[Marxism] Marriage, yes; benefits, no: the marriage oppression

[Steve Palmer]

As a fully vested card carrying kneejerk self described Marxist, I offer my thoughts. This is nothing to do with the marriage issue but with the dumbass detriment(NOT benefit) regime which we have to suffer under.

* Universal social benefits (health, pension, housing etc) irrespective of relationship status completely sidesteps this nonsense. 
* Marriage should be stripped of all connection with property and income and become a completely private matter - hey, its all about preserving the 'sancity of marriage' isn't it? No legal restriction on the number or gender of partners involved.
* In its place have separate system of partner registration for handling mutual legal obligations. Ditto re number and gender of partners.
* Remove any mandatory connection between partnership relations and parental relations.
* Extensions of the rights of children so that they can choose alternative parental and living arrangements which suit them and don't have to suffer until the age of majority in the arbitrariness of being forced to be raised by their biological parents.
* Reform the absurdly dangerous bourgeois sperm bank model which plays chicken with the genetic fate of the descendants.

For a start ...

--- On Mon, 12/1/08, David Thorstad <binesi at gvtel.com> wrote:

> From: David Thorstad <binesi at gvtel.com>
> Subject: [Marxism] Marriage, yes; benefits, no: the marriage oppression
> To: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer999 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 4:51 PM
> This item ought, in my view, to give pause to the supporters
> of same-sex 
> marriage, including the kneejerk self-described Marxists on
> this list. 
> The options (e.g., domestic partnerships...) that have been
> crafted get 
> flushed down the toilet when marriage is installed. Case in
> point: In 
> Massachusetts people have been told by large employers to
> either get 
> married or lose benefits for their domestic partners. But
> this is all of 
> a piece with the larger gay fantasy of “marriage
> equality” – which may 
> sound good but produces more of the same old status quo. In
> New Jersey 
> after a state domestic partner law had been on the books
> for a year, the 
> leader of the Garden State Equality group trashed the law
> as unworkable 
> despite enabling gays and straights to get kinship
> recognition and said, 
> “Nothing less than marriage will do.” (The NJ law
> applies to same-sexers 
> 18 yrs and older, different-sexers 65 yrs and up –
> seniors want kinship 
> but do not want to mess up their pensions and other
> matters.) That one 
> size does not fit all is a lesson lost on such
> “leaders.” These days not 
> only are many people waiting to get a ball and chain
> (“marriage”) but 
> some use private contracts (prenuptial agreements) to
> lighten the 
> burden. It is time to get marriage off the law books and in
> the churches 
> where it belongs; we need a variety of kinship options
> along with social 
> justice – single payer health care for all!
> I would like to point out also that for all our lives, gays
> have been 
> confronted with the question, "Why aren't you
> married?" or "When are you 
> going to get married?" Now, with the clamor for gay
> marriage 
> (unfortunately abetted enthusiastically by many leftists,
> both gay and 
> straight), we are being asked the same question (coming
> from the 
> opposite angle): "Why aren't you married?"
> Many straight people probably 
> can't appreciate the oppression involved in this
> question. But then, 
> they should stop trying to force the marriage chain on all
> same-sexers.
> David