SUPPORTERS
AND
OPPONENTS
of
gay
and
lesbian
rights
are
facing
off
over
same-sex
marriage
in
the
wake
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
decision
in
Lawrence
vs.
Texas.
But
the
majesty
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
rhetoric
should
push
the
gay
and
lesbian
movement
in
another
direction:
abolishing
the
legal
status
of
marriage
for
everyone.
Those
who
support
opening
up
marriage
to
same-sex
couples
argue
that
it
would
win
them
two
things:
respect
and
dignity
equal
to
that
offered
heterosexual
couples,
and
equal
access
to
tangible
benefits.
Lawrence
accords
the
former
in
no
uncertain
terms.
Justice
Kennedy’s
opinion
articulates
the
worth
of
gay
and
lesbian
relationships
and
rhetorically
equates
those
ties
with
the
bonds
between
married
heterosexuals.
But
as
long
as
marriage
remains
exclusively
a
heterosexual
option,
lesbian
and
gay
couples
remain
second-class
citizens
denied
formal
equality.
Consider,
however,
that
this
discrimination
is
remedied
by
abolishing
marriage
as
much
as
it
is
by
extending
its
reach.
A
legal
system
that
gives
benefits
to
married
couples
but
withholds
those
benefits
from
other
types
of
relationships
that
help
people
flourish
and
fulfill
critical
social
functions
harms
many
people,
both
straight
and
gay.
CONSIDER
AN
EXAMPLE
from
the
Web
site
of
the
Lambda
Legal
Defense
&
Education
Fund,
the
prominent
lesbian
and
gay
legal
organization
whose
hard
work
earned
us
the
Lawrence
victory.
The
site
tells
the
story
of
“Ronnie,”
asserting
she
is
harmed
by
the
inability
to
marry
her
partner,
“Elaine.”
Ronnie
needs
to
be
driven
to
her
frequent
medical
appointments.
Elaine
is
not
entitled
to
time
off
to
care
for
her
partner
under
the
Family
&
Medical
Leave
Act
because
she
is
not
Ronnie’s
spouse.
But
Ronnie
doesn’t
need
marriage
to
solve
her
problem;
she
needs
caretaking
by
someone
who
won’t
be
fired
for
providing
it.
The
seven
plaintiff
couples
in
the
gay
marriage
case
about
to
be
decided
by
the
Massachusetts
Supreme
Judicial
Court
cite
as
reasons
to
marry
increased
access
to
health
insurance,
health
care
decision-making,
social
security
and
tax
consequences.
But
marriage
is
the
wrong
dividing
line
for
these
benefits.
A
young
man
caring
for
the
woman
who
raised
him
should
be
able
to
cover
her
on
his
health
insurance;
two
older
sisters
who
pool
their
economic
resources
should
not
fear
that
the
death
of
one
will
require
the
other
to
sell
their
home
to
pay
estate
taxes.
Gay
couples
who
are
raising
children
together
need
legal
protections,
but
so
do
any
two
people
who
undertake
childrearing
together,
and
many
gay
men
and
lesbians
do
so
without
having
the
sexual
affiliation
associated
with
marriage.
OUR
NEIGHBORS
IN
Canada
are
once
again
out
in
front.
While
the
legalization
of
same-sex
marriage
north
of
our
border
has
captured
all
the
news,
their
reevaluation
of
the
legal
relevance
of
marriage
deserves
attention
as
well.
A
2001
report
from
the
Law
Commission
of
Canada,
“Beyond
Conjugality:
Recognizing
&
Supporting
Close
Personal
Adult
Relationships,”
recommends
radical
revisions
in
the
law
to
equally
honor
and
support
all
caring
and
interdependent
relationships.
While
it
falls
just
short
of
recommending
the
elimination
of
marriage,
its
proposals
in
arenas
as
diverse
as
immigration,
pensions,
taxes,
government
benefits,
torts
and
evidence
topple
the
legal
pedestal
upon
which
marriage
sits.
District
of
Columbia
law
is
also
moving
in
a
promising
direction.
Domestic
partnership
here
is
open
to
any
two
adults
who
live
together
in
a
familial
relationship
characterized
by
mutual
caring
—
not
only
those
in
relationships
that
mirror
marriage.
A
“close
friend,”
defined
by
amount
of
care,
concern
and
contact,
can
make
health
care
decisions
for
an
incapacitated
individual.
Gay
marriage
will
move
us
in
the
wrong
direction
if
it
limits
legal
recognition
to
married
couples
only.
Lesbian
and
gay
marriage-rights
activists
counter
criticism
of
their
efforts
by
saying
that
the
right
to
marry
will
provide
a
choice
to
gay
and
lesbian
couples:
Those
who
embrace
the
institution
will
have
the
opportunity
to
enter
it,
while
those
like
me
who
find
fault
with
it
can
simply
choose
not
to
marry.
This
choice-based
rhetoric
contains
an
enormous
fallacy.
When
the
state
gives
one
type
of
relationship
more
benefits
and
legal
support
than
others,
there
is
inherently
some
coercion
and
free
choice
is
impossible.
Ronnie
will
have
to
marry
Elaine
to
receive
the
care
she
needs;
and
if
Ronnie
doesn’t
have
Elaine,
if
they
divorce
or
Elaine
dies,
then
Ronnie’s
needs
are
off
the
radar
screen
of
the
gay
and
lesbian
movement.
Lawrence
vs.
Texas
signals
the
end
of
second-class
status
based
on
sexual
orientation.
The
movement
for
lesbian
and
gay
rights
shouldn’t
buy
into
a
different
hierarchy,
this
one
based
on
marital
status.
npoliko@wcl.american.edu." border="1">
