Jack Neely over at Metro Pulse has an interesting article about gay marriage.
Here's a snippet:
"There's a lot I don't get, though: how sexual attraction in itself, whether heterosexual or homosexual, bestows legal connections that deserve greater legal recognition than in other sorts of relationships. I've known gays who live together, denied the benefits of marriage. I've also known aunts and nephews, parents and adult children, sisters, invalids and servants, close friends who live together. Many of these folks are closer than the typical married couple, but they're denied the legal benefits of marriage, too. It's almost as if our rule is, You have to have sexual intercourse with each other; then we'll talk about benefits. (italics added)
Maybe marriage is the problem. Maybe us married heterosexuals have benefits we don't deserve."
Feminist legal theorist Martha Fineman has written on the subject of placing sexual intercourse at the center of the definition of the family. She argues that a mother and child should be defined as the core of a family. Among her many points is that it is the unit of the mother and child that is the most stable or long lasting. Of course, this leaves some of us out of the "family," but so does the current definition, and it's an interesting argument.
I don't have the work handy, but if you want to know more email me and I'll dig it up.
