Ironically, by overreaching with the state marriage amendments, the right wing may have provided the gay movement and progressives with an ideal starting point for just such a campaign. By showing the sheer number of households affected by such broad constitutional amendments, progressives can demonstrate just how narrow and extremist the pro-marriage agenda is. Defense of marriage amendments not only enshrine discrimination against gays and lesbians in state constitutions; they also severely curtail the freedom of intimate association exercised by Americans in nonmarried households–gay and straight alike. Indeed, a recent decision by a federal judge striking down Nebraska’s defense of marriage amendment (the first ever at the federal level) noted that Nebraska’s ban violated the rights of same-sex couples, foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements. The ban “imposes significant burdens on both…expressive and intimate associational rights” and “potentially prohibits or at least inhibits people, regardless of sexual preference, from entering into numerous relationships or living arrangements that could be interpreted as a same-sex relationship ‘similar to’ marriage,” wrote Judge Joseph Bataillon.
A campaign to expand and reform family law to account for the diversity of American households could blunt the right’s moral panic about marriage and shift the entire debate in a more useful direction. Support for such a campaign might be drawn from a variety of constituencies: young adults, who are the least likely to be married as well as the least likely to have health insurance; single parents, many of whom now choose to live together in order to share housing, childcare and other costs; the elderly, who often live together after the death of a spouse or end of a marriage; caregivers, whose ability to attend to the elderly, sick and disabled is often restricted by regulations that privilege marriage. Major corporations (almost half of which extend benefits to unmarried couples) as well as labor unions have opposed the marriage amendments on the grounds that domestic partnership agreements are necessary to provide for a diverse workforce. The nonpartisan American Law Institute has argued for blurring and eliminating distinctions between married and unmarried couples in order to simplify the laws that govern marriage, divorce and cohabitation.
That’s helpful. In a week where Spain and Canada move toward legalization of gay marriage, the theocratic right probably have their panties in an even bigger wad than usual. The Nation’s right – it’s a human rights issue, always has been, and that concept enjoys much broader support than limiting it to simply a “gay rights” issue.
Elsewhere in the article, a brand new term for married couples who have kids shows up – so by logical progression, that would make my husband David and I part of a “marital non-reproductive household.” Oh goodie, a new and politically wonky label for “childfree!”
I’m curious about another term bandied about – apparently the fundies want to bolster something called “covenant marriage.” What’s that? According to World Wide Words, it’s a way to legally reduce the divorce rate by passing laws that require pre-marital counseling, eliminate no-fault divorce, and attempt to restrict or limit any kind of legal dissolution of marriage. It’s an initiative backed and urged by the fundamentalist wing of Christianity, with several states considering legislation already.
Joy. Well, for now it sounds like an “opt-in,” but then I’m a starry-eyed optimist, right?
