I found that article insightful and well considered. It is difficult to think that far outside the box: to consider things from a perspective far removed from the standpoint where discussion usually starts. There are a lot of good things there to think about.

I've always found this position compelling, but then I'm not a huge fan of marriage - for gay or straight couples. When we discuss gay marriage in my contemporary moral issues class I often argue this position - mostly because it's the least popular and I'm being devil's avocate. The students don't know what to make of it at first.

But I do think it's unfair to unmarried people to have benefits like tax credits just for being married. I understand the conventional reason for it - that the state has an interest in the reproduction of the workforce, yada, yada, yada, but this seems really outdated, since most people in our culture don't perceive marriage as being a prerequisite for procreation.

On the other hand, Andrew Sullivan makes a very compelling argument on how marriage changes the self-conception of a couple. I think for many people this is true. But I think that his argument actually supports a separation of marriage from religious institutions, and a move to civil unions for all couples sans the special tax breaks and whatever other gov't perks that are currently tied to marriage, rather than a move to legalize same-sex marriages. Give tax breaks to people with kids, disabled siblings, and elderly parents to care for. Why does it matter if they're married?

I dunno, I get where he comes from, but it seems really victim-blamey to me. Yes, a lot of things are wrong with the institution of marriage, but that's not the fault of gay people, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with centering the fight around gay marriage. There's nothing wrong with the gay rights movement focusing on themselves, and it might be the easiest way to actually get those rights. And no matter what the fight was, there would still be homophobes who are going to quash it, it wasn't the fault of gay people who picked the wrong fight.

I definitely agree with this author on his points. I've thought the focus on gay marriage was always a bit silly to make a focal point. What about all those queers who will never make it to that hypothetical altar because of suicide rates and hate crimes? I don't think gay marriage as a sole banner issue is really, in any way, the way it should be. Marriage is a choice at this point. The ability to choose it is another matter, but why don't we focus on things which aren't choices and moving to better society for everyone? One of the main reasons, I think, that they gay movement is failing itself is because it's ONLY itself and doesn't incorporate the interests of others like so many other movements have learned to do.

I think the reason that marriage became such a huge issues is because many homophobic heterosexuals argue against gay people based on them not being able to do things that they as heterosexuals can do. They think that people who can't do stereotypical heterosexual things like have children and raise families are somehow harming society.

But I sometimes do wonder if trying to show heterosexuals that we can do what they can is really the way to equality.