Maryland Mischief

Barbara Steel of Phoenix, Maryland wrote a brilliant letter to the editor of the Baltimore City Paper.

Any progressive person--actually anybody to the left of Pat Buchanan--ought to be thoroughly ashamed of the pathetically inadequate marriage bill working its way through the state legislature ("Here Come the Brides," Static, Feb. 23).

If "equality" is the issue driving this legislation, how do its proponents possibly justify the continuing invidious discrimination against 1) polyamorists (much of it on the basis of religion), including fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims; 2) bisexuals who require meaningful marital associations composed of at least four people; 3) partners in what are now considered incestuous relationships--especially same-sex incestuous relationships, which do not lead to the possible procreation of offspring with genetic disorders, and nonsexual emotional and economic relationships between family members; and 4) other group arrangements, such as Hillary Clinton's village--which she argues convincingly is a most desirable entity for raising children?

I was starting to think she was like these people until she got to number 4.

Is this just a matter of "getting ours, and to hell with everybody else"?

I think it is more a matter of strategy. Maybe not with the average homosexual couple, but definitely with the marriage neutering advocacy organizations - especially the ones that do more than “gay rights”. If you could get their leaders and major contributors and counsel in private, off the record, they would probably agree that polygamous and incestuous marriages should be legal and licensed. But they don't want the connection made that if, as they argue...

-marriage is a legal construct we should change at will rather than something independent that law has simply described and regulated

-consent or love should be the basis

-there is a fundamental right to marry to person you want

-marriage is not about forming a microcosm of society to perpetuate it

...then we can’t legally justify excluding those other relationships.

By limiting the legislation in this manner, its supporters are ceding the purported moral high ground to its opponents, much like historians who castigate the Nazis for their atrocities committed against the Jews while blithely ignoring those committed against their GLTB victims.

Invoking the Nazis was another tipoff.

They also, rather selfishly if not hypocritically, fail to point out to same-sex marriage foes who argue that marriage should be limited to those who procreate that polyamorists and others who do procreate are also denied equal rights under Maryland's current marriage statute.

We should not have to wait until multiple successful civil rights actions are litigated in the aftermath of the passage of a marriage bill extending the right only to same-sex couples.

It's time to stop dancing around this issue and to demand equal marriage rights for all.

Very well done. Again, I'm not claiming that the pairing of two men or two women is the same thing as polygamy or incestuous marriage. However, the legal and popular arguments used to support the neutering of marriage can also be used to support the removal of the number limit and the restrictions on consensual incest. Should people be denied their "fundamental rights" simply because they don't have as big of a lobby?