Posts Tagged ‘453’

The Immigration Follies

April 2nd, 2009 No comments

Yesterday, I wrote with righteous fury about the effects of marriage inequality on the mother of twelve-year-old twins. Her deportation to the Philippines, scheduled for tomorrow, will mean that these kids will lose her (and she, them). Again, were her same-sex partner permitted to “sponsor” her as may U.S. citizens married to foreigners, this sad story would not be unfolding.

But there’s another story here, and one that reminds me that focusing too narrowly on marriage equality risks missing other injustices. Consider this: In cases where kids have two parents, why should immigration policy focus on marriage in the first place? Why not focus on the parent-child relationship, and permit both parents to remain in the country (where at least one has the legal right to do so) — regardless of their marital status?

Opening up this question invites consideration of a broader point. We’ve made marriage “promotion” a national priority in a way that often leads to policies that don’t deal with other realities. Beyond this case, consider cases where battles over the right to marry overlook the underlying problem. As one example, the Family and Medical Leave Act sets strict definitional limits on the class of people who can take leave to provide care for sick relatives. Unmarried cohabitants are among those excluded from coverage. But also excluded are adult siblings who might be able and inclined to provide such care, which otherwise might have to be supplied by strangers (perhaps at government expense). Marriage equality won’t help opposite-sex cohabitants, nor will it do anything for the sibling pair.

This isn’t to say, of course, that laws can’t or shouldn’t place limits on who is eligible for various benefits. Philosophically, I favor laws that value the reality of relationships over their legal form (spouse, sibling, etc.), but there are reasonable arguments (based on ease of administration) in favor of status limitations in some situations. Nonetheless, the marriage promotion craze — which may one day be regarded as the government-inspired equivalent of pet rocks or hula hoops — tends to exalt marriage over other relationships, even at the cost of real human suffering.

These twin boys need their mother. What about that relationship?

The Blame Game?

March 2nd, 2009 No comments

A reader (well known to your author) had some insightful comments on “The Name Game” post, which he graciously agreed to allow me to share with you.

Herewith:”For what it’s worth; I’ve always referred to you (the blogger) as [my fiance’s]’s cousin’s husband. It seems that aside from the negative connotation of “husbandry” it is the most fitting name. It’s the only name that adequately describes your relationship. Your ‘spouse’ is the person you list on insurance forms and tax documents – is lacks all emotion. ‘Partner’ leaves one wondering if you’re referring to your business or your tennis game. (Blogger’s note: My tennis partners would probably have a few other words to describe me.) It certainly doesn’t imply a committed, loving relationship.

“It seems to me that an important (the most important?) part of equality resides in the minds of people. People think in words so names are powerful. I guess what I’m saying is that equal rights may be a crucial part of this struggle but I think it all pivots on (and starts with) an idea. People need to say to themselves: ‘Why doesn’t his husband have the same rights as my wife?’

“Speaking of names: There has to be a name for what’s going on here. If you don’t believe in equal rights (and treatment) for another race you are a racist. So, what are you if you don’t believe in equal rights for gay people? Perhaps two can play the name game.”

OK, let’s play the Blame Game. Obviously the writer doesn’t think “homophobe” suffices — and neither do I. The term does capture something vital, because in many (most? all?) cases those opposing equality for the LGBT community are operating from a place of fear. But there’s also a kind of mean-spiritedness to some of it that can’t be fully explained by the “fear” trope.One colleague and I were discussing this very issue last week. He has recently been thinking about the ancient roots of this animus against homosexuality (as we discussed, the word “anima” itself is a primitive expression).

So what is the source of this anti-gay feeling? Is it nothing more than a socio-biological expression of the need to reproduce? And if so (piling speculation upon speculation now), why does it persist in the face if radically different circumstances? What would be required to extirpate it?Any suggestions for a new term? Please, no vulgarities.    

Categories: biology, Civil Rights, Gay Rights Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Name Game

February 26th, 2009 No comments

I recently spoke to my colleagues about some of the research, writing and thinking I’ve been doing on the issue of marriage equality. Inevitably, some portion of the discussion turns to the civil union and whether it’s an adequate substitute for marriage.* In incisive academic fashion, someone suggested that the state has limited power here, because same-sex couples can seize their own naming rights, calling their unions “marriage” — whatever the state says.


Of course we can, and it’s only folks like the congenitally nasty and ethically challenged Maggie Gallagher who’d respond by saying this:  “If the 15 words “Marriage in the United States is exclusively a union of one man and one woman” are placed in our Constitution, we can point with confidence to those who claim civil unions are marriages and say with confidence, “Not in the United States.”

Well, thanks for that. But she’s not entirely wrong, because we can call the unions what we want — and this is indeed powerful — but it won’t bring the smothering cavalcade of benefits (and responsibilities) that goes only to the officially “married.” Moreover, the state’s power to define relationships has a social, as well as a legal, component. So at the very least the government’s decision to withhold approval of same-sex marriages would weaken and retard our ability to make our naming decisions stick. David Cruz made this  point about the power of the word “marriage” effectively several years ago in his article, “‘Just Don’t Call It a Marriage:’ The First Amendment and Marriage as an Expressive Resource.” (He blogs about marriage  equality, with recent focus on Prop 8.)

In response to this point about the power of naming, I offered that I had recently taken to using the words “husband” or “spouse” instead of “partner” to describe my own relationship. Partly this is to use terms that our daughters hear all the time, and partly it’s because I want to own the equality that I argue for.

So imagine, if you will, my surprise when a female colleague and friend said that she had moved in the opposite direction, using the term “partner” to describe her husband. It then occurred to me that I knew several opposite-sex married couples who used the term partner. Why? To  her, the terms “husband” and “wife” came freighted with all sorts of unpleasant historical associations and meanings; the term “animal husbandry” even came up but wasn’t pursued. The inquiry might be worth making, especially as my dictionary offers these definitions of “husbandry”: “the cultivation or production of plants and animals” and “the scientific control and management of a branch of farming and esp. of domestic animals.” I guess my friend doesn’t want to “control or manage” her spouse in these ways, although, to hear certain conservative commentators talk about the issue, marriage is mostly about this need to control men.

So here’s where we are today: Same-sex couples (OK, some of us) are owning “marriage”  and “husband” and “wife.” In so doing, we are simultaneously mainstreaming ourselves and redefining “husband” and “wife” to the extent that these have been considered terms of rigid relation. To call ourselves “partners” starts to sound like complicity in our second-class citizenship.

Meanwhile, some progressive opposite-sex couples choose “partner” because of its strong association to the idea of equality.

Where will this name game end? It won’t, of course; only extinct cultures produce “dead languages.” But however mutable, names have power.