The Marriage Boycott

[Modem Butterfly]

http://www.unmarried.org/marriage-boycott.html

The Marriage Boycott is a growing grassroots movement of different-sex couples who have decided not to marry until same-sex couples are allowed to legally marry in the United States (or in their own state). Since AtMP was founded in 1998, we've heard from many people who have chosen not to marry in solidarity with same-sex couples. Many had other reasons for choosing not to marry as well, but felt this was an important factor in their feelings about marriage.

Now, in the spring of 2004, with same-sex marriage in the headlines nearly every day, we've noticed a real increase in the number of emails and phone calls from people who are seriously considering boycotting marriage or who have already put their wedding plans on hold. For some, the issue is an intensely personal one: they may have had a heartfelt conversation with a friend or relative in a same-sex relationship about that person's deep desire to marry, but inability to do so. For others, the issue is a symbolic one about fairness and equality, particularly as the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment heats up in this election year. If this is the civil rights struggle of the decade, could the Marriage Boycott be the equivalent of joining the Montgomery bus boycott?

[skids]

1. I wouldn't know.

All my X's left me because they were in such a hurry to go pop out a kid or three that they just couldn't wait for financial stability. Honestly, even the one who said she "didn't believe in marriage" was married within a year of leaving me. I guess that makes me a cupid of sorts :crazy:

So forgive me if I have mixed feelings on the matter. Personally I don't think the government has any business whatsoever being involved in marriage. A few child custody laws to ensure children get a good upbringing, sure. But a person should be able to decide for themselves who is and isn't entitled to visit them in the hospital, for example.

[Modem Butterfly]

2. Yikes!

I personally think that private contracts between consenting adults should remain between those consenting adults. I think we should have a civil marriage in the US and a religious marriage. That way, if a church doesn't want to recognize a same-sex marriage, they don't have to and we get religion out of the government.

[Deja Q]

4. What is 'financial stability'? Apart from an antiquated term?

Before Reaganomics, 'financial stability' was far more common, and real.

Today, after Reagan's satanic revolution? People go through 5-10 careers in their entire lifetime. That alone, in terms of training, is EXPENSIVE - even for one career, but 5 through 10 of them?!

People can lose their jobs at any time for any reason. And how many people, especially under 40, could even begin to have enough money to cover the rest of their lives?

Sorry to be harsh, but get with the times. That concept is as comatose as the Democratic party. And the future looks even worse. :-(

[skids]

5. Well, to answer your question...

I am. By not overextending my resources, I was able to build up a good nest-egg. If I were currently employed (I should stress that I am not employed because I quit, not because I was layed off, which I did for reasons of principle, and would not have been able to do so if I had spent like my peers) I would consider myself financially stable enough to start a family. I have about 2 years worth of (single) living expenses in savings right now, which gives me plenty of time to resituate.

Nothing is perfect. Of course there are still risks, and you are perhaps right that my standards are a bit too stringent.

I don't levy this criticism at the poor who have little opportunity to do so, only on those who had the chance to and screwed it up by buying crap and throwing their money down a hole paying interest on long lines of credit. They didn't have to do that, but they did.

Regardless of what kind of social/class/gender "ceiling" you have to contend with, that doesn't change the fact that waiting a few years to reproduce is better for all parties involved. It deepens the relationship (too many couples are only together for the children and didn't bother to get to know each other when there was time) and allows for more initial career mobility.

Honestly I don't know why people (both male and female) seem to think their biological clock is running down at the plucky age of 23. It's wrong and it has hurt the middle class (what's left of it.)

[Fescue4u]

3. Boycotts only work if they hurt

I suppose the wedding gown and reception hall industry might hurt from this, but I doubt that will gain much attention.

If Joe and Judy decide to not get married, it doesnt exactly have an impact on, well anyone except Joe and Judy.

Best of luck nonethless though.