NJ Supreme Court decision: A response to Dan's recent blog entry
First, in order to understand anything I'm talking about, please read Dan's recent blog entry:
http://www.danielpwilliford.com/2006/10/speaking-of-marriage.html
Brilliantly written, Dan. You have captured most of my major sentiments regarding this decision, yet I can't help but wonder what the practical implications are of the NJ legislature's future remedy to the court's decision. My position for some time has been that same-sex marriage, as you note, reinforces the institution of marriage, and in a contradictory way, creates fewer options for same-sex couples in how they define their relationships. This ideological position is one that I struggle with and that which others have suggested is one of privilege and a bourgeois mentality. That is to say, while I hold onto my ideological goal of refusing the sanctification and privileging by the state of certain forms of relationship over others, the economic situation, etc, of many same-sex couples requires a more practical avenue (not to mention the crossroads the "gay and lesbian community" finds itself in)
So, I guess my question is what happens if and when NJ decides that equal benefits be conferred upon same-sex couples (but not heterosexual ones) under this new form of “union,” whatever its name? If Dr. Chambers (secondamericano.blogspot.com) is correct about the role of heteronormativity in explaining the disconnect between “protecting” marriage while simultaneously upholding equal rights for gays (which I certainly agree with), what does this separate form of union (i.e. separating the homos from the heteros) do to undermine that heteronormative worldview? In a very practical way, it seems heterosexual couples in NJ need to demand entrée into whatever form of union is granted to homosexuals—to demand that whatever form it takes, it includes not just same-sex relationships. And then what does that mean? What label is claimed, and does this necessitate any kind of equal treatment under the laws of other states (for example, when that couple applies for benefits in a state that does not have an alternative form of marriage)? Would it have any practical implications for the cause of non-heterosexually-unioned couples?
Anyway, I realize my comments are somewhat fuzzy. I hope to return to this topic soon when I can write coherently.
Thanks to Dan for his amazing entry!
http://www.danielpwilliford.com/2006/10/speaking-of-marriage.html
Brilliantly written, Dan. You have captured most of my major sentiments regarding this decision, yet I can't help but wonder what the practical implications are of the NJ legislature's future remedy to the court's decision. My position for some time has been that same-sex marriage, as you note, reinforces the institution of marriage, and in a contradictory way, creates fewer options for same-sex couples in how they define their relationships. This ideological position is one that I struggle with and that which others have suggested is one of privilege and a bourgeois mentality. That is to say, while I hold onto my ideological goal of refusing the sanctification and privileging by the state of certain forms of relationship over others, the economic situation, etc, of many same-sex couples requires a more practical avenue (not to mention the crossroads the "gay and lesbian community" finds itself in)
So, I guess my question is what happens if and when NJ decides that equal benefits be conferred upon same-sex couples (but not heterosexual ones) under this new form of “union,” whatever its name? If Dr. Chambers (secondamericano.blogspot.com) is correct about the role of heteronormativity in explaining the disconnect between “protecting” marriage while simultaneously upholding equal rights for gays (which I certainly agree with), what does this separate form of union (i.e. separating the homos from the heteros) do to undermine that heteronormative worldview? In a very practical way, it seems heterosexual couples in NJ need to demand entrée into whatever form of union is granted to homosexuals—to demand that whatever form it takes, it includes not just same-sex relationships. And then what does that mean? What label is claimed, and does this necessitate any kind of equal treatment under the laws of other states (for example, when that couple applies for benefits in a state that does not have an alternative form of marriage)? Would it have any practical implications for the cause of non-heterosexually-unioned couples?
Anyway, I realize my comments are somewhat fuzzy. I hope to return to this topic soon when I can write coherently.
Thanks to Dan for his amazing entry!
posted by Aaron @ 1:31 PM
5 Comments:
At 4:50 PM,
Dan said…
To clarify a few points: you say "what happens if and when NJ decides that equal benefits be conferred upon same-sex couples?" This is exactly what happened, in the sense that equal benefits were given to same-sex couples.
Also, you say "In a very practical way, it seems heterosexual couples in NJ need to demand entrée into whatever form of union is granted to homosexuals—to demand that whatever form it takes, it includes not just same-sex relationships. And then what does that mean?" I want to point out that there are also domestic partner laws/benefits in NJ, but I'm not exactly sure how they differ.
You make a good point, and I may have erred slightly in my post in naming this "new yet-unamed thing" gay partnerships, or I may not have errred. That is, I'm not sure if this new legislation amounts to a "civil union" that has no sex bias, OR if it is ONLY for same-sex couples -- which I have to admit, would be a little strange.
If it's the latter, then straight couples would have two options: to get married, which many do not want to do since marriage usually means that a big to-do must be made; OR domestic partnerships, which usually require some amount of time that the couple lives together and shares lives (1-5 years). This would be unfair if a gay couple could obtain a legal gay partnership if, say, they met last week, whereas a straight couple might have to wait a few years to get the same thing.
I'm a bit confused on this -- let's look into it and report back!
At 12:50 AM,
Aaron said…
Also to clarify the first statement you cited: I should have said what happens when the NJ legislature comes up with their solution to the court's demands? The supreme court of NJ as of yet has only DECLARED that same-sex couples are entitled to received equal benefits. It is up to the legislature to figure out how best to do this. I was referring to this latter part of the process, attempting to point out that a more ideal situation in my opinion would be to offer this new "union" whatever its name to both heterosexual and same-sex couples. My expectation is that this new form of union will apply only to same-sex couples. I don't know if any information exists on this yet.
At 3:58 PM,
Anonymous said…
Is it trash-talking an ex in the event the ex is trash? Technically, it could be just talking' correct?
My blog - 2 girls teach sex video
At 1:15 PM,
Anonymous said…
Ha, wow - no wonder our society is so mixed up! Sometimes our schooling systems genuinely?
make me wonder.
Feel free to surf to my webpage the best pheromones to attract women
At 2:45 PM,
Anonymous said…
I truly enjoy this balanced method, particularly recognizing that
genetics and action possess a good deal to complete with carb consumption,
as well as the acknowledgement of meat's environmental footprint as well as the stability amongst animal and veggie protein. Excellent post!
Here is my blog post: eat healthy food tips
Post a Comment
<< Home