Marital privilege and singlism after Obergefell v. Hodges
July 6, 2015 12:23 PM   Subscribe

"Now all of us single people are pathetic, not just the straight ones. “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there,” writes Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. ...Isn’t it enough to be denied the “constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage”? A constellation my coupled queer sisters and brethren now can hold dearly if they just make it official? Once again, being single is the dreary, awful, mournful alternative to marriage. A condition to be pitied, and quickly corrected by a sprint to City Hall." (Spinsters previously)
posted by Lycaste (81 comments total) 23 users marked this as a favorite
 
As someone who is happily single by choice, I noted the same inference but honestly decided that I was way happier for my friends who want to get married than I was insulted for my own behalf. Also, frankly, living well is the best revenge. People who are married feel bad for me, but I don't feel bad for myself. But people with children pity me for not having any. And people who believe in a god pity me for not holding the same beliefs. And, well, so what? I don't find the "marital privilege" issue to be worth more than a fleeting thought.
posted by janey47 at 12:29 PM on July 6, 2015 [52 favorites]


I agree with the point that single people are kind of shafted a bit in the whole societal commons in a number of ways. Still, I think tying it to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling is a red herring, even if Kennedy did sort of insinuate "single people are lonely mopes" in a sort of backhanded way - because hell, if that's what he had to do to wrap his head around marriage equality, I'm all for it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:29 PM on July 6, 2015 [21 favorites]


I couldn't figure out whether this was meant to be a joke or a serious argument.

Taking just one point: sex is not the only difference between marriage and friendship. Marriage is supposed to indicate a lifelong commitment between two people: that they will take care of each other and provide for each other's needs come hell or high water. It often falls short of that ideal, but that's the ideal nonetheless.

If the parent-child relationship is the first social safety net, one that is biologically imposed, marriage is the second social safety, one that is created by our choices and our commitments. Not everyone wants it; not everyone who wants it gets it; not everyone who gets it keeps it. But it's a stretch to blame people for wanting it or society for supporting it.
posted by alms at 12:30 PM on July 6, 2015 [56 favorites]


As I said in the polygamy thread, the best long-term solution is making the rights of marriage separate from the social institution of marriage.

Kennedy is old fashioned, but the flowery language at the end of the majority opinion is not law.
posted by French Fry at 12:33 PM on July 6, 2015 [7 favorites]


Amen, alms!!
posted by Melismata at 12:38 PM on July 6, 2015


OYG. Just let people be happy they can get married if they want...it seriously took less than a week for this shit to pop up? As a single person I am damn delighted that an entire group of historically-shit-upon people can now get married and enjoy those rights. The fact that I am single has nothing to do with other people partnering up. I do not feel looked down on or repressed. And I'm not going to start feeling that way because people are complaining or whining at me.
posted by fluffy battle kitten at 12:38 PM on July 6, 2015 [43 favorites]


I attribute this claim to Elizabeth Brake, though doubtless others have made it as well. Basically, the idea is that in a society where marriage deserves this status as the essential institution, citizens who are not married are automatically second-class. Certainly policies that encourage and support marriage have the the side effect of creating an inequality with the unmarried, but beyond that the equation of marriage with maturity and flourishing causes us to conclude that the unmarried are immature and unhappy.

I dunno. But it's not a CRAZY claim. Justice Kennedy just makes it obvious.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:40 PM on July 6, 2015 [6 favorites]


Marriage itself is enough of a financial, social and psychological advantage that I don't think it needs to be subsidized or rewarded by the state.
posted by srboisvert at 12:41 PM on July 6, 2015 [19 favorites]


I couldn't figure out whether this was meant to be a joke or a serious argument.

Both, kind of? I mean, on the one hand, it's kind of a goofy "and now even the Supreme Court is telling me my life is empty without a boyfriend/husband!" [womp womp] take on it. On the other hand, the way that singleness is framed as the Worst Fate Possible for everyone regardless of sexuality is weird and uncomfortable for those of us who end up being single and being pretty okay with it, including this author, who is a gay man.

This author is not saying that marriage equality should not have passed. He is saying that having it pass by couching it in the language of "being single: so horrible" is not the all-encompassing position Kennedy meant it to be.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:41 PM on July 6, 2015 [11 favorites]


Marriage itself is enough of a financial, social and psychological advantage that I don't think it needs to be subsidized or rewarded by the state.

It's financially beneficial largely because it's subsidized by the state.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:43 PM on July 6, 2015 [21 favorites]


I think this addresses an issue that a number of married or partnered people I know have, or at the very least that I have, which is the assumption that the same thing is good for everyone. Like, it turns out, much to my surprise, that I effing love being married. It is great! It makes me so happy! There are other people about whom I love and care and I want them to be happy too. They are my friends! They deserve happiness! And so I think "wouldn't it be great if they were married?" because, solipsistically, I just sort of figure that if it makes me happy it must make them happy.

And so two good things -- the joy my marriage provides me and the love I feel for my friends -- come together and make me think "those poor people, I just want them to be as happy as I am", COMPLETELY IGNORING that many of my friends are much, MUCH happier being single. It can be really hard when you care about someone to think about what they want and not what you want for them.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 12:46 PM on July 6, 2015 [9 favorites]


I mean, financially it doesn't matter one whit if I'm married to my boyfriend or living together if the state doesn't provide tax benefits/etc.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:47 PM on July 6, 2015


> Senator Graham reminded people that his life was not destitute without a wife: “I’ve got a lot of friends. We’ll have a rotating first lady.”

I think America is ready for its first swinger president.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:47 PM on July 6, 2015 [19 favorites]


Card Cheat: are you suggesting that Graham might be a swinger? the thought boggles the mind.
posted by Postroad at 12:50 PM on July 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


That's the joke, yes.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:51 PM on July 6, 2015 [6 favorites]


I think all the weirdness around single people (and same-sex marriage) is tied up with the issue of reproduction, which is masssively important and hardly ever addressed comprehensively as an issue of public policy, because it's intensely personal and extremely creepy when the government gets involved.
posted by Small Dollar at 12:56 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


It's financially beneficial largely because it's subsidized by the state.

Well, there are little economies of scale with housing, food, and most other living expenses. If housing and food are expensive (maybe you live in a big city) then it's a pretty huge deal. Like, it's really frustrating that couples get to have nicer apartments than me.
posted by vogon_poet at 12:56 PM on July 6, 2015 [18 favorites]


It's financially beneficial largely because it's subsidized by the state.

On some ways of accounting for them, especially with wage inequality among spouses, the tax subsidies are pretty massive, but this still isn't true. Binding romantic partnerships of all sorts are financially beneficial because they allow people to share expenses, insure each other against hardships, and collaborate in major purchases.

In most of the country, you can double the size of housing without doubling the price. You can buy most goods in bulk at a discount. Child care is easier with a co-parent just for being shared.

Marriage gives people the ability to collaborate on all those things without fear that a breakup will disrupt life projects unpredictably. Even if there were no subsidies in the tax code at all, married people would have major and unfair advantages over unmarried people. This is also why it's cheaper to share health insurance within a family: even without tax subsidies, insuring a couple and its children is cheaper than insuring the individuals.

Of course, all of those are benefits even without state recognition. But the state's recognition is a major financial boost even if they don't give tax breaks. Like any good contract, the major benefit of legal recognition is in the orderly division of assets and responsibilities when there is a breach. That's not a subsidy, exactly: it's "support" in a more diffuse sense, creating the rules under which an activity occurs. Divorce would be way worse without the intervention of the state, and as a result couples would be less-well-able to engage in financial collaboration.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:57 PM on July 6, 2015 [17 favorites]


I mean, financially it doesn't matter one whit if I'm married to my boyfriend or living together if the state doesn't provide tax benefits/etc.

In places that are not American (and apparently a handful of US states) there's this thing called "common law marriage" where you and your boyfriend are treated as married even if you're not. In some cases even if you'd rather not be treated as married.

I'm still not sure about some of these objections though - as a married person I get special treatment when I die and my estate passes to my spouse, but I still can't leave my estate to any random person without having an estate tax applied, the same as any single person. It's not a tax dodge, it's a way to prevent non-working spouses from being left destitute by their spouse dying intestate.

At the risk of making a tone argument I find some of these "check your privilege" articles undercut themselves by making over-reaching arguments. I should probably check my privilege in a lot of different ways. But arguing "I often pay less for insurance simply because I am married" - come on. This is just actuarial stuff. If married people have an actual lower statistical rate of death, they're going to pay less for insurance. This isn't some conspiracy.
posted by GuyZero at 1:07 PM on July 6, 2015 [6 favorites]


I think America is ready for its first swinger president.

Fun fact: the position of first lady isn't required to be the spouse of the president.

First ladies in the United states have included Daughters, nieces, and daughter in laws, dating back to Jefferson.
posted by Karaage at 1:08 PM on July 6, 2015 [11 favorites]


Mark me down in the 'not sure if the OP is a joke' camp -- though I think it's slightly more likely than not to have been a joke. I mean, otherwise why bring up Lindsey Graham?
posted by lodurr at 1:10 PM on July 6, 2015


As a 20-something cis still-virgin in the late '70s, I kind of envied "the Gay Lifestyle" because it represented a kind of freedom that was denied to us who were 'straight' and therefore you not only can but SHOULD (or MUST?) get married. "The Sexual Revolution" didn't really help. (It was denied to us "nerds".) Fortunately, the one way my parents were not annoyingly conservative regarded marriage: they had both "waited until their 30's" in an era when it was frowned upon - my mom was a 31-year-old spinster when she met my dad. And it didn't help that I ultimately got married for an absolutely WRONG reason, to give emotional security to a very vulnerable partner, only to discover what that 'security' ended up doing to her - sigh. (And the financial advantages? Since she was already receiving some Disability Benefits that she lost when married, we got almost the opposite.)

Anyway, when "Same-Sex Marriage" became the predominant Gay Civil Rights Issue, I considered it (and still do) a very Morally Conservative cause (even without the support of Religious Rightists), and one that would not (and so far HAS NOT) done much to push forward other rights and freedoms. Here's an infographic that explains it. Heck, as a Legally Separated person, I had enough trouble getting rental housing 10 years ago that wasn't a "Bachelor" apartment (and don't wish to go through that again). "Divorce would be way worse without the intervention of the state"?!? For some, maybe, but with our collective LACK of assets, it was pure expense.

So put me down as solidly Anti-Marriage For Anybody. But I know I have never 'typical' in any way, so Your Mileage WILL Vary.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:11 PM on July 6, 2015 [5 favorites]


The Card Cheat: don't sell the joke short, there is also the conceptual aspect where "swinging" and "rotating" are metaphors for spatial motion, and combining them is amusing.
posted by idiopath at 1:18 PM on July 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


I think America is ready for its first swinger president.

Fun fact: the position of first lady isn't required to be the spouse of the president.

First ladies in the United states have included Daughters, nieces, and daughter in laws, dating back to Jefferson.


You people are disgusting.
posted by InfidelZombie at 1:21 PM on July 6, 2015 [12 favorites]


I mean, financially it doesn't matter one whit if I'm married to my boyfriend or living together if the state doesn't provide tax benefits/etc.

Every so often when I'm doing my taxes, I calculate them as if I was married, just for fun. Hypothetical Married Me always gets a MUCH bugger hypothetical refund than Actual Single Me's actual refund.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:23 PM on July 6, 2015 [3 favorites]


Well, I'm about to be single again (hopefully, temporarily, but that's not up to me), and I already hate it and find it less fulfilling. I'm sure I'll accomplish more, do and see more fun things, and get to have my way more often, but those things don't mean very much to me personally. I don't knock anybody else for finding meaning primarily in doing stuff and accomplishing things at all--it's great, if that's what truly fills your heart with joy--but it doesn't do it for me long term. I only get a quick buzz from that sort of stuff that pretty quickly leaves me unsatisfied again. What makes me really happy is knowing I helped someone I love reach a healthy long term goal for themselves. But that's not a political or prescriptive statement. That's just my experience and my life.

Marriage gives people the ability to collaborate on all those things without fear that a breakup will disrupt life projects unpredictably. Even if there were no subsidies in the tax code at all, married people would have major and unfair advantages over unmarried people.

Yep. Until the marriages break. Then it's a swirling maelstrom of people inviting you out to drink and telling you it's time to find a new temporary male/female acquaintance to get your mind off your troubles, etc., and you have no idea who's going to play Santa for the kids this year when Christmas rolls around. (Well, to be fair, you also get a lot of good advice and healthy support and love from well-meaning people, too--but there's definitely a lot of bad medicine on offer.)

I hate to see these kinds of highly personal choices and situations being politicized. Before I was married, I was absolutely convinced the hermit's life was the only happy life for me, that I should always be a hermit. But when I accidentally fell in love and eventually started a family, I discovered I could find more joy than I ever expected in my family. I could probably have been happy in a different way as a hermit, but I was convinced I could never be happy in a family. I was though. And now it's terrible to me that I might be losing (due to my own failures, I should admit) that thing I absolutely didn't think I wanted for many years. I'm sure if it comes to it, I'll learn to be happy with single-life, too. People adapt. it's what we do, if we're open-minded enough to let ourselves adapt. But either way, turning people's personal lives into political conflict zones seems like dangerous business. Live and let live. Nobody's trying to punish single people. There are natural advantages to having other people in your life, of pooling resources and effort, in terms of basic resource efficiencies. Its probably related to the effect that creates so-called economies of scale. Sure there's also an element of social and political pressure, but that's at least partly because there are good reasons to discourage too much self-isolation for everyone's benefit. But then I have to admit, this is probably too personal a topic to me right now for me to offer any objective analysis. This is just my opinion salad here on the side.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:25 PM on July 6, 2015 [3 favorites]


First ladies in the United states have included Daughters, nieces, and daughter in laws, dating back to Jefferson.

I may be mistaken, but don't the non-wife ladies tend to be referred to as "Official Hostesses?"
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:25 PM on July 6, 2015


Well, there are little economies of scale with housing, food, and most other living expenses. If housing and food are expensive (maybe you live in a big city) then it's a pretty huge deal. Like, it's really frustrating that couples get to have nicer apartments than me.

OH MY GOSH THIS. I was just talking to another single friend, and she just got back from traveling internationally with two other couples. They stayed at this hotel in Europe where all the rooms for two people were beautiful, had balconies and giant windows and gentle sea breezes wafting in. She, the single traveler, was shoved in a closet sized-room in the basement with no windows and a shared bathroom.

We also talked about how graduate work/academia are affordable career paths for a lot of people only because they are married to people with real jobs.

Look, yay marriage, and yay marriage equality, truly. But I know several people who are unwillingly single after being married (widowed, divorced against their will) who are completely stunned at how anti-single a lot of our culture is.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:27 PM on July 6, 2015 [31 favorites]


"Divorce would be way worse without the intervention of the state"?!? For some, maybe, but with our collective LACK of assets, it was pure expense.

Maybe, but try splitting up when you own major assets together and don't have any existing agreement about how to handle that. Facing the idea of breaking up while unmarried and sharing ownership of a not-very-expensive vehicle, I was so relieved when my ex totaled that car that you can't even imagine. Throw in a house and unequal income and, okay, you had to pay a lawyer or maybe two lawyers and you're unhappy about that, but as long as we still live in a society where it's very usual for women to leave jobs or cut their hours for the purpose of parenting, those protections are still very important for some people who are very vulnerable. So, that's kind of the thing--we accept inconvenience for some as the price of preventing really awful things happening to others.
posted by Sequence at 1:28 PM on July 6, 2015 [5 favorites]


Hypothetical Married Me always gets a MUCH bugger hypothetical refund than Actual Single Me's actual refund.

Does your Hypothetical Spouse earn zero dollars? Because if so, that would explain why married you would payer lower taxes. A household of 2 with income of $X is less well-off than a household of 1 with income of $X.
posted by Asparagus at 1:29 PM on July 6, 2015 [12 favorites]


Look, yay marriage, and yay marriage equality, truly. But I know several people who are unwillingly single after being married (widowed, divorced against their will) who are completely stunned at how anti-single a lot of our culture is.

I'm sure it is, a fiendish thingy. Haven't been here long enough or permanently enough yet to know for sure. I also worry about that, because I'll probably have a harder time finding work now if the separation sticks. People definitely seem to view single people as being less consequential, or less important somehow.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:30 PM on July 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


Marriage as economic/social safety net is a huge, huge thing. I'm not much of a romantic. It took a period of miserable unemployment for me to say "oh shit, marriage really does make a lot of sense for people." I wonder if there's an aspect of financial privilege going on in these arguments about singledom. Most poor or even middle class people need a partner just to not have everything go to shit. Obviously it makes sense for the state to incentivize it.
posted by naju at 1:30 PM on July 6, 2015 [7 favorites]


Every so often when I'm doing my taxes, I calculate them as if I was married, just for fun. Hypothetical Married Me always gets a MUCH bugger hypothetical refund than Actual Single Me's actual refund.

In the US the tax brackets for married-filing-jointly are different. This is by design. It's also not surprising at all? Like you don't need to run through multiple tax scenarios to figure this out. Just look at the marginal tax rate tables.

Note that married couples where both spouses work and earn roughly equal incomes actually pay more taxes under this scheme. It's designed to to subsidize marriages where one spouse does not work or where there's a big differential in earnings. But for a hypothetical couple of two married lawyers/doctors/engineers, they'd rather be filing individually (again, in the US).

In Canada there's no joint filing and the tax advantage to marriage or lack thereof is significantly less.
posted by GuyZero at 1:31 PM on July 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


Frankly, being single is horrible. At least if you're married you can skip chores and get angry at the other person for not doing them. When you're single, you know it's all on you and so does the cat. That's why they sit there and judge you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:33 PM on July 6, 2015 [49 favorites]


On the US issue of taxes for married people: The Marriage Penalty.

Again, I agree that there are lots of ways married people should check their privilege but honestly taxes are kind of a double-edged sword and not the best example.

Not to mention that it's a pretty US-specific marriage issue, unlike being nagged by your mom about getting married which seems to be a more universal phenomenon.
posted by GuyZero at 1:41 PM on July 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


They stayed at this hotel in Europe where all the rooms for two people were beautiful, had balconies and giant windows and gentle sea breezes wafting in. She, the single traveler, was shoved in a closet sized-room in the basement

At least a lot of European hotels have an option for a cheap single room that, while probably more than 50% the price of the double room, gives a single traveller an option other than paying the same price their coupled friends are paying. In this way and a lot of others the US is more anti-single than Europe I think.
posted by Asparagus at 1:42 PM on July 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


I think America is ready for its first swinger president.

"Are Rumors About Lindsey Graham’s Sexuality Hurting His Presidential Chances?"
posted by box at 1:46 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Another privilege: You cannot carry a bundle of sticks and do something with your hands. You can get something done only when the sticks are tied on your back, and that’s marriage. (Tolstoy)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:51 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


People definitely seem to view single people as being less consequential, or less important somehow.

Oh, yeah, I hear that. I agree fully.

But I still think that "but Kennedy's opinion statement just made that wooooooorse" is an awfully weird tangential reaction to the net benefit of millions of people who had wanted very much to get married now being legally able to do so.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:56 PM on July 6, 2015 [8 favorites]


Tolstoy was a weird dude.
posted by dotgirl at 1:58 PM on July 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


Hypothetical Husband earns the same income as Actual Me.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 2:06 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


In Canada there's no joint filing and the tax advantage to marriage or lack thereof is significantly less.

Since when? I've had one year (FY 2007? I think) when I could file jointly with my then-boyfriend, as we were common law at that point. We got back almost double what we would have if we'd filed separately.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:09 PM on July 6, 2015


brandon blatcher: ...you know it's all on you and so does the cat. That's why they sit there and judge you

Solution: Don't have a cat.

It worked for me.
posted by lodurr at 2:18 PM on July 6, 2015


"Are Rumors About Lindsey Graham’s Sexuality Hurting His Presidential Chances?"

So, yeah, "swinger" might actually help him. Which is icky, and why I never make fun of Graham for being single.

I still sometimes make fun of him for being a hypocritical jackass, though.
posted by lodurr at 2:19 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm relatively well-paid in an area with very expensive housing, and also single. I've just recently started pricing housing, and, well. How much nicer the stuff my married friends can afford is, to put it briefly, astounding. The housing economy of scale is not minor at all in this area.

And it hurts more because I'm not single by choice at this point, since [insert long depressing story here.]

And I'm straight.

And it never even occurred to me to be anything other than than exuberantly, unreservedly joyful every time I've remembered the SCOTUS decision since July 26th. Seriously, what? Why? No, the situation of single vs. married really didn't change with marriage equality, any more than the status of straight marriages changed...
posted by seyirci at 2:20 PM on July 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


Since when?

Since forever?

Canada allows you to add your spouse's personal exemption you your return if they're not going to file and now there's some income-splitting thing the Conservatives put into place but fundamentally there is no joint filing in Canada the way there is in the US. The deduction of a spouse's personal exemption is similar but not quite the same.
posted by GuyZero at 2:21 PM on July 6, 2015


Ah, now I understand what you mean.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:24 PM on July 6, 2015


Marriage is supposed to indicate a lifelong commitment between two people: that they will take care of each other and provide for each other's needs come hell or high water. It often falls short of that ideal, but that's the ideal nonetheless.

But this is not to say that all friendship is ephemeral and non-committal. Some would argue that friendship can be as strong as any marriage and in some ways is a more pure kind of relationship since it's not based on a blood or legal contract, only by the promises and presence of the parties involved.

In addition, fiction is filled with characters that do depict close and lifelong friendship as an ideal: Jay & Silent Bob, Sherlock Holmes & Watson, Poirot & Hastings, Thomson & Thompson, Doc Brown & Marty McFly, Red & Andy Dufresne, Rita & Runt.

(Yeah, my list is very guy-centric, so if anyone wants to add any other names, I'd definitely appreciate it.)
posted by FJT at 2:52 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Thelma & Louise?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:57 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Hall & Oates?
posted by Xavier Xavier at 3:01 PM on July 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


For the only thing that truly distinguishes romance and marriage from other loving intimacies like friendships, other familial relationships and close business partnerships is that sex is (or once was) part of the picture.--from the article

But this is not to say that all friendship is ephemeral and non-committal. Some would argue that friendship can be as strong as any marriage and in some ways is a more pure kind of relationship since it's not based on a blood or legal contract, only by the promises and presence of the parties involved.

Marriage is distinct because of the contract. That person can be a friend, if you prefer, rather than a lover. But you can only enter into that contract with one person (at a time). Sex is not at all a requirement for marriage. The only thing required, as far as the state is concerned, is that you not try to enter into that contract with a second or third person while you've still got the first one. That's why things like benefits and tax breaks work for married people and not good friends--I can only have one legal spouse riding on my insurance at a time, not an endless number of really good friends. Children and other familial relationships have their own legal definitions and rights and responsibilities.

I'm not saying this is right or ideal or anything, but that is the difference. Marriages are legal contracts that require more legal wrangling to undo; friendships and loverships and really good neighbourships are not.
posted by looli at 3:06 PM on July 6, 2015 [8 favorites]


Goddammit, real life is full of deeply committed non-marriage relationships. There are people who love each other in every complete and possible way who do not want to be married. In the fight for 'equal marriage' we have bulldozed and forgotten people of any gender and orientation who have fought the idea that the institution of state-sanctioned marriage is the ideal of relationships. When the decision notes, in part that:
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death."
is it so hard to see how happily unmarried couples (we exist!) might not feel the equality in those lines? It amazes me how so many people can demand the government stay out of their home lives and yet claim government sanction for something so personal as love. And that ordinarily rational and lovely people look at you like a screaming homophobe if you say this out loud.

It's possible to be pro-equality and anti-marriage.
posted by prismatic7 at 3:19 PM on July 6, 2015 [20 favorites]


Marriage, to totally kill the romance, is the equivalent of incorporating your US business in Delaware. (sort of). It's a ton of case law codified, it's a tax haven, everybody does it.

Maybe you want to incorporate in California but still get the benefits of incorporating in Delaware? Tough cookies.
posted by GuyZero at 3:20 PM on July 6, 2015 [5 favorites]


Just a reminder that, in 1994, rather than risk the scandal of divorce in a Catholic country, President Alberto Fujimori announced that his wife was fired from her position as First Lady of Peru.
posted by straight at 3:32 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Also, saying that married people somehow love each other more or in a profound and special way that unmarried couples simply can't manage is ignorant and hurtful, and I would thank you to consider your words in the same way you might in other circumstances.
posted by prismatic7 at 3:35 PM on July 6, 2015 [5 favorites]


Broken record time: Obergefell was important not just because it enabled same-sex marriage.

Obergefell was important because "marriage" was a primary Cultural Conservative justification for all forms of heterosexist discrimination. This includes actions that primarily affect LGBT people who are not in relationships. Everything from movie ratings, to Eagle Scouts, to boycotts of advertisers, to conservative sexuality education was justified in terms of promoting traditional marriage. (As one my my conservative kin put it, marriage was their firewall.)

That said, I personally need a national JOSHUA case more than I need Obergefell. But Obergefell does cut away one argument in support of JOSHUA-like organizations.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:40 PM on July 6, 2015 [12 favorites]


Also, saying that married people somehow love each other more or in a profound and special way that unmarried couples simply can't manage is ignorant and hurtful, and I would thank you to consider your words in the same way you might in other circumstances.

I don't really interpret the quoted passage as saying that. Rather, it seems like it's singling out marriage from among other government institutions as embodying those lofty ideals where other institutions do not. That because the institution of marriage is also concerned with love, family, etc., in addition to legal protections, it is a more profound state than, say, incorporating your business in Delaware.

As half of a happily unmarried couple who plans to stay that way, I have no particular reason to want to interpret it so charitably, but that's how I read it, just to add a data point. I absolutely agree that our culture and our economy in the US is hostile to single people,* but I really don't think this decision represents a huge increase in that hostility.

*I mean really, I just want to buy one person's worth of salad greens. Is that so hard? Why must I always be forced to buy salad greens scaled for a family of eight?
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 4:03 PM on July 6, 2015 [6 favorites]


There is a long-standing tradition wherein (predominantly conservative) sorts of folks say that "the FAMILY is the cornerstone of society." Which completely ignores that whatever legal standing marriages have, is derivative of the individual right to freedom of association.
posted by yesster at 4:03 PM on July 6, 2015


I kinda don't like how whenever a minority makes a significant gain in rights or visibility, people whose right to exist wasn't at issue will suddenly take that opportunity to air their grievances on marriage, gender, or whatever related subject. It kind of hurts me reading this piece because the criticisms of "straight" marriage are more abstract and, honestly, pretty toothless; nobody's really going to roll back something thousands of years old worldwide that quickly. But my marriage has barely been federally protected for a few weeks, so I want to hold onto that like crazy. (It all reminds me a little of that NYT thinkpiece by a cis feminist on Caitlyn Jenner. Don't use a sudden leap in visibility by a trans woman as a platform to work out your own issues with gender essentialism, you know?) I am very sympathetic to those who want more safety nets for single folks and those in non-marriage relationships. Using the Obergefell decision as your starting point just seems like a nasty way to do it.
posted by thetortoise at 4:09 PM on July 6, 2015 [22 favorites]


It seems mandatory in any decision on extending the right of marriage to same-sex partnerships to say "here is this thing, and this is why people want it", which would essentially be a statement listing potential benefits of marriage. Otherwise, if there's no benefit at all to the thing, it's much easier to deny it to whoever wants it. Listing potential benefits of a thing doesn't necessarily make it the preferable option for everyone, even if Kennedy got a little sloppy.
posted by LionIndex at 4:49 PM on July 6, 2015


Occasionally I despair about the likelihood of dying alone. But then, I catch a flight somewhere, find myself seated sufficiently far from a 120-decibel baby that keeps screaming its head off through the flight, imagine the combination of stress and social mortification that said baby's parents must be experiencing, and realise that, all things considered, I probably made the right life choice.
posted by acb at 4:56 PM on July 6, 2015 [7 favorites]


There is a long-standing tradition wherein (predominantly conservative) sorts of folks say that "the FAMILY is the cornerstone of society."

I agree with them. Where we part ways, though, is my belief (shared by lots of people here; not pretending to be original) that families come in all shapes and sizes, and genetic relation is only one of the possible connection points.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:06 PM on July 6, 2015


"Occasionally I despair about the likelihood of dying alone."

Me too. But it occurs to me, nearly half of all couples die alone.
posted by klarck at 5:30 PM on July 6, 2015 [6 favorites]


Whenever someone says something to me about being afraid of dying alone, I say, "What, are you planning on taking someone with you?"

Everyone dies alone. That prospect doesn't scare me a bit. Living your entire life alone and having to deal with the happily partnered being dismissive assholes about it is the really hard part.
posted by orange swan at 6:46 PM on July 6, 2015 [17 favorites]


I was a bit ruffled by the language in the decision when I first read it but only mentioned it quietly to a couple people since it obviously wasn't the story of the day. I appreciate others saying they had problems with it too.
posted by dogwalker at 7:00 PM on July 6, 2015 [6 favorites]


Again, I agree that there are lots of ways married people should check their privilege but honestly taxes are kind of a double-edged sword and not the best example.

Yeah. Me and my husband make about the same amount. We got screwed over on taxes once we married - went from each of us getting back a couple grand a year to owing that amount. Bleh.
posted by Windigo at 7:25 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Maybe it's time for marriages of convenience to make a comeback.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:34 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Maybe it's time for marriages of convenience to make a comeback.

It'd definitely do quite a bit for FAFSA eligibility, that's for sure.
posted by CrystalDave at 7:38 PM on July 6, 2015


As a previously married person who liked it, if not ultimately my choice of partner, womp, womp -- it was a bit of a stab because I want that again, and it's probably not gonna happen.

Singledom is treated as always-available-ness just as being childless is. You aren't treated by society in general as if you have Real Concerns. It's like being a woman isn't enough of a handicap in our society, I need a -1 in personal importance and a +1 in being perceived as if I don't have a real life? THANKS.
posted by Medieval Maven at 7:44 PM on July 6, 2015 [11 favorites]


Of course there's married privilege. There are massive legal, economic and social advantages to marriage. (NOTE: Am man married to a woman.) But marriage abolition is never going to happen, and agitating for it is a waste of time. Various forms of marriage have arisen across numerous cultures since prehistoric times and have proven resilient in the face of enormous social transformations, indicating that you'll never, ever get rid of it. Pretending this is a possibility is posturing. States and societies obviously have an interest in supporting stable long term relationships.

What we can do is extent this privilege to a wider set of arrangements and stop making these arrangements necessarily about implied (though not necessarily actual) sexual fidelity. Why shouldn't any group of consenting adults be able to signal some sort of extended life alliance? This would be legally complex, and would have to find ways to support polyamory while guarding against abusive polygamy. Fine. Let's do the work.
posted by mobunited at 9:49 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


But marriage abolition equality is never going to happen, and agitating for it is a waste of time.

FTFY.

Oh, wait....
posted by prismatic7 at 11:29 PM on July 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Even if one objects to marriage, would it really be a social good to deny others the ability to choose to marry?
posted by chapps at 11:43 PM on July 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


I mean I'm a firm athiest, but I believe in freedom of religion.
posted by chapps at 11:44 PM on July 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


But marriage abolition equality is never going to happen, and agitating for it is a waste of time.

FTFY.

Oh, wait....


There is (according to Stephanie Coontz, whose book is cited in Kennedy's opinion), only one society past or present known to us in which marriage in some form was not a feature key to the structure of that society: The Na of China. Same sex marriage had precedents if few and is not really a great conceptual leap given the transformation of Western marriage from a primarily practical and economic bond to one centered on love. But no marriage at all? It's almost unthinkable. Almost.
posted by dis_integration at 4:56 AM on July 7, 2015


But no marriage at all? It's almost unthinkable. Almost.

This is where the focus should be on the role of the state rather than the forms of the relationship. Sure, it's difficult to imagine that every monogamous marriage would become polygamous after some Supreme Court case. But it's not so hard to imagine minimizing or privatizing marriage, making those relationships--for the most part--purely a personal matter. Straight monogamous marriages would still be straight monogamous relationships, which is to say that there'd still be some level of cheating and polyamory anyway, and the same would go for same sex relationships; they just wouldn't get a special status in our laws and politics.

The idea that the state has to recognize a relationship creates all sorts of problems for the unrecognized ones. We've just eliminated one of them, by equalizing the recognition of opposite-sex and same-sex couples. The main objection I encounter is that this puts some people even farther on the outside. I'm not quite ready to buy those objections, but we can at least try to understand them.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:08 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


FPP: "Spinsters (previously)"

oneswellfoop: "So put me down as solidly Anti-Marriage For Anybody."

I consider my morning to have been made.

Vivian Gornick has a new book out called "The Odd Woman and the City" which I highly recommend. Single/divorced folk of different ages and sexual preferences deal with their capacity (or lack thereof) to Couple Off, and some find themselves in love with New York City as they never could be with a partner.

It goes without saying that I'm happy with the court's decision. However, to the extent that it sustains the rhetoric that Marriage is a panacea for all social and emotional ills, and singlehood or celibacy are disadvantaged states that you dwell in only if you're somehow less able, I disagree with it. Marriageability != quality of person.
posted by Sheydem-tants at 5:35 AM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]


Wow, it's been a quick 180 from "every couple should have the 1,138 federal rights/responsibilities/privileges that married couples get" to "no one should."
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:45 AM on July 7, 2015 [6 favorites]


Why shouldn't any group of consenting adults be able to signal some sort of extended life alliance? This would be legally complex... Fine. Let's do the work .

I think you're underestimating the amount of work it would be. Benefits, privileges, and customs that were designed for pairs of people often don't scale to larger numbers of people. Things like inheritance, visitation rights, legal proxy, are relatively simple in the two-party case but have no obvious solution in the multiparty case.

It's not as simple as just drafting a contract. Many of these arrangements don't scale economically or practically ("sorry, your twelve spouses can't all spend the night in the ICU"). Many arrangements that appear to be contractual are based on underlying social assumptions that don't have clear analogs when the number of people involved extends beyond two.

To be clear, I'm all in favor of polyamory. If we could evolve as a society towards recognizing marriages among more than two people, I think that'd be great. But it's a very long term proposition.
posted by alms at 6:54 AM on July 7, 2015 [4 favorites]


Many of these arrangements don't scale economically or practically ("sorry, your twelve spouses can't all spend the night in the ICU")

This is possibly one of the worse examples you can pick - hospital visitation is really controlled in ways that it absolutely should not be. The fact that we currently force polyamorous triads to choose which of their partners they want to see more when they are dying is an obscenity.
posted by corb at 3:27 PM on July 7, 2015 [3 favorites]


Eve Tushnet is a gay Roman Catholic woman who chooses to submit to her church's teaching about sexuality (so a grain of salt, or several). She has a lot of wise things to say about recognizing and supporting other kinds of loving relationships besides sexual pairings.
posted by straight at 9:58 AM on July 8, 2015




« Older In Israel: casual dress, handle business cards...   |   butter your cat Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments