I want to get MARRIED

I do not want a relationship register, or a civil union, or a domestic partnership (though I will resort to those).  I am not satisfied with separate but equal.  Because it’s just not equal.  And although recently great strides are being made here in terms of proposed legislative change, it does not go far enough.  The very fact that most of it excludes children and families is just sickening.

It’s so exciting to read about the ruling this week from the California Supreme Court. The majority judgement validates and expresses so much more eloquently all the things I’ve been trying to get my head around for some time now… so I’m going to put use a clever journalist’s interpretation of their reasoning here…  (I’ve taken the extracts from an article found at Bilerico.com)

excluding same-sex couples from “marriage” isn’t necessary because letting us marry won’t deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights. It also won’t change the legal framework of marriage, because same-sex couples who marry will be subject to the same obligations imposed on heterosexual couples.

Retaining “marriage” for straights and giving “domestic partnerships” to gays will “impose appreciate harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.”

The widespread disparagement and discrimination gay people have faced makes it likely that excluding them from marriage will be construed as an official view that our relationships are less important than those of opposite-sex couples.

Excluding us from marriage may have the effect of perpetuating the premise that we are second-class citizens who may be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexuals. That is unacceptable.

For a perspective on the marriage equality debate in Australia, see this article from Rodney Croome.  The comments on that article provide very interesting reading… especially this one from ‘Angela’:

There was a time when I though Rodney Groomes’ marriage campaign a pointless irrelevancy on the path to improving human rights for lesbians and gays, and as a feminist, hardly a cheerleader for partiarchial matrimony.

I now realise it is in fact a powerful tool to move the debate about the validity of our relationships. I have spoken with many conservative heterosexuals who place considerable store on the institution of marriage (d’oh) and I realise that they aren’t really couching their objections in religious terms – but societal acceptance. This is something my conservative G&L friends failed to get across to me. As hard as I find it to believe – the mere act of government sanction will force rightwingers to respect a married couple even if they are (horrors) same sex!!

I want to be able to commit to my partner and my family in the eyes of the law and society.  I want ALL of the legitimacy and acceptance and rights that only marriage confers.  I want to be able to be a wife, and have a wife.  And nothing less.  Because even if all of the rights involved are conferred by other means but it is given a different name, it is still less.  And my relationship is no less than any other solely for the simple fact that we are both women.