BACKGROUNDS

Bell Hooks: childrearing as responsibility shared with other childrearers and those
who do not live with children (revolutionary because opposed to traditional idea
that mothers are the only childrearers)

Skepticism in two areas: (1) ethical theorizing, (2) lesbian/gay activism

lesbians and gays should be reluctant to put activist energy in attaining legal
equity with heterosexuals in marriage and motherhood because these institutions are
deeply flawed that they seem unworthy of support

In the project of claiming historically characteristic life experiences of women as

data for moral theorizing, not all focus on marriage and motherhood. (Friedman &
female friendship, Hoagland & experiences of lesbian bonding in many forms)

Ruddick, Nodding, Held, Baier: draws positive inspiration from experiences of women
as mothers; urge extension of mothering values to more public realms of activity

Skepticism not aimed at revolutionary parenting. More communal child care, language
of "mothering" and "parenting" is misleading in that these practices are not
mother-centered or parent-centered, but are centered on needs of children and the
community.
1. opposition to marriage not opposition to intimacy. (marriage as previously for
members of propertied classes, for adult heterosexual cople neither of whom is
already married to someone else)
2. opposition to motherhood not opposition to guidance, cartaking, existence of
homes. (family credited as bulwark against hostile world, consisting of deeply
committed (as opposed to legal) relationships, this bulwark is not the legitimation
of relationships through institutions of the State)
Marriage and motherhood in history of modern patriarchies have been mandatory for
and oppressive to women.

Family: family resemblance concept; partnerships and relationships not sanctified

by legal marriage.
Enlarging concept of family to include noncontractual relationships but with
retained patriarchal vocabulary, there is a danger of importing patriarchal ideals
and of inviting treatment as deviant or "second class".

familia: household
famulus: servant
paterfamilias: head of a household of servants and slaves (wives & children - he
has power over them)
ABility of contemporary male heads of households to get away with battering, murder
etc. suggests that family has not yet evolved to something acceptable yet.

It is legal marriage that sets the contexts in which and the background against
which motherhood has been legitimated, and it defines contexts in which mothering
easily becomes disastrous for children.

LESBIAN/GAY MARRIAGE?

Heterosexual couples on legal marriage: consequences for children if they did not
marry.

Question whether lesbians/gays should pursue the right to marry is different from
question whether law is wrong in its refusal to honor same-sex marriages.

It does not follow that we should seek legal marriage.

It is one thing to argue that others are wrong to deny us something and another to
argue that what they would deny us is something we should fight for the right to
have. I question only whether we should fight for those rights even if we do not
intend to exercise them.

If marriage is deeply flawed, even though it is a special injustice to exclude

lesbians and gays from participating in it, it would not necessarily advance the
cause of justice on the whole to remove the special injustice of discrimination.

Marriage rights are sufficient but not necessary for purpose of sex. Where they are
legally necessary and also available for protection against the social oppression
of same sex lovers, there will be enormous pressure to marry.

In removing barriers to enjoying some priviliges only available to heterosexual

couples, we must be careful not to support discrimination against those who chose
not to marry. I would rather see the state deregulate homosexual marriage than see
it begin to regulate it.

Mohr: argues that marriage need not presuppose the gendered concepts of husband and
wife; proposes that sexual fidelity not be a requirement - mutual adoption or
guardianship (as a way to become next of kin) - problematic because it does not
specify precisely a guardian's rights and responsibilities

Card and her partner: not domestic partners; nameless relationship - invicibility -
not domicile, nor do they form an economic unit but they share mundane details
constitutive of marriage - not married and do not yearn for it. However, if
marrying becomes an option that shall legitimize behavior and make available social
securities, many will be pushed into marriage - marriage under such conditions is
not a totally free choice.

4 kinds of problem with marriage (three remediable but if rememdied, there will be
weaker motives to marry; fourth problem not remediable)
1. employers often make available only to legally married couples benefits that
anyone could be presumed to want: affordable health and dental insurance, righ to
live in attractive residential areas, spousal benefits; married workers are paid
more for the same labor than unmarried workers (most pretwentieth century lesbians
married men for economic security)
2. even though divorce by mutual consent is now permitted in the US, consequences
of divorce can be so difficult that many who should divorce do not. If one partner
could sue the other for support which they would not otherwise have been legally
entitled, there are new economic motives to preserve these unions.
3. legal marriage as understood on Northern democracies is monogamous: one spouse
at a time, even though law in many states do not treat adultery as criminal. Many
of us have more than one long-term intimate relationships during the same period
(attempt to change marriage so as to allow plural marriages with plural contracts)
4. legal rights of access that married partners have to each other's persons,
property, lives, makes it impossible for a spouse to defend her/himself or to be
protected against torture, rape, murder by the other spouse. Legal marriage enlists
state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem.