Obnoxious Political Rantings

Actually, I'm going to put the ravings on pages of their own as I get more of them, but for now I'll just start babbling...wait, I'm doing that already...

Marriage

     Reactionaries are constantly claiming that queers are out to undermine the "Institution of Marriage" (evokes a sense of the institution of slavery, does it not?). Alas, I fear that's exactly what I wish to do. I think that marriage is a horrible thing, as it is currently set up. There are G/L/B/T individuals who passionately assert that they want nothing more than equality to heterosexuals in the form of marriage. However, I feel that they fail to understand the very nature of marriage as a societal institution.

     Marriage is a discriminatory and exclusive system. It is a religious, generally Christian, ceremony between two individuals, a man and a woman, in which they are declaring their love in the form of a binding contract (*shudders*) and are then given a myriad of legal benefits, not to mention social recognition and blenders. This is in clear violation of the principal of separation of church and state. If people wish to affirm their love for each other before anything they see fit, then I have no problem with that. It is when we decide which love is worthy of legal benefits that I object.

     People seldom acknowledge the benefits conveyed by marriage, and with the way they whine about the "marriage tax penalty" one would think there weren't any tangible ones. Then one thinks about things for a while... What happens if one's spouse dies without a will? Inheritence is a marital benefit. What about if s/he is hospitalized? Visitation is another thing guaranteed by marriage. Adoption? Health care? Immigration? Jointly buying houses? There's a huge list of legal benefits that this society attaches to marriage.

     So what's wrong with just reforming it to include homosexual unions? Well, that does little to solve the religious issues, and the basic issue in my mind is that it remains exclusive, because it still wouldn't do anything for me and the many, many other people who are not monogamous, and cannot love only one person, regardless of sex. Sex brings gender into play, and that becomes an entirely new and very convoluted system of discrimination, which I will strive to address later. Also, religion becomes a major factor when it comes to creating an inclusive manner of marriage. The majority of people (for all the wrong reasons) do not believe that homosexuals should have the right to get married, because it violates the fundamental tenants of their religions, as they view them. We've seen the backlash against the imagined suggestion of marriage for homosexuals, and I don't think it's a worthwhile, meaningful fight.

     Marriage is about contracts and religion and such, let it remain that way. If people within their religions wish to be discriminatory, then let them, I want legal benefits. Religions can let whomever they want get married, and can exclude people, and all will be well. Save the legal benefits for a partnership system like those in Sweden and the Netherlands. I feel that people who wish to be legally bonded to others with the rights that have been guaranteed to marriage should be able to register with this, and employers and others should be forced to recognize it. This way, people and their lovers can obtain legal recognition, and the marriage lifestyle can be put in its place, namely as far away from infringing upon my human rights (and those of many others) as possible. 

Gender rant