The single woman in me cringes

[suegeo]

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a42588/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage/

This article touches on why I am aloof on the same sex marriage issue. (Aloof? Distant? Not a passionate advocate? The right word eludes me. Marriage? Really?)

The paragraph that begins "The single woman in me cringes" sums up well how I feel about same sex marriage.

The single lady in me cringes – am I really without nobility and dignity, living a life inferior to my married peers, absent profound hopes and aspirations? Does Kennedy really believe that a life without marriage is by definition less transcendent, dignified, and hopeful than a life legally bound to another? And while Kennedy gave a nod to the profound ways in which marriage has changed to acknowledge and adapt to women's increasing social equality, what does the Court's embrace of the most traditional of traditional institutions – an institution that for most of human history, and still in much of the world, renders women second-class dependents, folded into a male authority figure – offer those of us who seek to create our own ways of living and loving?

I am a liberal, a happy unmarried female, and the embrace of a deeply conservative institution is what has me wobbly.

[malthaussen]

1. Or even "The single lady"

Which I submit is an interesting (and possibly cringe-worthy) terminology in itself.

-- Mal

[suegeo]

7. I didn't even catch my misquote!

I wonder what that mistake says about my brain?

[malthaussen]

10. I wondered as well...

... but was too polite to mention it. Seriously, though, she may be using it ironically.

-- Mal

[HassleCat]

2. On the bright side

This opens up new possibilities for the institution of marriage, which is no longer captured exclusively by its patriarchal past, its notions of women as property, subservience to the male, etc.

[suegeo]

4. Including smashing the institution entirely?

? There was another line in the article about asking to sit next to someone at lunch is easier than suggesting eliminating lunch altogether.

I like lunch, marriage not so much.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out a silver lining.

I am happy for gay people, if marriage is what they want.

[TDale313]

3. I'm also a happily single woman...

And I'm just thrilled by this decision. Thrilled for lesbian and gay coupled I know who will be free to marry now, but more importantly, because- the institution of marriage aside, I think this is a huge step in reaffirming the full citizenship and personhood of lgbt Americans. It's not, to me, about placing married people over single people (although I get where it can feel that way) but about making sure certain people in our society are no longer second class citizens- and that's a good.

[suegeo]

5. Justice Kennedy's writings sure sting me

I like the "reaffirming the full citizenship and personhood" statement you made, and all.

It's just the quotes from Justice Kennedy that the article's author cites do sting and place married people over single people.

I'm not going to make a passionate embrace of a very traditional and conservative institution. It's nothing that I have against the gays, I'm just not that into marriage.

It's an institution that does not offer much that's positive to women. And in fact, an institution that has harmed women pretty much throughout its history.

[TDale313]

13. I do think there are lots of ways

In which society, and our government, leave behind single people, especially women. Lots of benefits afforded to married couples and incentives and pressures to pair off- I get that. And I think we should push back against that. But a couple thoughts. Some of the parts of marriage that have traditionally been most harmful to women (and men, btw) have to do with traditional gender roles that this ruling, and current changes in how people see marriage, can actually help change. And, while I don't personally feel the drive, I can be happy for people who do want to make and celebrate a loving committment to each other. Especially couples like my two friends who have been together for decades but who will now have the security of knowing that their siblings will no longer have more legal rights and recognized relationship than they do to each other.

[DURHAM D]

6. When that was read I was taken aback a little

for two reasons.

One: I am not married, and although I am beyond delighted that my gay brothers and sisters can now marry, I felt my life had been "othered" or shamed.

Two: I could not help but wonder what Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were thinking about that language.

[suegeo]

8. Are those 2 justices single?

Too lazy to look it up myself.

[DURHAM D]

9. Yes.

Kagan has never married and Sotomayor was married briefly but divorced over 30 years ago.

[suegeo]

11. R. Bader-Ginsberg might have a few interesting thoughts too

about Kennedy's take...

[malthaussen]

12. I find myself agreeing in part with Scalia and Thomas...

... which is something I thought I'd never say. Mr Justice Kennedy's opinion is definitely sentimental (if not maudlin), narrow-minded, and insofar as he seems to think plaintiffs are begging for an indulgence rather than claiming their rights, dead wrong in my opinion.

-- Mal

[Warpy]

14. I don't care who gets married as long as it's not me

I confess I am deeply matrimoniophobic. Marriage to an alcoholic will do that.

My shouts of "Mazeltov!" and my hearty congratulations and wishes for a long and happy life are always tinged with relief and guilty pleasure that it's not me up there.

I'm delighted that the body of civil law governing marriage is now open to all adults. I agree that the institution has served many people well, although it needs a lot of work. My best hope is that gay couples will show us the way to do that work so that it's no longer a legal arrangement between a man and an appendage, the appendage expected to do all the shitwork.

Then again, I did see the worst of it. The best is likely out there somewhere. It's just not for me.