What he said.

[snousle]

Nayland more or less wrote today's post for me here.

All I would add is, if you're married, you're married. Saying you don't have a marriage because the state won't grant you a marriage license is like saying you don't have a dog because the county won't grant you a dog license. Um, no, you either have a dog, or you don't. Same with marriage. The state offers certain rights and formalities, but the fact of the matter does not change.

It is a great disservice, therefore, to say that gay men "cannot get married". What a total capitulation to government control. Boo.

But still, it is wonderful to have a moment when the state does recognize reality, if only for a brief period. I'm definitely not looking forward to November, though.

This is going to be a very strange period. I don't think anything can be done about it; this is not a political issue in which "strategy" even has any meaning, since it seems to have a life of its own. Any point at which the denial of marriage can be challenged is being challenged by somebody, and that de-facto lack of restraint and tactical compromise could well lead to failure. The pro-marriage battle does not seem to be under any sort of rational control at this point, and there is no single person or organization that could change this. I'm hearing various sources say "Please don't try to establish the validity of these marriages in other states just yet", but I suspect that's completely futile. The train has left the station without knowing a whole lot about the track ahead.

I've heard a fair bit of casual conversation around town on this subject - such as down at the Harley dealership, where my bike is currently getting new tires - and the only negative theme I'm picking up is one of resignation. It seems hard to rain on this parade right now.

We'll see how it goes.

Comments

[ursinewave.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, you've got a point. Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for five years now, but at this point in our 17 year relationship, with its wills and powers-of-attorney, actual marriage would just be an excuse for a party and presents. We would be no more married afterward than we are now.
On the other hand, it's real easy to be complacent about the need for legal recognition when you're both within the borders of the same country, isn't it, Tony?
It took time, heartache and $$$$$$$ for us to get to this point where we could be so ho-hum about getting married. We still feel the financial impacts to this day. Marriage and the immigration rights that come with it, would have gotten us together much more quickly and with a more secure future.
Granted, with DOMA in place, the California situation does nothing for bi-national couples. But the attitude that this is all just a "capitulation to government control. Boo" does nothing for them, either.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

I'm the last person that needs reminding about the difficulty of international relationships.

I never said that government recognition of marriage was a trivial thing. Obviously for some couples it is the thing that makes marriage possible, though most couples can create the most important aspects of their marriage without it. Unfortunately the knowledge of how to do so is getting drowned out, IMHO, by the mantra that "gay couples can't get married".

I really object to the notion that state recognition defines marriage, because that framing encourages couples to give up on the prospect when really there is quite a lot they can do to make their marriage work even in the absence of that recognition.