“Marriage, the (unbalanced) union of a man and a woman, has served society Men well for thousands of years. Marriage is more than what adults Men want for themselves: an exchange of the female’s domestic service and sexual consortium in return for financial support that depends solely on the whims of the Man. It’s also about the next generation (of sexual servants). Marriage provides children the best chance of being raised by a mother and father (LOL). While death and divorce too often prevent it (let’s not forget disinterest by Men), children do best (at what) when raised by their married mom and dad. Everyone is entitled to love and respect, but nobody is entitled to redefine marriage (except that is what the legislative process is for). Vote against Question 6.”
Remember when Black people couldn’t marry White people?
Remember when Men could marry your sister?
Remember when Men could marry 12-year-olds?
Remember how allowing interracial marriage and stopping child rape “redefined marriage”?
And anti-Marriage Equality people are worried about Gays marrying… wait for it… other Gays?
Why is that?
Marriage is a scheme that institutionalizes Male power over Women.
Could it be that anti-Marriage Equality people are actually concerned that Marriage Equality undermines Male power? I mean, it cannot really be “about the children,” since these same people do not support social programs that would actually help children, particularly those living in poverty?
Here is the Heritage Foundation on Radical Feminist opposition to Marriage. The Heritage Foundation sounds much like Transgender Advocates in how it frames Radical Feminist analysis opposing marriage.
This is not a coincidence.
Marriage is good for men, women, children–and society. Because of this simple fact, President George W. Bush has proposed a new pilot program to promote healthy marriage. Despite demonstrated evidence in every major social policy area of the need to rebuild a strong and healthy culture of marriage, President Bush’s new marriage initiative is still opposed by the extreme wing of feminism that sees no good in marriage or in unity between men and women, and between mothers and fathers. Moderate, mainstream feminists have long rejected this animus against marriage; the vast majority of such feminists either are married or intend to marry. Mainstream feminists are focused on a worthy concern: removing obstacles to the advancement of women in all walks of life.
Radical feminists, however, while embracing this mainstream goal–even hiding behind it–go much further: They seek to undermine the nuclear family of married father, mother, and children, which they label the “patriarchal family.” As feminist leader Betty Friedan has warned, this anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other American women.
Although radical feminists often claim that their opposition to the President’s healthy marriage initiative is a matter of efficiency or program details, it is in fact rooted in a long-term philosophical hostility to the institution of marriage itself. The Washington Post underscored this point in an April 2002 editorial, stating that the unwarranted animosity to the President’s policy grew out of “reflexive hostility” and the “tired ideology” of “the feminist left.” Decision-makers in Congress should not allow the badly needed initiative to strengthen healthy marriage to be blocked by organizations, such as the NOW Legal Defense Fund, that are still wedded to the “tired ideology” of the radical feminist past.
Marriage Equality undermines the Patriarchal Family, particularly when it involves two Lesbians. Redefining marriage to kick The Man out of it can only benefit Women, as it expands our options for protecting our families and, indeed, our choices for who we love.
This is a Good Thing. It’s not a Perfect Thing, granted. But viewed as a step on the journey towards ending marriage “as we know it” altogether, it’s not half bad!
If you want to undermine marriage in Maryland, please consider making a financial contribution to Marylanders for Marriage Equality, which needs funds to counter ads like the one above that pretends that Patriarchs care about children.
VOTE YES ON QUESTION 6!
Contribute to what? You are on record as being pro-polyamory and you support civil unions instead of marriage for Maryland gays- you wrote a whole column about it at Baltimore Out Loud.
First of all, I am not pro-polyamory. Where did you get that idea?
Second, I supported civil unions in Maryland because the issue of marriage equality in the Gay community had become racially divisive and because marriage is a patriarchal institution (kind of like I say in this very post on which you so thoughtlessly comment). But what we have is marriage. If marriage gets us where I hope we go, I am for that. I am guessing you don’t do much political work.
Here is a “for the record” statement just for “Sam” – https://www.facebook.com/iambugbrennan/posts/281340918644530
A careful reading of the research on marriage and children shows that the reason children (apparently) do better in married homes (on average) is because marriage as an institution is becoming a middle class/upper middle class phenomenon. What is being measured is a class advantage, that children have access to more resources, which is what being allied to a middle class male parent provides. Plus, the research on single-mother homes is heavily weighted towards teen mothers with little education and very low incomes. If you control for the mother’s education levels, outcomes between single moms and married couple homes virtually disappears. In addition, a careful analysis of the research on “single parents” and child abuse shows big differences between single male parents and single female parents. And in many cases, the abuse in single-mother households is tied to a boyfriend or neglect issues tied to income (can’t afford a decent babysitter, trip to doctor, etc.) Get rid of the boyfriend and the money problems, and mother-headed household actually do just as well–in some measures BETTER–than married (straight) couple households. But this research tends to be buried. These days, HHS is busy contrasting “married couple” households (the middle class) and single-parent households (hides male-headed households which statistically have the highest child abuse rates, as well as the poor), and then pronouncing that women are somehow pathological parents unless they are married to a dude. Nonsense.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment.
I’ll just second Cathy here regarding your comment and say that I wish the MSM would at least just touch on these points from time to time. Ha! I know, like that would ever happen…
“Remember when Men could marry your sister?”
Genesis 20:12: And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
There’s lots of messed up things in that book.
But I really do have “a long-term philosophical hostility to the institution of marriage itself.” And I think the push for legal recognition of gay marriage is at heart a patriarchal movement that will further solidify state-sanctioned marriage. I agree that marriage laws validating only heterosexual marriages discriminate against gay couples who want to be married. But the government also discriminates against single people–gay, straight, divorced, never-married, widowed. The only place the government has an interest in whether a couple is married has to do with disposal of property and some child custody cases, but the courts have had to wrangle out these issues without a marriage license anyway. And maybe it’s relevant to the issue of immigration, but legal marriage is being abused in this area (who hasn’t been propositioned to marry some guy overseas in exchange for x amount of dollars). Gay rights movements could have chosen to take the tack that the government has no business deciding who is married and that laws discriminating against unmarried people should be overturned. Sadly, they chose a tack that further legitimized marriage as an institution. I think this will make struggles much harder for single women.
I fear you are probably right.
I think the “what about the children” argument is the homophobic fear that gay households will produce gay children, oh the horror! And/or that the kids will be molested, cuz we all know that gay = child molesters.
Definitely applicable & relevant to immigration, I (Canadian) married my American wife and she had to immigrate here because I couldn’t immigrate there, which had me (not too seriously) entertain the idea of going F2M. And why should laws for people like me be based on the ‘bad apples’ who abuse marriage for immigration purposes? And beyond all that, these stupid man-made land boundaries create so many problems and limitations that require ridiculous mental gymnastics to get around. Like really, in what sane world does someone consider changing their sex to be with the one they love? Twisty blames the patriarchy, I blame the D.I.C.K (Domestication/Industrialization/Colonization/Kyriarchies). The “nuclear” family is deeply problematic period because of its individualistic, isolating nature; we should be living as humans are meant to – tribally. Abolish the D.I.C.K.!
I find it kind of interesting that gay folks tend to stress the legal benefits of marriage. There are also legal drawbacks, which is one reason marriage rates are falling among low-income people. Your spouse’s income could keep you from collecting benefits you might be entitled to as single. A divorce could cause you to lose half your pension, which would never happen if you were merely shacking up with somebody who turned out to be a two-timing idiot. With federal recognition, you could be liable for your partner’s unpaid income taxes. And after going to a seminar on medicaid and nursing home care, it would be a terrible thing for me to marry someone with a higher income. She could get decimated by the pay down requirements. Which is one reason that older straight seniors don’t marry anymore either.