Same-Sex Marriage in Capitalist Society

The US Supreme Court has struck down a law denying federal benefits to gay couples and cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California.

The justices said that the Defense of Marriage Act, known as Doma, discriminated against same-sex couples.

Now the two sides of the marriage wars are gearing up to resume the costly state-by-state battles that could, in the hopes of each, spread marriage equality to several more states in the next few years, or reveal a brick wall of traditional values that cannot be breached. 

Twenty-nine states — not including California — currently have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Some advocates expect that in the November 2014 elections, Oregon and perhaps less likely, Nevada or Ohio could become the first states to undo their amendments. At the same time, a court case in New Mexico could extend marriage rights.

Strategists agree they are unlikely to win over more conservative states in the South and the West in the foreseeable future. But, looking at the historical experience with issues like bans on interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court outlawed only in 1967, they feel confident that if equality spreads to more states and public attitudes continue shifting, a future Supreme Court will surely find that marriage is a right for gay men and lesbians as well as heterosexuals.

 New Jersey, like six other states, offers legal civil unions but not marriage to gay couples. According to a 2006 decision by the State Supreme Court, such unions must provide legal protections equal to those offered heterosexual couples. But even after Wednesday’s decision, the federal government will not recognize civil unions, said Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State Equality — thus bolstering the legal argument that unions and marriage are not equal. 

 In broader ways, the end of the Defense of Marriage Act’s ban on federal benefits for same-sex spouses will strengthen the gay-marriage cause nationally by highlighting inconsistencies and unfairness among the states, said Fred Sainz, vice president for communications with the Human Rights Campaign in Washington. Wednesday’s Supreme Court rulings, he said, will shine a light on the “two Americas: one in which legally married gay couples live and the other in which unmarried gay families live,” with basic protections still out of reach. 

This latest information, above, from the BBC and the New York Times, whilst explaining some of the 'gains' for couples seeking same sex unions, reveals the inadequacies and hypocracies within the institution of marriage itself. Marriage is an economic institution historically and remains so till this day. It is about property and property rights and who owns what and about economic dependence based on patriarchy, not about love or intimate human relations. 

Notice the give away phrases from the reporting:  

'the two sides of the marriage wars are gearing up to resume the costly state-by-state battles'

' New Jersey, like six other states, offers legal civil unions but not marriage'

'such unions must provide legal protections equal to those offered heterosexual couples'

 “two Americas: one in which legally married gay couples live and the other in which unmarried gay families live,” with basic protections still out of reach.

Lots of lovely money to be made by the legal professions from ongoing cases state by state and from couples entering into legal civil unions - not at all what it's about for the individuals concerned. Any two people can surely commit themselves to a permanent relationship if that's what they both choose without the intervention of the state or local bureaucracy dictating the terms of their union? Oh, no, maybe not. First we have to rid ourselves of the smothering tendrils of the capitalist system.