CFI jumps onto the marriage bandwagon
I have left a comment urging CFI not to simply jump onto the marriage bandwagon. The current institution excludes same-sex couples, which clearly is discriminatory. Yet, we need to go beyond questioning that type of discrimination and look at the broader discrimination inherent in the benefits by asking whether marriage/civil unions should get automatic rights. I would second Michael LaSala’s call for a “critical view of the privileges of marriage.” (Michael C. LaSala. Too Many Eggs in the Wrong Basket: A Queer Critique of the Same-Sex Marriage Movement. SocialWork. Volume 52, Number 2. April 2007.). He calls on us to “advocate for freedom of sexual expression as well as economic and legal equity for all, regardless of marital status, relationship style, or sexual orientation.” It would be great if CFI were to heed that call.
Share this post with others:
I am about 98% in agreement with this preference for “freedom of sexual expression…regardless of marital status, etc…” I know that in my situation, my husband and I have simply decided to think for ourselves about what the term “marriage” means to us. We are legally married, live in separate states, maintain a single residence in the state of Illinois, our Home. He says, “I won’t ask if you don’t tell.” I agree. When we came into this life, we didn’t sign some sort of excusivity contract. As far as benefits, we came to a mutual agreement about how those were to be handled – that’s why we went before a Civil Court Judge and were married. I am a writer, artist/homemaker, licensed ordained minister, Second Degree Reiki “therapist”, with experience among Spiritualists. My husband is a corporation executive. Let me see, who do I think had the best benefits package?
If others want to get together and do their thing, whether it’s monogamous or not, they shouldn’t be punished for their lifestyle. They shouldn’t be ostracized by the predominant , ruling party from obtaining economic and legal equity.