SELECT explanation FROM gay-marriage ORDER BY awesomeness
This has got to be the single best explanation of why gay marriage will bring an end to our civilization, starting with our databases. You can actually learn a lot about database theory from this post, to say nothing of the deeply structuring heteronormativity of our bureaucratic culture. There must be some way to use this post to invalidate California prop 8 in court… I just haven’t figured it out yet.
Christopher Kelty does anthropological and historical research on science and technology, free and open source software, intellectual property and open access, the history of software, and the ethics and politics of nanotechnology. He also teaches classes about all of these things. From 2001 to 2008 he was assistant professor of anthropology at Rice University, in Houston, TX. He know teaches at UCLA and splits his time between the Information Studies department, the Anthropology Department and the Center for Society and Genetics.
Only tangentially about your post, but why do married people have rights that unmarried people don’t? I must say that it puzzles me that somehow in the course of discussing gay marriage the economic aspects of the institution either get glossed over completely or get “emotionalized”. “Isn’t it horrible that we live in a country where two people living in a committed partnership can’t take part in a group health plan?” Umm, isn’t it horrible that we live in a country where you have to be married to get health insurance?
Report this comment
That’s very true, although there is also the opposite situation where marriage might exclude someone from a particular benefit.
Tangentially again the issue of privilege given to marriage was discussed from a friendship angle in the Guardian this weekend – http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/22/single-marriage-asexual
I heard Katherine Holden present her work on singleness in a conference last year, so it was interesting to see her talking about it from a much more personal angle.
Report this comment
Thanks BJG, for the guardian article. It’s true, there are whole ranges of relationships that aren’t included in a romantic/sexual definition of marriage (be it same or opposite ‘sex’ or even polyamorous).
I would recommend a look at BeyondMarriage.org. I’m not sure it’s been updated in three years, but it’s so ahead of the times, it doesn’t need to be.
Report this comment
Thanks for the suggestions! BeyondMarriage.org really is years ahead of its time. And I had not encountered Katherine Holden’s work. I found her homepage at http://www.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/history/staff_kholden.shtml and skimmed a couple of her articles—good, non-derivative stuff.
I also wanted to take the opportunity to again push Robert Barnes’ review essay of Maurice Godelier’s recent book: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=412728
Report this comment
Yes, the Beyond Marriage link is certainly worthwhile, thanks.
Thanks also for the link to the Godelier review. My institution helpfully doesn’t subscribe to the journal (!), but I did find it reproduced here – http://ora.ouls.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:fd4e3ea7-ea15-43e7-8275-dc2a36a9b2fe if that’s helpful to anyone. The pdf is in the ‘Downloads’ box on the right-hand side. I’ll be giving it a read this afternoon.
Report this comment