In times like these, when many people's rights and benefits are shrinking, it's easy for the Right to set us at each other's throats. And if the past is any guide, that's just what we're in for, as Radical religionists fire up their engines against gay marriage. The arguments will be cast in terms of choices and morality, but what it is, make no mistake, is wedge politics.

As the attack on same sex marriage takes off, we're likely to hear all about difference: what entitles some people to the rights and benefits offered by the state -- and not others. But marriage isn't about difference. It's about a common longing to be part of communities that love and care for us. In stressed-out times, that longing for connection -- and protection -- grows particularly sharp. "Belonging's only for some," say some. "Let us in!" say scared-to-death outsiders.

Which brings us to wedge politics. It's great for the state of California to welcome a new group of people into the community of those whose partnerships the state helps and protects. Thanks to the Supreme Court of California and the movements that have pushed this issue forward, the door of belonging has been shoved open a bit. But winning marriage equality in order to access benefits and rights doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot if those longed-for benefits and rights are gurgling down the economic drain or entering the government's shredder.

To counter all that rationing of rights, what's needed is strategic thinking, not just about how to defend letting some in through the benefits-door, but how to throw the door wide open. We could dis-empower the wedge-thinkers, for example, if we started with the premise that we all belong and we all have rights. Have your weddings, but lets wise up to wedges, and defend our rights to communities that love and care for all, married and unmarried.

You can see this commentary and a panel discussion about gay marriage with writer/activist Kenyon Farrow and others today on GRITtv at GRITtv.org. Or watch on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415, directly following Democracy Now!)

Comments (24)

1. I welcome the thinking reflected in this post. I love the invitation to all of us to defend our right to communities that love and care for all, married and unmarried.

   I am very happy to see all the committed gay couples that wish to be married to be able to do so. Honest. As an attorney, I am mindful of the economic and legal benefits that inure to someone with the status of being married and I understand why citizens would want equal access to those benefits.

   I don't understand why gay couples who are, essentially, cultural outsiders, want into the dominator cultural paradigm of marriage. A cursory research of the history of marriage in our common law makes it readily clear that marriage as a legal 'right' evolved to preserve the economic interests of males, i.e. humans with penises. I understand, I think, the impulse to commit to hanging in there with one person, no matter what life throws. Yes, I think that would be an awesome institution to have in society. We all face the slings and arrows of life and heck yeah it's great to have committed partners.

   I don't understand why gay people want into an institution that is the core unit of our dominator culture. I guess I expect outsiders to want better culture. . . but I guess I can also understand the seemingly universal impulse to fit in.

   Given that we live in this dominator culture, yes, I see why they want access to the rights and benefits of the central cultural unit, which is marriage.

   Posted by TreeFitz at 06/17/2008 @ 6:39pm

2. Look, don't really need a lot of sociology or "dominator culture" talk...

   gay marriage is simply the application of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution on a governmental legal contract between two adults.

   Posted by Mask at 06/17/2008 @ 8:10pm

3. Lesbian couple seeking country's first same-sex divorce

   Last Updated: Thursday, July 22, 2004 | 9:26 AM ET

   CBC News

   A lesbian couple in Ontario may face problems getting what is believed to be Canada's first same-sex divorce because the law limits divorce to male-female couples.

   The two women, identified only as M.M. and J.H., were married in Ontario on June 18, 2003, a week after Ontario's Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriage.

   They separated five days later.

   However, the Divorce Act, which is federal legislation, defines spouses as "either of a man or a woman who are married to each other.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/17/2008 @ 8:41pm

4. • Night and day, you are the one •

   • Only you beneath the moon or under the sun •

   • Whether near to me, or far •

   • Its no matter darling where you are •

   • I think of you •

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/17/2008 @ 8:45pm

5. Anyone here wanna make a wager neither presidential candidate will touch that issue with a thirty-nine and a half foot poll?

   Posted by ACook at 06/17/2008 @ 8:49pm

6. Ooops, I meant to say "pole"....hehe

   Posted by ACook at 06/17/2008 @ 8:51pm

7. The Freudian slip is rather entertaining ACook, however both have weighed in on this issue and more than likely won't pick it up. Watch their peripherals hammer on it from both sides though.

   Posted by yutsano at 06/17/2008 @ 9:01pm

8. Why would outsiders want better culture? They share the same religions, politics, pop culture, etc as the rest of us. They are us, their just screwed out of irrational hatred.

   Posted by shadow master at 06/17/2008 @ 9:01pm

9. Posted by ACook at 06/17/2008

   Probably not, but given Kerry AND Bush endorsed civil unions in 2004...the tide has definitely moved away from openly opposing SOME form of same-sex contract.

   Posted by Mask at 06/17/2008 @ 9:22pm

10. Thanks for the lyrics to the wonderfully memorable "Night and Day" Frosty Zoom, and I think it well expresses the tolerance for, and understanding of "difference" at its most general.

    Live and let live is a moral dictum, but same-sex couples, like the rest of us, live practical lives and therefore shouldn't suffer from unfairly discriminatory policies which the legal bond of marriage rightly, humanely abrogates.

    Posted by lewwelge at 06/17/2008 @ 10:44pm

11. fun interview, brief, with Gore Vidal in last sunday's NYTimes magazine.

    asked how his partnership lasted 40 plus years, he answered: there was no sex.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2008 @ 10:54pm

12. asked how his partnership lasted 40 plus years, he answered: there was no sex.

    Posted by emile duBois

    egad!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/17/2008 @ 11:04pm

13. King James- Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us...

    Personally I don't think my opinion is important. I have no expertise. Let these couples break new ground. Life's learning.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/18/2008 @ 12:31am

14. Which rights are shrinking? Please be specific Laura. As far as gay marriage goes, I don't see why the government should endorse or give benefits to any couple because of marriage.

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/18/2008 @ 07:29am

15. Which rights are shrinking? Please be specific Laura. As far as gay marriage goes, I don't see why the government should endorse or give benefits to any couple because of marriage.

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/18/2008

    That's an interesting stance. I don't think I have seen anyone take it before. Most people are either saying gays shouldn't be able to get married so they shouldn't get rights, gays should have civil union but not mariage or gays should be able to do everything. You say no one should get rights from marriage. I can't say I'm opposed to that. Just an interesting stance.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/18/2008 @ 12:28pm

16. "... You say no one should get rights from marriage. I can't say I'm opposed to that. Just an interesting stance." -- Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/18/2008

    It is a common position among the more radical libertarian and anarchist types -- the State should not control or interfere with voluntary personal arrangements, nor should it force other people to give them special recognition.

    Posted by Anarcissie at 06/18/2008 @ 2:34pm

17. The whole gay marrige argument is because repugs just want to get their idiots to the polls to bash gays and while they're at it keep the frightening black guy out of power.

    The vast majority of americans and all true americans are not against marriage for gays.

    Obama is the answer!

    Posted by ginza00 at 06/18/2008 @ 4:00pm

18. • Night and day, you are the one, I f**k up the **s

    • Only you beneath the moon or under the sun, you f**k me up the **s

    • Whether near to me, or far •

    • Its no matter darling where you are •

    • I think of you, f**king me up the **S

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2008 @ 4:13pm

19. ah, the gay divorcee....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 @ 10:36pm

20. "Throwing the door open" is the way to go. Americans now spend more years of their adult life unmarried than married. It is unworkable (and unfair) to funnel so many benefits and protections through marriage. Same-sex marriage lets more people in on the benefits but there are now more than 90 million Americans, 18 and older, who are single.

    A new book by law professor Nancy Polikoff argues for the inclusive approach that Laura Flanders recommends at the end of her post. Working from a social psychological perspective, I also took a similar position in my book, Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After.

    There is an interesting Canadian case of the two sisters who have been living together for years and who share everything a married couple would share (except sex). They argued for the same rights as married couples, but have not succeeded.

    --Bella DePaulo, www.BellaDePaulo.com

    Posted by BellaDePaulo at 06/19/2008 @ 06:17am

21. Obama is the answer!

    Posted by ginza00 at 06/18/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Ahhh a true Obombie!!!

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/19/2008 @ 08:04am

22. Blah, Blah, Blah,

    The cry of the left...please let our perversions be considered "normal...

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/19/2008 @ 2:45pm

23. lvliberty1

    you are a hater, which seems to be normal in your circles.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2008 @ 11:03pm

24. lvliberty1

    mind your own sty.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2008 @ 11:35pm