Mark wrote:
>So, unfair as it is, I think it's true that the split
>between Melissa & Julie does create bad 'publicity' for the gay rights
>movement.
Some, perhaps many, will probably take that view from it, for sure. On
that you and Harper Lou are right.
But what about the other obvious "lesson" from this, which hasn't
even been mentioned yet? The lesson that lack of marriage rights
itself discourages "stable" "families"?
A preemptive disclaimer: marriage rights for anyone, including
same-sex couples, are pretty damn low on my list of priorities for a
multitude of reasons I won't go into here. While a low priority,
however, I do believe we should have them. Ok, I feel better. On
to the point...
I worked for a sociologist this summer who has recently released a
book in which she argues, on the basis of empirical evidence, that
married straightcouples, despite high divorce rates, remain together
longer than unmarried, cohabiting straight couples. A host of legal
and social ramifcations discourage splitting up until the factors
weigh pretty heavily in divorce's favor, ramifications that don't
hold for a non-married couple. When the going gets rough,
non-married couples are more likely to split.
Guess what? Etheridge and Cypher are a non-married couple. They
have no other choice.
What is more, there are far fewer legal guidelines for child
custody after a break-up such as this. Most likely, Etheridge has
no official custody of her two children. If things turn less than
civil in this process, things could get very painful for the
children indeed. But not because lesbians are less capable of
handling marriage rights. It's because lesbians don't *have*
marriage rights.
This "episode," if it can be taken to represent anything, can
certainly symbolize the need for same-sex marriage and childbearing
rights at least as much as it undermines them.
--Michal
NP: Lipps, Inc.
