E-Mail This Article to a Friend Altar ego (continued)

The situation worsens when you consider some of the social-policy changes engendered by same-sex marriage. Over the past 15 years, various private companies and some municipalities have instituted domestic-partnership (DP) programs for gay couples who do not have the right to marry, which granted an array of economic and health-care benefits to the unmarried domestic partners of their employees. This alternative system of benefit sharing was, for the most part, an effort to extend fairness to gay and lesbian people. But since the advent of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, both private and public-sector DP programs in the state have undergone erosion. Because they were instituted out of a sense of fairness to gay men and lesbians, and not to promote viable economic and ethical alternatives to traditional marriage, it makes perfect sense (to some) that they will disappear as legal civil marriage becomes available across the country. The result is that marriage will not be simply a choice for some gay people, but compulsory if the couple needs any of these benefits, even if they are not inclined to marry.

But the other reality is that DP programs — where and when they exist — are not only a boon to gay couples who participate in them, but mark a shift toward recognizing alternatives to traditional marriage. Realistically, many, many GLBT relationships, for a wide variety of reasons, do not fit the traditional-marriage template — and yet they need health care and other benefits, too. Many choose to form what Suffredini and Findley call "diverse forms of partnership and households." They cite the example of a lesbian co-parenting couple who wish to include the child’s biological father in their family configuration. But there are many others as well: a gay male couple caring for a former partner of one of its members who is ill from AIDS, say, or a gay or lesbian couple who takes on the care of an aged parent. (Who cares if these examples play into that anti-gay right-wing stereotype — gay or lesbian people who form ethical and sustained romantic relationships with more then two people?)

It is an egregious mistake to pretend that all GLBT families are alike and that legal civil marriage will cure their ills. And the hard truth is that same-sex marriage will not to be applied to or experienced "equally" by all GLBT people.

If the GLBT movement is simply looking for equality under the law — surely a modest and estimable goal — why do the particular circumstances of poor GLBT people even matter? What does it matter that some people might choose to live outside the traditional-marriage arrangement? Because the rhetoric of the GLBT movement is that same-sex marriage is essential for the health and welfare of GLBT families. But the very way they have framed the debate, and the ways in which they have lobbied and organized this fight, has ensured that only the most traditional, and the most middle- and upper-class, of gay families will reap the lion’s share of the benefits.

THERE IS NOTHING wrong with fighting for same-sex marriage as long as it is part of a larger package, a larger scheme in which all the myriad issues affecting GLBT families are addressed. Rather than working from the top down using a model that uncritically accepts the enshrinement of marriage as the gold standard of personal and romantic relationships, gay and lesbian legal advocates should have been looking at the specific needs of a wide variety of GLBT families and shaping and fighting for policies and law that will benefit everyone — not just those in the middle class or who choose to engage in the most traditional relationships. The sad reality is that the GLBT movement had a chance to address all these issues in a more systematic and comprehensive manner — and decided not to do so, focusing instead on simply gaining access to traditional marriage, even though that road to "equality" was hardly the most efficacious or sensible.

Aside from Lisa Duggan’s excellent March 15 Nation article "Holy Matrimony!", which covers ground similar to Suffredini and Findley’s law-review piece, there has been almost no analysis of how the fight for same-sex marriage may interact with social policies such as welfare reform, tax law, and private programs. Certainly we have heard nothing about this from gay-rights groups. (Mary Bonauto, who litigated Goodridge on behalf of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, was unable to comment on this story by press time.)

It’s not as though movement activists aren’t thinking about these questions, however. Sue Hyde, who serves as New England field director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and who has worked on marriage-equality issues in Massachusetts for close to 10 years, is attuned to the discrepancies between "equal rights" and broader approaches to social change. "While not addressing structural change in institutions, this kind of progress, nonetheless, is transformative for some of the people who live within those structures," she says. "This is hardly a net loss."

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry, and one of the prime movers in the struggle for marriage equality, says that although he has not yet read Suffredini and Findley’s article, he is wary of their arguments: "The denial of marriage harms all gay people but falls harshest on people of lesser means, immigrants, people who are ill, children, and in general people who are vulnerable. They need a safety net, however imperfectly our society accords these things through marriage," he says. "Although I believe marriage should not be the only way that people should access protections — I believe in universal health care — it is an important way that people can access them. Many of these protections — Social Security, immigration regulations, qualifying for public assistance — cannot be replaced by private agreement or with the help of an expensive lawyer, which many people cannot do. Marriage gives that protection with the words ‘I do.’ It is a choice and an option that the vast majority of people who have it, exercise."