What Can We Do?

I've been a bit surprised, and very gratified by all the comments left on my post on marriage equality:

Greenwoman -- Your concern for perceived hurts, born of nuances in awareness and experience, is encouraging to me. Sometimes, I get convinced that "no one" cares. You've reassured me that my sense of complete alienation from the rest of humanity is misplaced.

Tapestry -- the re-echoing of that affirmation of validity is important to me. Thank you.

Impish1 -- I like that phrase: functional love vs dysfunctional...

KG -- I don't know how the "common law" part of all of this might work. I do know that the approach of marrying somewhere else in order to "force" recognition here seems pretty fruitless for the most part.

It is interesting that the laws that prohibit polygamy in our culture might be found (by our courts) to be discriminatory against women who are immigrant from other societies where the practice is more common. Thank you for looking into this.

sara -- another enlightening phrase and viewpoint in your words: "the superficial structure, not the heart to heart reality underneath." I like that very much.

bridget -- It does seem true that one has to live this in order to actually have a sense of what is missing. It is very difficult to explain the nuances of this to those who are safely ensconced in the cultural mainstream with regard to marriage.

Finally, OliviaManners asked a very difficult and challenging question in her comment:

"swan, it is a big question...but what do you think that people like you and I could do to effect any real change in perception or acknowledgment of this area?"

I feel a little overwhelmed, actually, when I contemplate some sort of "strategy" for pushing us (as a society) toward change. I'm sure that there are more politically and legally savvy minds than mine that have spent time contemplating the possibilities. With that disclaimer firmly in place, I am drawn to making some attempt at mapping out paths that might begin to shift the current set of realities:

1) I think that if we are committed to creating some sort of true marriage equity in our society, we need to begin by addressing the misconceptions and erroneous assumptions about marriage that are pervasive in our society. We need to be able to confront and correct the kind of blatant falsehoods that go unchallenged everyday in discussions about the nature of marriage. So, for example, some rudimentary historical perspective would cause educated people to respond to a Warrenesque declaration that marriage has "always, in every society and every religious tradition, for over 5000 years" been defined as between one man and one woman. No. That is simply incorrect. Master wrote about it at length in His treatise on Modern Monogamy. There's plenty of historical and anthropological information to inform our understanding of the roots and traditions that have shaped the practice of marriage in western culture. We don't have to let the conversation be shaped by those who would promulgate lies as the foundation for our ongoing decision making.

2) We need to become clear and definitive about what it is that marriage confers on people in terms of rights and benefits. I think it is easy for those who are not directly, intimately, immediately impacted by the disparities in our laws to assume that it is really "much ado about nothing." Having lived without those legal and financial benefits, I can attest that it is not even remotely "nothing." The following list, prepared by Lambda Legal, outlines some of the approximately 1400 rights and benefits that accrue to individuals once they marry:

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

3) Those of us who are somewhat aware of this issue can begin to change things by beginning to change the way we see the world. Our society operates from a set of assumptions that divide the world into "singles" and "couples." There is the embedded view that those are the two possible relational states for adult humans in the world. Evidence of this perception is everywhere:

• pillowcases are sold in singles or pairs
• restaurants seat people (generally) at tables for two or four -- almost never odd numbers
• when there are promotions or deals for travel or entertainment opportunities, they are always arranged for couples
• you can buy his and hers towels, but not other configurations
• a wide range of products (especially food items) are packaged and sold to be served to two
• almost every image that we see that depicts adult loving relationship shows the cultural "norm" of one man and one woman
• almost every media mention of family and marriage assumes the "one man and one woman" construct

4) We can believe, and refuse to stop believing in the possibility. I like the ideas of the Transcendentalist, abolitionist, Underground Railroad leader, Unitarian reformer Rev. Theodore Parker. Most of the causes that this frail minister worked for never came to fruition until years after he died at 49 in 1860. He said: "Look at the facts of the world. You see a continual and progressive triumph of the right. I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice. Things refuse to be mismanaged long."

5) We can speak up and speak out. We can write to every legislator, every political entity, every media outlet -- over and over again; pointing out the truths of our lives, refusing to accept the easily delivered lies, insisting that they see and correct the unrecognized biases that spew from our televisions, radios, and newspaper pages every day. We can show up. At city council meetings, and legislative hearings, and political debates, and town hall meetings -- until the sheer weight of our presence begins to shift the balance.

6) We can refuse to attend "mixed-sex" weddings. This is a radical and demanding position to take, but consider... Those of us who are not able to marry should ask why we are expected to participate as observers in a social event that we may not ever legally partake of. Our silent acquiesence to these ceremonial events allows the mainstream of our culture to continue to uncritically embrace injustice and discrimination because we let them do that! If we want the larger culture to open their eyes and lose their blindness to the discriminatory politics of engagements, marriage, and weddings, we must point out the segregated nature of these rituals and institutions.

7) Where we are able, we have to come out of hiding and act to challenge the status quo. Those who can do so, might attempt to register, or obtain marriage licenses at the local county clerk's office on some sort of regular basis. I understand that we'd be turned down and turned away, but our presence -- over and over again, across the country would, in time, make the statement that we are here. Even better if such efforts could be made in some coordinated and public fashion.

8) We could co-opt the media coverage that swarms to celebrity weddings -- appearing outside the places where those weddings are held, silently holding up signs stating "Participation in Marriage is Participation in Injustice," or "Saying I Do when We Can't = Bigotry."

9) We could encourage our justice-minded friends who ARE allowed to marry to boycott marriage until the institution is democratized. Those who love and care for us who are barred from marrying could make a major contribution in undermining the status quo by refusing to participate in the institution of marriage until it is open to all. Such a movement could put an economic dent in the wedding industry, as large numbers of COUPLES refuse to open their wallets for marriage licenses, wedding receptions, bridal dresses, photographers, and honeymoon excursions.

Probably, there are lots of other possibilities that I've not thought of. I'd welcome others who want to join this conversation with ideas to share. Please -- everyone, feel welcomed to join this discussion.

swan