I don’t know anyone who directly opposes it, but I have one gay friend who is very annoyed that all of the resources of the LGBT community seem to be distributed based on priorities defined by white middle-class values.* She is more concerned about health care and homelessness and poverty in general than about marriage, which she feels is kind of an arbitrary privilege anyway.
*The intersectionality of social welfare movements is an interesting topic in and of itself. There is actually a lot more conflict between members of interest groups than you might think. People perceive the LGBT movement as standing for one set of shared values, but in reality there is some strong opposition to the choices made by the most visible part of the movement.
I’m a straight person who fights for marriage equality, and this was a new paradigm for me. However, I think there are very good reasons to support marriage equality, not the least of which is seeing my little SIL tie the knot someday (she just got engaged.)
This is an argument I hear from many of my friends, and quite sympathize with. I’m certainly not sorry we now have SSM, but I am dismayed at how little we’ve been able to turn that same fire on to urgent issues for queer people such as access to health care (especially for trans people), violence, youth suicide, anti-homophobia education, and refugee issues.
I know several gay people (and also several straight people) who are involved with the Beyond Marriage concept, which takes the general stance that marriage is heteronormative and fails to recognize the diversity of romantic and familial relationships that exist in the world. But then again, I work in academia and know a lot of people who like to mull over the nuances of things like heteronormativity.
There are some radical gay people who believe that same-sex marriage (and monogamy in general) is buying into straight society’s agenda, that we should reject all such institutions. This opinion was much more popular during the 70s than it is today.
And of course there are gay libertarians who want the government out of the marriage business.
And there’s the old joke: Just because gay marriage is legal, doesn’t mean you ***have to ***get married."
I know few gay people in real life, but, online, I know of some who think marriage should be a social construct, and the government should only issue civil unions.
It boggles the mind that her partner hasn’t left her. 10 or 15 years without sex? Having your partner tell you you’re evil for being gay? Having your partner deny that she’s even in love with you? And then go chasing other skirts?
Exactly what is this “relationship” and how on earth has it not completely melted down in all that time? Yikes.
I’m gay and I believe that ‘marriage’ is a primarily religious concept. You know, with the whole “in God’s eyes, till death do us part” part. I also believe in the right for religion to discriminate between marriage between man and woman en gay marriage, and they should be allowed to refuse to marry same sex couples.
What I do believe in is a civil union that should be allowed for everyone. I also think that it’s time to stop calling it marriage, so we can move on with the issue. Call it CU, but then for everyone, gay and straight alike.
We have SSM marriage in Holland, but I think most countries would be able to move on with the issue if they go this way.
That said, personally I don’t believe in marriage at all, no matter the orientation of the genders. I would never do it.
Edit: upon review, I see that BigT voiced my views already.
Another gay and not too bothered. We have civil partnerships in the UK which is all but SSM by another name, so I don’t feel the need for full SSM to be honest. If I got a civil partnership I wouldn’t have any issue referring to myself as married.
Wait, aren’t you the really buff dude? You can’t get a date? Wear a tight t-shirt and go to a bar!
None of my gay friends are against SSM. In fact 2 of those friends are going to Iowa to get married next week, since it’s not legal here. The rest are either in serious relationships/cohabitating or are pretty political and vocal about gaining equal rights.
Well, years ago I knew a friend of a friend…young guy who was living with a nice older man. Young guy was in it strictly for the money and really should have been cut loose to sow his wild oats, right? He did mention over beers that he was glad SSM didn’t exist as his older partner would have " tried to drag him down the aisle."
Yasmin Nair is vehemently anti-marriage. She’s against marriage for everyone in general, apparently due to a leftist-anarchist belief that marriage is inherently bourgeois and oppressive. Moreover, it’s inherently unsexy and it kills gay sex in her view. So she’s outspoken against marriage equality. She’s also against hate-crimes legislation to protect gays, and is vehemently anti-gays-in-the-military. I don’t agree with her ideas, but she is the first one who comes to mind on this question.
I have a long-closeted Catholic gay male friend who fits this category. He is extremely conservative in his views (and more than a little self-hating), and thinks that marriage should only be for heterosexual people. Sometimes I just have to shake my head at how he believes so many things that are contrary to his own self-interest.
<minor thread drift> I knew a partnered lesbian who was a hard core, dyed in the wool Republican. Made me go, “Wait a minute!?! WTF?!?” </minor thread drift>
I agree with this. As far as the state is concerned, it should be civil union all around. Only the legal ramifications are any of the state’s business.
When I got married, I was married in the eyes of myself, my family, friends, my culture/religion, and society at large. What possible difference could it make to me whether the state of New York put it through as a marriage or a civil union? wouldn’t have changed a thing. (heterosexual marriage, btw)
I do hear some gay folks saying that they don’t want to settle for civil unions because they think that’s somehow less than “marriage.” On one hand, I can see their point, but on the other, I’m not sure that’s really pragmatic. Regardless, making it “civil unions” all around would neatly sidestep the issue, and I’m guessing that most gay people who feel that way would be okay with that solution.
Here’s how I think it should work:
There should be certain agents authorized to perform civil unions. This could include all the usual clergypeople as well judges and justices of the peace and whoever can do it right now. And people can call it whatever they want and have whatever ceremony they want and/or is needed to satisfy themselves and whoever is performing the civil union.
So in effect, nothing would change for the people who are getting hitched except that the legal arrangement would officially be called something else. They could do the whole Catholic mass thing or dance around naked in the woods or go down to the county courthouse or do whatever floats their boat.*
As far as the state is concerned, it should be a matter of:
–Are these people legally able to have a civil union?
–Is the person performing the union authorized to do so?
–Is all the paperwork signed and in order?
If the answers to all three are yes, then the people are duly civilly united. End of story.
The boat doesn’t even have to be floating, as we saw in The African Queen.
There is that, but one of the reasons (certainly in the past) that people wanted some kind of legally recognised union was for the benefits it brought and wouldn’t be overridden, such as inheritance, right to visit a spouse/be a next of kin, power of attorney etc. There are some horrible stories from not that long ago in the UK where in cases where people didn’t have to recognise homosexual relationships as existing they simply didn’t (like cases where people weren’t allowed to visit lovers in hospital because they were “friends” and not family).
In the UK certainly things have moved on considerably now so having SSM or an equivalent isn’t quite so necessary, but it’s still better to have an option you don’t particularly want than not have one you do.
