> I'm sympathetic toward Michael Warner's view, but I believe gay men &
> lesbians who want the right to marry are not so much in quest of
> illusions of normality, respectability, etc. as in need of social &
> economic rights & privileges that the state automatically grants to
> married partners, e.g., in health insurance, social security,
> immigration, visitation, adoption, alimony, & inheritance.
<snip>
If Warner wants marriage not to be
> portrayed as "better than other ways of living," he needs to attack
> the material foundation that makes marriage the privileged unit of
> social reproduction.
True, to a point, but I still think two mitigating factors must be acknowledged. First, Warner suggests that by including gays and lesbians into the marriage dynamic, it not only elevates their standard of living, but further denegrates the status and standard of living of any who do *not* choose to marry, making choice as much a lightning rod for potential social judgement towards non-marrying G/Ls as others.
Second, the benefits of state-sanctioned marriage are there, yes, especially as it may relate to entitlement programs. But there currently exist many legitimate legal avenues to protect financial and medical concerns for GLTBs that are never exercised! The number of GLTB people pushing for legal marriage who have never even sought to draft a will or a durable power of attorney to protect their joint interests or legal contracts establishing real estate partnerships is frightening! These actions are far simpler to invoke than turning an entire legislative body around, yet so few take advantage of it. As such, I am left to wonder how many really are motivated by fiscal and physical concerns instead of romantic, "normal-affirming" notions of a magic bullet cure.
- Deborah Rogers
____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1