Comments | saucypunk: on marriage &c.

saucypunk

on marriage &c.

Mar 26, 2007 00:15

I've been feeling particularly anti-establishment today. So I thought I'd take a minute to vomit out some thoughts on the marriage thing, and what the hell I think I'm going to be doing on August 11.

I have no interest in the concept of Marriage as an institution. My good feminist predecessors have been over this; it's all about ownership. ( Read more... )

not a wedding, marriage, gender

Comments 20

refuz March 26 2007, 05:12:08 UTC

But we are both making the choice to do this together, and that is what is important to me. That it is a choice, And that we are two individuals who want to share things, together. And you are so not owning me!

junquegrrl March 26 2007, 10:10:33 UTC

I think that the fight for same-sex marriage, rather than "civil union" or simply being able to sign PoA over to someone , is important to some because they (the legal brainiacs) have identified some 200-odd rights and privileges that come along with a marriage certificate. there are whole fuckload of hidden rights that automatically get put in place. please don't ask me what they are, it's just what i've read.
that being said, i hope when you overthrow the patriarchy, i get a party invite!!!

saucypunk March 26 2007, 12:19:55 UTC

I'm not saying that those rights shouldn't be available to everyone, I'm just saying they shouldn't be tied up with the concept of patriarchal marriage. If (hypothetically speaking) I had chosen to stay single, shouldn't I be able to grant some rights/privileges to my best friend, especially if she's closer to me than my parents?

christychristy March 26 2007, 14:05:36 UTC

Yes, of course it would be nice to be able to separate marriage from its history and from its remaining legal baggage. And perhaps to separate some of those rights from marriage all together. But on a practical level, right now, all people need marriage rights ( ... )

saucypunk March 26 2007, 17:25:33 UTC

i agree, same sex marriage should be legal right now. i'm just not going to spend my time fighting for it; i have other battles.

Thread 7

doclabyrinth March 26 2007, 13:50:29 UTC

"For the most part, husbands cannot be held legally responsible for raping their wives..."

Actually, according to my research (which is admittedly from the internets, an unreliable source) spousal rape is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

christychristy March 26 2007, 20:05:47 UTC

My unreliable internet source, the illustrious wikipedia, says:

33 of 50 U.S. states regard spousal rape as a lesser crime [Bergen, 1999]. The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault, battery or spousal abuse.

and:

From the 930 interviews conducted with women from a cross section of race and class, Russell concluded that rape in marriage was the most common yet most neglected area of sexual violence (Russell, 1990)

and then this is kind of an interesting problem:

The second problem arises on what can be called a procedural level. Whilst the law in theory may hold no distinction between a spouse or any other person, in practice when the case comes to court there will be difficulties in proving that rape in fact took place. This is due to the fact that in marriage, sexual relations are to be expected, and if the defense claims consent, then the evidential burden is a very difficult burden for the prosecution to discharge.

jennifer19 March 26 2007, 21:20:47 UTC

Be that as it may, it is almost never enforced.

saucypunk March 27 2007, 01:50:58 UTC

i stand corrected. This is true -- as of 1993.

For my purposes, here, the word "wife" is still loaded with all that history. From wikipedia, again: "This [belief in the impossibility of spousal rape] was illustrated most vividly by Sir Matthew Hale, in his classic legal trestise, Historica Placitorum Coronae, where he wrote that such a rape could not be recognized since the wife '…hath given up herself in this kinde unto her husband, which she cannot retract.'"

All legality aside, I don't want to put myself into any role that has ever been defined in that way.

crazyanimallady March 26 2007, 16:01:26 UTC

personally, i would like to get married one day and i really don't see it as an ownership thing. at least not in the kind of relationship that i would have when i got married. right now, i really feel like andrew and i have an equal partnership and that wouldn't change if we got married.

nervousmotion March 26 2007, 16:53:55 UTC

Were it not for the institution of marriage, I would have had to break up with Kári years ago because immigration law doesn't allow you to grant special status to bring over your "best friend" no matter how much you beg.

And really, whenever you talk about how oppressive marriage is, I feel a bit slapped in the face. I was never the girl dreaming of a wedding, and I didn't have a WEDDING, I didn't even have the "commitment party" that you're planning. I had some paperwork in a judge's office. And a cake.

Yes, marriage is still about a transfer of property, but in a society where that transfer includes the transfer of HEALTHCARE and immigration rights, it's still a totally necessary thing. I feel that marriage is changing into essentially a business partnership - a merger of resources if you will - which is a pretty exciting thing.

My relationship is not about ownership. It's about partnership. We're both joint CEOs, if you will.

saucypunk March 26 2007, 17:24:38 UTC

I don't mean to slight your relationship, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. All this stuff is why I, personally, am opposed to finding myself in a legally married relationship.

I completely understand why the legal benefits would outweigh principles in cases like yours, and I really do respect what you're doing in your relationship.

Personally, I want to stay as far as possible from an institution with baggage like this one has, but I recognize the possibility that maybe we'll go live in another country and want to be legal for that. One never knows.