[lbo-talk] Gay marriage

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Thu Nov 13 20:37:24 PST 2008


Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, John Thornton wrote:
>
>> No one has yet to explain to me why marriage today is such a horrible
>> institution.
>
> Well you know the answer to that, John. The same connection to
> history going back to Urshlim that gays like, feminists loathe. For
> gays it's the magic of being part of a history from which they've
> always been excluded. For women, the word represents exactly the
> historical institution in which they've long been imprisoned, and as a
> global category of people, still largely are.
>
> Again the word has a heft independent of the rights. No one argues
> you don't need family law. And no one argues you can't modify
> marriage so it means something very different. But many feminists I
> know would be more than happy with laws which signified the liberatory
> intention to make a break with this feudal-and-worse past by burying
> the term.
>
> Michael

But my question is what today, right now, makes marriage a bad institution in a legal way? Of course I know the historical baggage but I cannot think of a better way to legally accomplish what marriage does today. Since the terms mean has already been modified into something vastly different than it was 100 years ago I don't see the need to bury it. I'd be willing to wager that a great many people today do not really know the historic baggage the word carries. People claim it's a tradition without really knowing what that tradition consisted of before their parents or grandparents time.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list