WE
LOVE
EACH
other,
and
we’ve
been
in
a
committed
relationship
for
nearly
20
years.
We
are
residents
of
Massachusetts.
But
we’re
not
getting
married.
We
fully
believe
that
gay
and
lesbian
couples
should
have
the
right
to
marry,
and
we
celebrate
the
fact
that
a
significant
barrier
to
our
full
citizenship
has
fallen.
In
not
taking
advantage
of
this
new
right,
however,
we
can
more
comfortably
advocate
for
the
kind
of
society
in
which
we
would
like
to
live.
Those
who
have
fought
for
gay
marriage
have
made
clear
that,
in
the
U.S.,
important
benefits
are
tied
to
marital
status.
As
the
judges
of
the
Massachusetts
Supreme
Judicial
Court
noted
in
the
Goodridge
decision,
“Marriage
provides
an
abundance
of
legal,
financial,
and
social
benefits.”
Indeed,
more
than
1,000
federal
benefits
attach
to
marriage;
benefits
relating
to
Social
Security,
inheritance,
tax
status,
child
custody
and
the
like.
Other
significant
benefits
—
most
notably,
health
care
—
are
often
linked
to
marriage.
Opening
up
this
status
to
gay
couples
makes
an
enormous
difference
to
those
in
committed
relationships
in
which
at
least
one
partner
has
access
to
benefits
or
resources
to
share.
BUT
FOCUSING
ON
the
right
to
marry
perpetuates
the
idea
that
these
rights
ought
to
be
linked
to
marriage.
Were
we
to
marry,
we
would
be
contributing
to
the
perpetuation
of
a
norm
of
“coupledness”
in
our
society.
This
preference
for
couples
marginalizes
those
who
are
single,
single
parents,
widowed,
divorced
or
otherwise
living
in
non-traditional
constellations.
The
Massachusetts
decision
argued
that
“marriage
is
a
vital
social
institution.
…
The
exclusive
commitment
of
two
individuals
to
each
other
nurtures
love
and
mutual
support;
it
brings
stability
to
our
society.”
By
saying
so,
the
judges
affirmed
our
right
to
marry
while
at
the
same
time
reinforcing
very
traditional
beliefs
about
the
centrality
of
marriage
to
the
social
order.
The
Massachusetts
decision
argues
that
gay
marriage
is
good
for
society
because
children
ought
to
be
raised
by
two
parents.
The
judges
stated,
in
fact,
“It
cannot
be
rational
under
our
laws
to
penalize
children
by
depriving
them
of
state
benefits”
because
of
their
parents’
sexual
orientation.
But
why
is
it
any
more
rational
to
deprive
children
of
state
benefits
because
their
parents
are
not
married?
Yet,
precisely
such
arguments
tying
benefits
to
marriage
are
being
used
to
justify
repressive
“marriage
promotion”
policies
that
pressure
single
mothers
receiving
welfare
benefits
to
marry,
and
deny
them
(and
their
children)
significant
benefits
if
they
do
not
marry.
A
focus
on
marriage
and
familial
status
also
leads
us
to
neglect
our
social
responsibilities
to
provide
adequate
child-care,
day
care,
elder-care,
etc.,
that
would
allow
all
adults
who
want
to
work
to
be
able
to
do
so.
Similarly,
a
focus
on
increasing
the
numbers
of
people
who
can
get
access
to
health
or
retirement
benefits
through
their
spouses
can
easily
lead
us
to
ignore
or
deny
our
societal
responsibility
to
provide
basic
health
care
and
old
age
security
to
all
our
citizens,
regardless
of
marital
status.
IT’S
NOT
EASY
to
walk
away
from
the
legal
benefits
that
come
with
marriage.
We
are
fortunate,
in
that
we
do
not
need
to
rely
on
one
another’s
employers
for
our
health
coverage,
and
this
allows
us
the
luxury
of
deciding
not
to
marry.
Nevertheless,
as
feminists
and
as
lesbians,
we
have
considered
ourselves
to
be
part
of
social
movements
that
were
modeling
a
variety
of
ways
to
be
in
the
world,
and
to
be
in
meaningful
relationships,
other
than
through
marriage.
Indeed,
the
early
women’s
liberation
and
gay
liberation
movements
challenged
the
claim
that
the
married-couple
nuclear
family
was
the
only
legitimate
way
to
organize
our
intimate
lives.
What
happened
to
that
vision?
Where
are
the
feminist
and
gay,
lesbian,
bisexual,
and
transgendered
voices
calling
for
the
separation
of
civil
and
religious
unions?
Why
not
argue
for
the
elimination
of
marriage
as
a
legal
form
and
the
creation
of
a
status
of
“civil
union”
that
will
allow
people
to
create
their
own
forms,
and
have
them
recognized
by
the
state?
At
this
moment,
when
there
is
so
much
focus
on
celebrating
the
right
to
marry,
we
want
to
hold
up
a
vision
of
a
society
in
which
basic
rights
are
not
tied
to
marriage,
and
which
there
are
many
ways
to
organize
our
intimate
lives,
marriage
being
only
one
of
them.
