I am taking a personal stand for 10% of Americans shut out of the institution of marriage.
I have been thinking about this for a while, and it all came together for me last Saturday, when I saw my cousin Katie get married. I believe in marriage equality. I believe that just as religion and ethnicity are no longer a bar to marriage, that gender identity should no longer be a bar to marriage.
More below the flip.
In places like Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, this is reality. But everywhere else, and on a national level thanks to the vile "Defense Of Marriage Act" (sic) if two consenting adults of the same gender identity want to commit to each other for as long as the love lasts, they can't do it. Just as President Barack Obama's parents would not have been recognized in the majority of US States as married when they tied the knot in Hawaii in 1961, their marriage will not be recognized.
I do not begrudge Cousin Katie and my new Cousin Darren their union and their love. They made a choice they could make. But if Cousin Katie was in love with and wanted to marry someone named Doris or Daria she could not do it here in the state of California. They could go to some Jewish Rabbis and have a "commitment ceremony." They could become "registered domestic partners" in this state, with almost total parity under California State law with married couples. But as far as absolute, total parity under California State law, those who are "registered domestic partners" are not quite there.
Also, if a heterosexual couple under 62 years of age wanted to register as domestic partners, they would be refused that status. This means that heterosexuals who are disabled and in fear of losing their benefits if they marry cannot opt for the same status that those of Social Security retirement age can. This also means that those heterosexuals that want to protest the current unequal state of marriage in California cannot opt for registering as domestic partners.
Dr. Kinsey first discovered that 10% of Americans are gay, lesbian, or bisexual in the 1940s. There wasn't such a thing as transgender then, although I am sure there were people who believed they were born the wrong gender. At that point, nothing could be done for them. Things are different now, of course.
This means that the 90% of us who are heterosexual are potentially the recipient of special rights that 10% of us are shut out from because of their gender identity. Yes, I said special rights. Reverend Lou Sheldon coined that vicious phrase in 1978 when he advocated the Briggs Initiative, designed to keep GLBT teachers out of public schools. But one can accurately say that this is a classic case of what Psychology calls "projection," because it is heterosexual married couples who have the special rights.
If you visit this website, you will be able to read, in PDF form, a list of over 1,000 special rights and protections given to heterosexual married couples over gay couples. This is a list prepared by no less an authority than the Government Accountability Office. (GAO) It is estimated that the additional costs of being a gay couple run between around $41,000 over their lifetime in the best case scenario, to at worst over $460,000. This dwarfs the vaunted IRS "Marriage Penalty" which only takes a few thousand dollars over a given married couple's lifetime. Most of this cost, save for the medical and legal costs of artificial insemination and surrogacy, would be wiped out if DOMA was repealed and GLBT marriage was allowed in all 50 states.
As a person whose preference is that of the opposite gender identity, and as a person who spent 20 years married to her soulmate only to lose him to the cruel blood cancer known as Multiple Myeloma, if I had known then what I know now I would reluctantly had opted not to marry. I would have lived together with my beloved Richie, and we would have probably spent the same amount of time with each other because we loved each other so much.
And so, I am making this vow, right here, right now, a vow as strong and unbreakable as I believe my vows to my late husband were.
I will not remarry until every consenting adult can pair up with another consenting adult and form a legally and spiritually binding dyad entirely and completely equal to traditional marriage.
I do not believe that granting such rights to 10% of the population diminishes, in any way, shape or form, traditional marriage. Richie and I took to heart the words of Thomas Jefferson, when he spoke of the supposed threat of atheism and polytheism. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg," was his response to that "threat." GLBT marriage neither picked our pockets nor broke our legs.
We did not believe our marriage was threatened by homosexuals having the same rights as we had. As a matter of fact, we thought it a good thing because HIV/AIDS was running rampant, and one of the best ways to avoid it is mutual fidelity in an monogamous relationship after thorough HIV testing. Marriage does indeed reward faithfulness. Why should it be limited to heterosexuals?
I guess it can be argued, "If you allow gay marriage, why not polyamorous marriage?" If we are indeed talking about consensual polyamory I suppose that's ok, but the trouble with enshrining in law a union of more than one mate per person is that the history of polygamy as it is practiced in real life around the world is the history of polygynous polygamy. It is a history intertwined with Patriarchy and the abuse and exploitation of women. On the other hand, polyandrous polygamy is rarely practiced, and is a historic outlier. It would just be far too complex to tease out the exploitative relationships from the truly loving polyamorous relationships. So insisting on two consenting adults in such a relationship is a necessary safeguard from creating a framework that could legalize an exploitative situation.
And the slippery slope argument, usually made by religious conservatives, that if same-gender marriage is allowed eventually humans will be able to marry animals is truly disingenuous. Aside from humans and a few primates taught to sign, there are no animals that can communicate anything resembling consent. And only humans can truly consent, because it is unclear whether chimps and gorillas can understand complex, intangible concepts like consent. In fact, when I was at Woodbury University getting my BA in Psychology two of my professors had done studies about the whole concept of "informed consent" in research, and whether a person is capable of actually giving such without power relationships getting in the way. If there is question about how capable human beings are of giving truly informed consent, then animal consent is truly an absurd concept.
And let's get practical here. The wedding I attended must have cost a metric tonne of money. The venue was a historic and very expensive hotel in the heart of Beverly Hills. There was not just a band at the reception, but a full-on REVUE which consisted of a swing band AND a funk band with multiple vocalists. There was a spread of hors d'oevres and amuse bouchees, then a full on sit-down dinner. The flower budget alone must have been in the thousands. Allow same-gender marriage, and the economy will get a major shot in the arm. Think a little in particular about gay male stereotypes, and the truths behind them. There will be an arms race in West Hollywood and Pacific Heights for the most FABULOUS weddings. We saw a little of that during the brief period when same-gender marriage was legal in California. In a time when a Democratic President and Congress hasn't got the guts to pass an adequate stimulus package to get us out of the financial doldrums, same-gender marriage will be a tonic to the economy. Why should only Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont get the money? We are missing out every day since Proposition 8 was passed by a slim majority of religious bigots.
So again, I reiterate my vow. I will not remarry until every consenting adult can pair up with another consenting adult and form a legally and spiritually binding dyad entirely and completely equal to traditional marriage. If Mr. Right comes along, he'll have to live with this.