I am a lesbian in a committed 5+ year relationship with my girlfriend, and I am not interested in marriage.
When I was younger and didn't know that I was allowed to be attracted to other women, I was in a relationship with a man for some time. We met in high school, lived together and were one of those stable couples. I did not want to marry him. In fact, there was a point when I first learned about common law marriage and I just started to panic: "What is it? What is it? Get it off me! Do we have it here? Are we married? I don't want to be married!" (we were in California at the time and I don't think there was common-law marriage there). My usual response about marriage at that time was that I needed to learn more about all the cultural baggage it carried in order to decide whether I felt okay about it, and I didn't have time to learn all of that, so I would stick with my feeling of being a little creeped out by it but not really understanding why.
You could argue that I didn't want to marry him because I am a lesbian, and I am actually romantically and sexually attracted to women, and he was not a woman. It's true that this was the situation. So that's a fine argument -- except that now I am in a long-term relationship with a woman and marriage still holds no appeal to me.
What does appeal to me is being able to visit each other in the hospital if we need to. Not facing violence walking down the street. Not being afraid that when I make a will and medical directives, I can't do it DIY and cheaper because what if something goes wrong. Stuff like that.
My girlfriend and I have been talking about marriage since Election Day. We are supposed to feel upset that our state, Arizona, passed a "marriage is one man and one woman" initiative to amend the state constitution, that California passed Prop 8. We are supposed to feel like this because the movement says that this is how lesbians are supposed to feel.
Myself, I feel elated by the results of the Presidential race on Nov 4. Holy shit do I feel elated. My heart is soaring and there are depths to my response that I can't even talk about to anyone but this woman I am in a relationship with, because no one else would actually understand.
And I don't feel like I am supposed to feel about the initiatives. I just feel upset that people like me, who don't yearn for marriage, don't really exist for a movement so focused on marriage and so determined to make the case that they speak for all of us (marriage rights = liberation for gay people, that's the association of the movement) -- when in actual fact they do NOT.
So now I'm going to go somewhere that might hurt people to read -- I'm going to question in a way that may hurt. You have been warned.
So.
Here is the statement of the people who are opposed to same-gender marriage: "Marriage is one man and one woman."
What if, what if ... what if we just accepted their statement as a definition of what marriage is?
What if it's true, that marriage is one man and one woman? Why would it be the situation that you have this status that requires one member of one gender and one member of another? Why are the roles themselves gendered -- husband and wife? What is this relationship that requires one man and one woman? How does such a thing work? What is its history? What does gender have to do with this marriage thing, anyway?
I suspect that if we were to map out what the "protectors of marriage" really mean by this word, and if we were to map the actual historical context of what marriage has been in the culture that the United States was born from (European), we would have in front of us something that might not be so appealing to everyone. I suspect if we were to focus on the truth of what this thing is that we gay people are supposed to covet (rather than the fairy-tale-like illusions spun from images of happy couples and weddings) ... I suspect that marriage might not be so widely appealing. I could be wrong, but I feel strongly that there is some ugly truth that is covered up, glossed over, by the "well they have it, so we should too, it's only fair" approach of the marriage equality movement.
As for me -- as far as I'm concerned, the heterosexuals who are so concerned about protecting marriage can have it, can have this thing that requires one man and one woman, with all its implications about how males and females should relate to each other in families.
I myself would like to see a movement that promotes civil unions as a real and clearly explained option for couples -- gay or straight -- who aren't interested in the one-man-one-woman marriage as promoted by the "protect marriage" heterosexuals.
The day after the election, my girlfriend heard a couple of McCain supporters on the bus talking about how no one could take away their values. When she told me what she had heard, she added this insight: Sure, no one can take away their values, but will their values be appealing enough to the newer generations to survive past their lives? Maybe not.
We can try to make change by fighting for access to something that in and of itself is quite possibly dying -- we can try to make change by fighting for access to this thing and changing what it is to give it more energy and more life.
Or, we can try to make change by finding and promoting other alternatives that just may kill off the "one man one woman" structure, with all of its historical implications of European cultural hierarchy, by rendering it unattractive to many people, gay or straight, when there may be other options.
But. Wait a minute -- isn't that what the "protect marriage" people are so afraid of? The death of their "one man one woman" institution with all of its cultural and historical implications?
Well, I guess they should be glad I'm not in charge of the gay rights movement, then. In fact, they should be glad that as far as that movement is concerned, someone like me doesn't even exist.