First Anti-Discrimination, Then Marriage Equality!!!

[Jordan Gwendolyn]

Note: this was originally posted on my blog in December, but given the transphobic actions of Equality Maryland, it had to be repeated...

_______________________________________________________________________________

I have touched on this subject on a number of blogs I have written for Amplify, but I would just like to come out and state this, while I do whole-heartedly support gender neutral marriage, I believe that for any state to consider such legislation, they should first have comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, and there are many good rationales behind this.

Consider this, marriage is something which requires a good deal of economic and social stability, and that can only be achieved by being able to find a home and job, as well as being able to get an education, and if there are no anti-discrimination laws, that can become difficult. I am in a financially precarious situation, and I cannot even think about getting married right now. Plus, getting married would prevent me from being able to collect SSD on my parents' record once they retire, die, or if they become disabled, whichever comes first (of course this is in case I am unable to be substantially and gainfully employed). Thus, marriage is not as much of a personal issue for me, even though it is something I care about. Relate this to Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs, the safety provided by anti-discrimination laws is a more basic need than the love/belonging that is supposed to be the precursor to marriage.

Plus, it is far more feasible to get moderate and conservative support for anti-discrimination laws than support for marriage equality, something that should be taken into consideration for states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. But if one needs proof of my theory here, look at New Jersey. When they passed a law that not only outlawed discrimination against people based on gender identity, but required workplaces to accomodate transgender employees in terms of dress codes, it won massive bipartisan support, even from figures such as Gerald Cardinale, who opposed marriage equality due to it being an issue of "mawrality". In said marriage equality vote, many of those other moderate and conservative legislators on both sides of the aisle who supported transgender rights joined him in opposing gender neutral marriage.

Now, one would think knowing Pennsylvania is a far more conservative state, there would be more of a focus on actually getting anti-discrimination laws before marriage. However, State Senator Daylin Leach, who represents a wealthy suburban district outside of Philadelphia, decided that he would introduce a gender neutral marriage bill. Although he did it to get discussion going and admitted that he didn't think it would pass anytime soon, he still should have, instead of this, put his energies behind anti-discrimination, something that would not only have been more broad-based and would take care of more basic needs, but would have been more feasible and would not have riled up the put-marriage-to-a-vote crowd. I felt that Senator Leach's actions come from a place of privilege; while I do not oppose gender neutral marriage, I oppose the fact that it was pushed at a time when conditions aren't ripe for such legislation and when other legislation, which is more feasible, broad-based, and necessary, is overlooked.

I oppose Senator Eichelberger's attempts to put gender neutral marriage to a vote; I support Senator Leach's legislation, however, it won't be viable until at least 2019 (if current political trends continue). People have a hierarchy of needs and the LGBTIQ rights movement should acknowledge that in which of the many important issues they should pursue, given the political climate.

And after all, knowing all this, if there is anti-discrimination before marriage equality, there would be more other-than-traditional couples being able to enjoy marriage once it inevitably becomes available to them.