[Marxism] A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?
causecollector at msn.com
Wed Mar 18 22:00:45 MDT 2009
Apparently David Thorstad must continue his campaign on halting Gay Marriage.
It seems so central to the outcome of a socialist world and the coming economic sturggles that we must stop those Gay Marriages - right now!
Consider the issues raised about poor GLBT couples - and the benefits NOW denied to them - that are provided to hetero couples - is obviously not important and distracts from the principled need to side with the religious fundamentalists and STOP THESE MARRIAGES NOW!
Reality sometimes gets in the way of theory - and presently both Gay and non-Gay couples who are poor - need their partners social security and other benefits - just to make ends meet.
Of course we want every poor and working person to have enough, to pay for their shelter, food, and medicine - but to take away this being provided to Gay couples, in the name of why the religious groups should only have marriage (?), as David Thorstad suggests below in his laterst email - does nothing but add to the misery already suffered by many GLBT couples in poverty - who are currently IN REALITY - not receiving such, as hetero couples are.
I would do away with religious marriage ceremonies that ARE RECOGNIZED by the U. S. and some other nations in this world - and have state civil ceremonies instead promoted. As a Marxist, I believe that no one should be entitled to more than anyone else - irregardless of their having a partner(s) or not. And as an atheist I do not believe religious ceremonies should be recognized but only civil ceremonies.
I prefer no marriage ceremonies frankly!! - but until we have that new society or have agreement from a large part of the population - I believe that GLBT people should NOT be discriminated against, if heteros are provided benefits and protections through marriages.
Having heteros get married and GLBT people having civil unions - shows second class citizenship and discrimination. It sends a clear message of not being treated equally in the nation one is in. That is the reality - and the issue is not going to just go away.
Marxists generally favor an end to the nuclear family and marriage - as an institution that oppresses women and children - but until then, people should be provided equal rights and protections and benefits and not be denied soley based on their sexual orientation.
Extended families are generally better than nuclear families, for children to learn and take from others good qualities, that their natural parents alone may not have. But we TODAY live in what we have and I await like David the end of marriages, as a means for older peoples security and instead have the state take care of people.
But until then - DEAL WITH REALITY - and this is really about discrimination!
> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:28:31 -0700
> From: mdriscollrj at charter.net
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Time: A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?
> David Thorstad wrote
> This article is raising the right issue: Get the state out of the
> marriage business. Make marriage a purely private, or religious, matter.
> I read the article, which proposes a reasonable alternative within the
> bounds of the institutional constraints and in service to the concept of
> equal rights - renaming the civil institution (but not, as you say,
> making marriage - in concept - a PURELY private, or religious, matter) -
> but otherwise not a basically dispositive alternative: in that they are
> still addressing the issues of the nuclear family in a system of
> property-based relations, in order to preserve that form of relationship
> intact and still available to serve the purposes for which it has been
> adapted to the capitalist holistic enterprise: such accumulationist,
> regulatory imperatives as inheritance of property and
> civil-contractually-based and state-enforced cathectic relations,
> isolating individualization and vertical and horizontal stratification,
> inculcation of patriarchal and authoritarian precepts and invidious
> distinctions, and shifting the onus of means of survival and
> reproduction onto the nuclear entity as opposed to the community. They
> merely propose giving the civil union a name different from that of the
> religious-based union; in effect, aside from the bearing it has on the
> confusion of the religious with the civil entity and the preservation of
> equal protection under a system based on private property, it solves the
> underlying problem about as effectively as renaming a prison a
> correctional facility.
> Well within the limits of permissible comment for Time Magazine.
More information about the Marxism