So, there I was. Settling into a hot bath, relaxing, and catching up on the latest issue of Mother Jones. Now I realize it might not make sense to relax with that particular magazine, because so much of the material is distressing. But, it's distressing in a "thank goodness someone can articulate what I think" kind of way.
Imagine my surprise when I read this letter to the editor:
"Although I appreciateed Cameron Scott's 'The Gay Marriage Stimulus Package," what about the fiscal liabilities once you consider Social Security? Wouldn't recognizing those additional marriages put additional strain on the already underfunded Social Security system? And you assume that in same-sex couples, both work and would move up the economic ladder. How about those who might marry the unemployed or quit to raise dependents?"
Nancy Mendez, Silver Spring, Maryland
I'm choking on the heterosexism. And to read that kind of crap in Mother Jones? Spare me.
10 months ago
6 comments:
Perhaps a consciousness raising response ‘letter to the editor’ addressing Nancy Mendez, Silver Spring, Maryland and her questions, is in order? Surely, you can’t be the only Mother Jones reader appalled.
Yeah, I debated that but I don't think they typically publish responses to letters, just responses to their own reporting. If I had time I'd go find the original piece and respond to both, but we're heading toward finals...
Hope you guys are doing well!
I once had an earthy-crunchy lefty (and I don't say that in a disparaging way) ask why I would want to support something as conservative as marriage; he didn't want to get married (he was straight). I replied that at least he had the CHOICE to not get married and that was what I was asking for. Also, I pointed out the hundreds (if not more than a thousand if you include both state and federal) of "benefits" and issues affected by marital status.
Now, truth is, I'm kind of a radical on this issue and believe that government should be promoting recognition of households, not marriages or one model of family. But, in the meantime, a couple is a couple and things should be equal -- it doesn't involve changing the system itself, just extending recognition to more couples.
Also, I don't believe health care should only be available on the basis of employment or marital status. Call me silly, but I think that everyone needs health care.
Agreed on all points. And, to her comment, does she really think the civil rights should turn on a fiscal analysis?
oh, of course ... you could say the same thing about any group: "It would cost to much to let XXXXX people have the same rights." How could anyone think that's a valid argument?
They used to use that argument in not paying women equal wages for equal work. (Not that they do now, they're just more clever about the inequality.)
once had an earthy-crunchy lefty (and I don't say that in a disparaging way) ask why I would want to support something as conservative as marriage;
I've heard many people say that. It boggles my mind. (And I eschew legal marriage for myself, too.)
That remark reminds me of people who call themselves feminists but don't support women's equality in the military: "Why would they want to be in the military anyway?" Or who don't want to see female athletes go professional, because then they will be "greedy" like the male players supposedly are.
This drives me nuts! We don't have to approve of each other's choices! But we all must have equal opportunity. What we do with that is going to vary since we're all individuals. Why is that so hard for some people to understand???
Post a Comment