Abstract

Gay Marriage: Sidestep on Freedom's Path

The author argues that gays should be fighting for civil unions, not marriage. [E]xultation about the gay marriages cemented in San Francisco, counties in Oregon and New Mexico, and some cities in New York is misplaced. Why rejoice when state and church extend their grip, which is what marriage is all about? Assimilation is not liberation, and the invocation of "equality" as the great attainment of these gay marriages should be challenged. Marriage diverts us from the path of necessary reform. Civil union, today lawful only in Vermont, is what makes sense as a national cause. Unmarried couples, straight or gay, need to be able to secure joint property, make safe wills, have hassle-free hospital visits and so forth. But issues of hospital visits or healthcare should have nothing to do with marriage, and marriage as a rite should have nothing to do with legal rights. There's a fork in the road for progressives. One path is sameness, expanding a troubled institution to same-sexers. But that path detours the real problems of relationships today and their official recognition. As a generation of feminists and the divorce rate attest, marriage is in sore trouble. Civil union across the country would help to level a playing field that's become increasingly uneven. Gay marriage is a step back in the march toward freedom. Civil unions for all!