Beyond Marriage
As some of you may have heard, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled the other day that the state's Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as occurring between one man and one woman and is intended to discriminate against gays and lesbians -- and let's not even mention polyamorists!
Or should we mention polyamorists? And much, much more! Dan Savage, on the Stranger's blog, has pointed to a statement from beyondmarriage.org called Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships: '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.'
I've only read the executive summary of their statement, but I find their list of non-traditional (or should I say non-nuclear?) households that are worthy of state recognition and support to be fascinating. Amongst other things, they list "Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers," which might just describe my situation with D. We've joked before that it's like we're married, except without the sex. In any event, it's an interesting -- albeit radical -- attempt to broaden the scope of the marriage rights discussion.
Or should we mention polyamorists? And much, much more! Dan Savage, on the Stranger's blog, has pointed to a statement from beyondmarriage.org called Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships: '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.'
I've only read the executive summary of their statement, but I find their list of non-traditional (or should I say non-nuclear?) households that are worthy of state recognition and support to be fascinating. Amongst other things, they list "Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers," which might just describe my situation with D. We've joked before that it's like we're married, except without the sex. In any event, it's an interesting -- albeit radical -- attempt to broaden the scope of the marriage rights discussion.