While hordes cheered, waving rainbow flags and putting on public displays of affection after the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal in all states, I cannot help but feel disappointed the victory did not come another way. As the #LoveWins and #EqualityForAll campaign spread, I cannot discount those who were left out: the polyamorous, the incestuous, those who do not wish to enter a union where gov. and lawyers are involved.
People guffaw at those minorities because they are not as trendy as homosexuality has become; they do not have notable icons, popular art, or much representation outside of trashy reality shows.
Plenty look to those desiring multiple partners and assume they are either sexual deviants or brainwashed by patriarchal religions. They ask, “What is the point of them marrying? Marriage is between two people,” not realizing how akin that sounds to the “one man, one woman” propaganda, not taking into account their definition of love is not one-size-fits-all. If love is free and evolving, how can it always be limited to two?
As rare as openly incestuous couples are, the stigma is enormous. Especially if it is a parent/child relationship because the assumption of abuse—even if they are consenting adults upon consummation. Despite knowing nothing of their [a]sexual history except that society labels it as wrong, the naysayers claim to know better. Under the guise of preventing embarrassment or children born with defects [which, at its worst for first cousins, is only a 7–percent higher chance than regular couples], they shovel on man-made guilt. Where is the “you can’t chose who you fall in love with” rhetoric, then?
When someone admits they rather not marry because they do not need a piece of paper given to the gov. to prove their love, many look at them as if they are wearing a tin-foil hat. “But what about the tax benefits? You only have to worry about blowback from lawyers if you get divorced,” skeptics justify. Well, as one-in-two marriages end in a lost bet with the State, it is increasingly prudent to seek an unofficial union. Chiefly, if you are a homosexual man, as courts invariably side with the wife on outrageous financial claims for alimony, child support, and even business rights. Not to mention custody of children and property. Do those years of indentured servitude really offset a meager tax break?
So, while it is fantastic that gays are continually recognized as normal, it is despicable that the gov. is getting credit for righting a wrong they caused, for infringing on a sector they still invade.
Even before the United States was the United States, freedom to marry who you want was subjective. Utah was barred from joining the United States until they made polygamy illegal. Not only did and does that encroach on Mormons’ religious freedom, it set the groundwork to deny unconventional love to this day.
Considering gov. only got into marriage licensing to ensure biracial unions were eradicated, let us not celebrate them when they grant permission to one more group, when they still owe thousands a vigorous apology.
Instead of commending SCOTUS and a country inundated by arbitrary love formulas constrained by legal paper, numbers, sex and familial chromosomes, let us end the reign of Statist Stockholm Syndrome.
DISCLAIMER: This opinion is just one persons opinion alone and it is not representative of all FIUSM staff.
About Post Author
