Criticisms of HRC and the issues of addressing every civil rights issue at the same time.
I've just read lots of criticisms of the HRC and the red = sign going around. The most prevalent ones are that the HRC has a problematic history regarding trans* folks and queer POC. Both of these I agree are issues. If you want to protect the rights of the QUILTBAG, you have to protect the rights of every letter and every person represented by those letters.
Other arguments are that granting same sex marriage will diminish the fight for single people to have the same rights as married people when it comes to things like hospital visitations and the transfer of property after death and child care issues, etc. That marriage is a conservative, misogynistic institution made for cisgendered Christian middle class white people and negatively affects everyone who is not represented by that. That it takes away from the issue of homeless queer youth and undocumented immigrants and the targeting of black and latino men by the criminal justice system, and other queer issues such as workplace discrimination, etc. And all of these are very good issues and things that I agree need to be addressed. What I don't understand is how supporting one cause diminishes the need to address and change the other causes. Why do the criticisms see it as a all or nothing, either or situation? Why can't you both support same sex marriage and want single people to be able to visit their SO in the ICU? Why can't you want marriage equality and be worried about the inequalities faced by low income POC, as well? It just doesn't make sense to me. How is granting one group equal rights in one area of society denying another group equal rights in another?
I agree that marriage, as a legal institution, is overpowered. A couple shouldn't be granted extra rights just because they signed a piece of paper. I faced these issues when Danny died because, as we weren't married, I was not allowed to ride with him in the ambulance or helicopter, I was only allowed in the ICU because his family allowed it, there was no financial assistance available to me when the household income was suddenly cut in half, I had no say in his funeral arrangements (which is something that really upset me, as it made it perfectly clear that he wanted to be cremated and his family buried him, anyway). That piece of paper, or lack thereof, didn't define our relationship, and if it weren't for those legal rights granted by that piece of paper, I honestly wouldn't even want to get married. I'm not religious, I don't think that it's necessary to prove commitment, and, if such weight wasn't put on it by society, I wouldn't have had to deal with all of the comments that the grief I felt didn't matter because we weren't really a serious couple because we weren't married. That somehow, it we were married, I would, I don't know, feel worse? Feel even more lost and suicidally depressed? Be even more confused as to where to go and how to change the plans I had made for my life?
However, this will never change. There is no way that marriage will never stop being a legal institution as it was conceived as a legal institution. There is no way that society as a whole will stop giving marriage a special weight that a 'single' committed relationship doesn't have because it was started as such. So, imo, there's no use fighting that battle. There is, however, use in making sure that everyone has the opportunity to get those rights. And, at this moment, the way to do that is to support marriage equality and make sure everyone who does want to get married, can get married. Make sure that people are safe within the confines of the system we have right now. The next step, then, is to work on changing society's views on marriage and how these rights affect those who choose not to. How they affect poly couples. And how we can grant every romantic relationship the same legal protections that married people have. Conservative abortion law bullshit aside, we're not in the business of taking away rights, we're in the business of granting them and making sure that there is equality in this country. Sometimes it just takes time, though.
I've seen criticisms that this mindset is what pushes other issues to the background, and maybe it is. However, we can't bombard lawmakers with everything at once. It's too much static. It is only possible to address one issue at a time. Some are being pushed to the foreground, it's true, but that doesn't take away from the importance that other issues have. It just means that we can only do so much at one time. It's pretty much impossible to chew gum, hoolah hoop, jump on one foot, pat your head and rub your stomach, and recite the Gettysburg address all at once (though I'd love to see a youtube video of someone trying).
At this time, as I, as a cisgendered woman who is dating a cisgendered man, the marriage equality issue doesn't directly affect me. That doesn't mean that I don't think it isn't important. The issue of granting legal rights to 'single' couples does directly affect me, but I don't think that it is more important than the marriage equality issue. I also don't think it's more important than the issues surrounding undocumented immigrants or homeless queer youths or low income POC or young latino and black men who are targeted by the criminal justice system. I don't think that the issue of abortion laws or rape culture are more or less important than any of these other issues, either. They're all bad and they all need to be addressed. There should be a continual dialogue and a continual push for reform. We just can't do everything at once. And I don't think that it makes anyone less of an ally to realize that.