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans.”  Wikipedia, “Brown v Topeka Board of Education

Courtesy Wikipedia:  Street Kids confront police at Stonewall.

My ³/₅’s of a Marriage

    The trend to see civil rights, or even basic definitions of humanity, let alone citizenship, as negotiated settlements within our Constitution has impacted communities far beyond the African-American experience. 

 While the African-American community has by far born the greater share of the burden of such hypocrisy and exploitation, the victims of such attitudes have also included women, Asian-Americans and immigrants, and less formally but just as seriously, Native Americans, Latin Americans, informal enemy combatants, and the LGBTQ community.

    Misperceptions that the basic civil right of marriage equality can be a negotiated right or that an entire population group should be satisfied with something that looks like equality but really is not in fact equal, but a negotiated settlement, are only the latest manifestations of the 3/5’s rule.

    America – “land of the free?”  Not always.  Champions of equality?  Often depends on whom.

    Regrettably, throughout our history, our rhetoric has shamefully failed to live up to our reality – and that this inequality is purposeful and a choice should just piss people off! 

    Too many have bought into the system and drank the Kool-Aid™ of negotiated civil liberties.  This is a dangerous ideal and while it might be American, it is not worthy of Universalist perceptions of liberty.

    We are not alone.  Liberal Britain has recently experienced painful debates over civil rights and gay marriage.  Even France, who if anyone, has surpassed the United States in both the rhetoric and commitment to liberty, equality and the commonweal, has faced political division over the recognition of the equality of rights for the LGBTQ community.  What’s going on?

    Failing to recognize inequality is one thing – failure to act once that inequality has been identified and named is hypocrisy.

Rights and Responsibilities of Pet Spouses

    Spring is unquestionably my favorite season in Minnesota.  The weather is near-perfect; the mosquitoes have yet to hatch; and all the world is outdoors in the warming sun.  It is the time to dig out our softball equipment, to oil up our inline-skates, and to think about adopting the perfect pet.

    Cute, cuddly, faithful, and attentive to our every mood, pets offer us unconditional love, constant companionship, and a sense of security.

   

    On bright summer days, they energize us to go forth and greet the world, while on grayer days, they make good listeners, never failing to take our side, no matter how outrageous or inane our behavior.

    But, realizing that I travel far too frequently to tend to a pet adequately, I have arrived at a mature decision:  I need to be around long enough to form an adult relationship with another rperson before I endeavor to adopt a pet.

    Yes, pet ownership is healthy and desirable, but as the local Humane Society can point out, taking responsibility for a pet is a big step, a larger task than most of us realize.  Before you adopt, you need to be ready for the downside.

   

    I have had many friends who have found they lack the time, finances, or maturity to provide for their pet’s needs properly.

    Human relationships have their responsibilities as well.  They have their downs as well as their ups.

    In our current rush to pursue queer-marriage rights, we need to be aware of the same considerations.

    We agree that the queer community is ready for legalized marriage commitments, but “adopting” a spouse can make pet issues pale in comparison.  We need to identify clearly our moral and legal obligations before we pursue this human responsibility.

    Are we ready for the consequences:  divorce, alimony payments to ex-lovers, ambiguous common-law arrangements, and expensive settlement agreements?

    Do our “open-though-committed” relationships then become bigamous, polygamous, or simply adulterous?

    Should extramarital lovers be granted certain rights and recognitions?

    Should a “friend with benefits” be granted visiting rights to the cat?

    Certain gay-marriage opponents already have set their sights on the concept of no-fault divorce. L You could be stuck forever with that person you picked up at the bar – or that person with you.

    Marriage should be seen as fun and enjoyable – an arrangement to be desired.

    Just remember that when you enter into a legal commitment with someone, you cannot just shut the door on responsibility and walk away.

Original published 29 April – 12 May, 2005

Lavender Magazine, v 10 No 259

Minneapolis, Minnesota