regarding this. sort of disappointingly predictable, but there you go.
John Francis wrote: Dear Ms. Axel-Lute:
I read with interest your recent article entitled The Power of “Wife” In the article you say that:
[The words] “married,” “wife,” and “husband” have still got some power. (paraphrase)
I would contend that the ‘free marriage movement’ is destined to strip these words of their power. The very power that the non-conventional groupings like yours are trying to sieze, is the very power that this movement is undermining. That’s exactly why regular, non freaky-deaky, married couples are so intent on crushing the movement.
As a single person, I sometimes also resent the power and prestige that ordinary married couples are afforded in our society. But I feel that because these unions can produce children, they deserve some special treatment and respect from society. I also think that unions that cannot produce children should not be treated with the same deference.
What if I were to say that my ‘husband’ is a canary, and that we should be treated with equal rights, the same as any other married couple? I think this is a slippery slope that will lead to the disempowerment of the words with which everyone is clamoring to describe themselves. It seems like it’s all driven by insecurity and low self-esteem.
"To force a word into currency can be a revolutionary act" ~ Richard Rodriguez (complete article attached)
John
John,
I think my previous article on the subject may address some of your concerns and the reasons I think expanding recognition of family relationships is about the best interests of society, not just those of people in unconventional ones.
But here are a couple specific responses:
It's silly to say that people can't tell the difference between people and animals. "Consenting adults" is a perfectly firm boundary, easy to draw clearly.
As for unions that can produce children--if you are willing to deny marriage to sterile couples, old couples, and couples that don't want to have any kids, then you can have that argument. Otherwise, it's a red herring. I should also point out that my particular marriage could, if we chose, churn out children faster than any heterosexual couple, so you're on thin ice there too. Not to mention that plenty of same-sex couples not only have kids but are raising adopted children--a quite legit social value, as important for the health of society as just creating more children.
I'd be quite happy if the government abandoned the words all together and left it to the religions and individuals to define. Just as "wife" has survived transitioning beyond a meaning that involved possession as chattel, I think it would survive this transition as well. But as long as gov't is overseeing this institution and the words associated with it, they need to think about reasonable ways to allocate it and its benefits, not ones based on knee-jerk bias, which you have not yet proven to me that yours are not.
Best,
Miriam
---
Dear Miriam,
I found your Metroland columns about your unique marriage to be very interesting. I'm divorced and tend to be anti-marriage, but that's just me. Although I am usually politically conservative and vote for Republican party candidates (although I'm not registered in a party), I take the Libertarian view on marriage. My thoughts are this:
1. Marriage is a religious institution, not a government institution, and the religious groups who conduct and recognize marriage can set their own rules. (Churches can ban gay marriage, government should not.)
2. I don't know why government must be involved in a personal living arrangement. Why involve government in your life more than necessary? Why can't marriage be a simple legal contract drawn up by lawyers and signed in the presence of witnesses? It would not be necessary to file this document with the government. But, if government is involved, then it must be equal to all. If government can't promise that equality, then get out of the business.
3. Those who support traditional marriage between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all other types should actually live up to the ideals of marriage themselves- permanent and unconditional commitment and fidelity. Don't be a hypocrite and oppose non-traditional marriage types when you don't even practice marriage properly yourself.
4. Don't put down those people in living arrangements who are not permitted to marry because they are not married! I always love it when people talk about others being trashy when they support the prohibition which would allow these people to live the mainstream marriage life if only those people opposed would allow them to do it. Also don't call others trashy when you are married and not living up to your commitment- see #3 above.
5. You don't have to approve of other living arrangements to accept their legality. The world is not going to hell just because you think it is.
6. Get out of my bedroom. It's none of your business unless I leave the door open.
Brad
Albany, NY