In case this story got buried…

I found this story buried in Google News and thought it was too important to not make sure people noticed: A New York court has refused to even hear, much less overturn, an appellate court ruling stating that out-of-state same gender marriages have to be recognized. This paves the way for New York to simply allow same gender couples to marry, and is very, very important in the process of achieving marriage equality across the country.

But please note something else disturbing I learned: If you Google this news story, some of the top links that come up are for anti-queer “news” sites. Two of them are clearly anti-choice organizations, if you poke around a little. What tipped me off to their inauthenticity was their repeated use of putting the word marriage in quotes when referring to same-gender couples. This is very consistent with the insidious, clever, and manipulative tactics used by the anti-choice movement, like co-opting use of the word “life” for their own agenda.

It’s quite disturbing, I think. In a more distracted moment I might not have noticed whose news story I was reading. And considering much of the people in this country only rely on quick soundbytes and TV news for their information, you can see how easy it is to manipulate people around things like…elections.

Advertisements

~ by realsupergirl on May 8, 2008.

6 Responses to “In case this story got buried…”

  1. I’m pro-life. I’m just anti-embryo.

  2. That is disturbing.

    Just out of curiosity, why are you using the term “same gender” as opposed to “same sex?” When it comes to the legality of marriage, isn’t the government concerned about what your biological sex is, not your identified gender? My understanding is that I could marry a biological man who identifies as a woman in any state in the US, but not a biological woman who identifies as man (well, except in MA). Am I missing something?

  3. Yep, you’re right that most states base marriage rights on one’s legal sex. As I’m sure you know, this may or may not be someone’s chromosomal sex — it’s usually whatever was assigned at birth based on genitalia. So legal sex is actually some combination of one’s sex and gender.

    As I understand it, the term “same-gender marriage” was coined and is used to point out that it’s the outward gender presentation in marriages that’s in fact what bothers some people. In any married couple, pretty much no one but them knows what their legal sex is, or whether they’re legally married. People who’ve seen their birth certificates and/or marriage licenses would know, but that’s about it. (And that isn’t very many people for most of us.)

    Basically, it’s a way of making people think about how, hmm, I don’t actually know that the straight couple across the street are in fact legally one-male and one-female, and I don’t in fact know whether they’re legally married. What I do know about them is based on gender presentation.

    Focusing on gender is a way to point out just how ridiculous it would be for me to think it’s my business whether they should be allowed to legally marry. (Since, as you pointed out, marriage laws are based on legal sex, which is something we don’t even know about most people we know).

  4. Oh, and when publications are talking about someone’s marriage, the only thing we actually DO know about the couple is their gender. (Unless they’re discussing a court case in which we do know the people’s legal sexes because they’ve been forbidden to marry or whatnot.)

  5. I was trying to get “biological” sex to work that way semantically, but I’m not sure if that worked quite right. I definitely meant legal sex.

    I completely agree that it’s ridiculous that one’s sex or gender should legally factor into who can marry who. Your explanation of same-gender marriage makes sense; I just wasn’t sure if it worked in a discussion about legality- to me it read as if legally that two people could marry each other as long as they presented as one of each gender, regardless of legal sex status, which of course they should be able to.

  6. That makes more sense in the context of the article.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: