To the Editor:
I was distraught as I read the beginning of Tanya Nguyen's '13 column ("Skepticism of marriage equality," March 16) this morning because its opening paragraphs sounded eerily like she was on the cusp of proposing something similar to the "separate but equal" ruling of the United States Supreme Court, which was perhaps one of the most insincere and disastrous rulings in the history of the country. After finishing the column, I breathed a sigh of relief because Nguyen's views are actually quite well grounded in a desire for sexual orientation equality. Her opinion, however, is that emphasis on marriage equality should be downplayed. I strongly disagree, as I believe that marriage equality is an essential stepping stone towards our common future goal of a world without discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Nguyen's claim that marriage is not a legal issue is of paramount importance to her central thesis. However, I maintain that marriage has traditionally been, and remains to be, based in an economic and legal framework. I'm not saying that everyone marries to solidify political allegiances or to assure financial stability, but even in our post-Jane Austen world, marriage remains tied to a host of legal and semi-legal constructs such as taxes, visas and health care. The last in this list may become an even larger issue as our country moves towards nationalized health care. While love is an obvious part of marriage in our society, the presence of love in marriage has not been enough to depoliticize marriage.
Nguyen mentions after her article that she is by no means an expert on family law or queer activism. I agree with this part of her column.
Tim Eisen '11
