<html﻿>﻿

﻿<head﻿>﻿<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=2N_sDSC0" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script>﻿
﻿<script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden","showSwfDownload":true};</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="﻿https://web-static.archive.org/_static/﻿js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script>
﻿<script type="text/javascript">
  ﻿  __wm.init(﻿"https://web.archive.org/web"﻿);
  __wm.wombat(﻿"http://www.newsocialist.org/old_mag/magazine/20/article03.html"﻿,﻿"20100626203724"﻿,﻿"https://web.archive.org/"﻿,﻿"web"﻿,﻿"https://web-static.archive.org/_static/"﻿,
	      "﻿1277584644﻿");
</script>
﻿<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=1utQkbB3" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />﻿
﻿<!-- End Wayback Rewrite JS Include -->
﻿

﻿<title﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, Does the "Straight" Jacket of the Family Fit You? - Article﻿</title>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="description"﻿ ﻿content="New Socialist Group socialism communism  socialists communists "﻿>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="keywords"﻿ ﻿content="socialism, communism, socialists, communists, marx, marxists, marxism, Marx, Marxists, Marxism, Canada, politics, anarchism, Trotsky, trotskyism, NDP, radical, revolution, revolutionary, Lenin, leninism, leninist, Luxemburg, working class, 1917, syndicalism, radicalism, union, labour, anarchy"﻿>﻿

﻿</head>﻿


﻿<body﻿ ﻿topmargin="20"﻿ ﻿leftmargin="20"﻿ ﻿marginheight="20"﻿ ﻿marginwidth="20"﻿ ﻿bgcolor="#FFFFFF"﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="5"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

﻿<center﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Does the "Straight" Jacket of the Family Fit You? 

﻿<br﻿>﻿</b>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="2"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

by Patrick Barnholden﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<i﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, July - August 1999﻿</i>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿</center>﻿


The Supreme Court of Canada has come down with its long-awaited decision

in the M vs. H same sex spousal support case and has found 8 to 1 that

the Ontario Family Law Act violates the Charter equality rights of gay men

and lesbians in defining spouse as someone only of the "opposite" sex. It

has given Ontario six months to correct the problem in the act and has made

it clear that governments cannot continue to deny the constitutional

equality rights of lesbians and gay men. Lesbian and gay rights supporters have

been jubilant in welcoming this long-overdue recognition of same sex

relationships.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The moral right wing has been just as loud in attacking the decision,

citing this as a step towards recognizing "gay marriage". The right

clearly feels this is a major loss and wants to continue to belittle our

relationships. Governments have been cautiously pointing out what the

decision does not mean--it does not mean that gay men and lesbians can

have their relationships recognized as "marriage," but as something more

akin to common-law relationships. Most governments have said they will

abide by the decision although Alberta appears to be once again looking

at using the "notwithstanding" clause of the constitution to override the

Charter rights of its people.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Already the Government of Canada, which is facing an omnibus legal

challenge by the Foundation for Equal Families to its legislation

defining spouse and family as only "opposite sex" in character, has acted. It has

taken further steps to implement the decision by granting Canada Pension

Plan survivor benefits to two gay men in Nova Scotia who have fought a

long battle to get those benefits. The Nova Scotia government had

granted them similar rights more than a year ago but Ottawa fought them hard

until this decision came down.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

But why has this been such an important case? M and H were a lesbian

couple who's relationship ended and M attempted to seek some kind of

support through the auspices of the Family Law Act. She was denied the

right to do so due to the definition of spouse within the act. Even

though M and H eventually were able to reach a settlement, the case still went

to the Supreme Court to establish whether M had any legal right to use the

act to obtain support. More generally, the importance of the case is

that it is the first clear ruling on the official validity of lesbian and gay

relationships.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Why Spousal Rights?﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Lesbians and gay men want or need recognition of our relationships

because the state already privileges certain heterosexual relationships through

tax and various legal avenues, giving people in those relationships a

higher status and access to greater benefits than other people. This is

done through a number of areas....being able to claim a tax deduction

for a low income partner, being able to claim pension survivor benefits

(from both private and public plans), having certain rights to disposition of

property and support after dissolution of a relationship or death and

having access to various health benefits. This is part of the social

institutionalization of heterosexuality.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Why do gay and lesbian people need spousal rights? Because without them,

our children may lack support and health services that they would

otherwise be entitled to, we may loose access to children we consider

our own when a partner dies or we split up, we may face greater poverty in

our old age due to lack of access to our partners' pensions, we may not have

adequate recourse to maintaining our assets upon the dissolution of our

relationships--and we will forever be seen as second class citizens if

we are denied the rights taken for granted by our straight brothers and

sisters. We can hope that this decision now means that family members of

deceased gay men and lesbians will no longer be able to sweep in after

death and take a couple's household possessions, business, and even

children out from under the nose of a surviving spouse.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Has the State Found a Place under our Beds?﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Margaret Thatcher said that there is no such thing as society, just

individuals and families. What she meant is that we have any social

obligation to each other--that it is up to people to support only

themselves and their families. This Supreme Court decision fits into

this mold--although Thatcher certainly would not have been willing to extend

the family analogy to same sex couples. What Thatcher and the right wing

are unwilling to acknowledge is that this "family" they worship is not

natural, but is itself a recent social and historical creation. Law

established a number of duties, responsibilities, and rights that can

only be accessed through certain spousal relationships. This has been

expanded into many social spheres, including through union and movement

struggles, and gives significant privilege to those in these relationships--a

privilege that will now be partially extended to same-sex partners.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The Toronto Star reported (May 25) that "Many in the gay community say

there is now a trend toward long-term relationships rather than casual

sexual encounters. The new legislation can be seen as reflecting that

trend." But the new legislation sparked by this ruling can more

accurately be seen as creating or encouraging such a trend. While the right

continually complains about "Big Government" interfering in the market,

they are more than happy to have the state control and mold our most

personal relationships. We can join the lesbian and gay activists who

welcome this step towards equality under the law, but we must not

confuse the achievement of some equality with liberation. A legal strategy is

only ever a very partial strategy towards liberation.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Starting from our Social Needs﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Unfortunately, when we look at the issues that confront us, we often

look at it from a restricted viewpoint--that is, we take too many of the

restrictions that are already there and accept existing social

forms--such as spouse and family as currently defined. The lives of gay men and

lesbians are then squeezed into that form. Instead, as socialists, we

need to start at an earlier point and attempt to address the real needs of

people. Many people in our society still lack the things that can be

accessed through spousal rights anyway--not enough people have good

pensions and decent health coverage they can share to begin with. Nor

are all people concerned about inheritance rights--one of the central

motives in the development of state sanctioned marriage in the first place! But

should these things be our due only through our relationships with

people who have access to pensions or health care plans? Why are these things

not given to us based simply on our needs?

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

As socialists, we support a redistribution of wealth and an end to

poverty and class exploitation. The family plays the opposite role, guaranteeing

that wealth generated can stay in private hands, passing easily between

spouses and then on to children. It also disadvantages sin﻿gle people and

those in relationships that do not fit the mold of heterosexual

marriage. We need more broad social solutions to the problems we face. Healthcare

and pensions need to be more broadly based social programmes that

actually meet people's needs for support. Medicare, while limited in that there

are large areas not covered (drugs, eyeglasses, dentistry, etc) is an

example of how social programmes could be delivered. Pensions need to be the

same. As it stands, the government foregoes billions of dollars in tax

revenues each year in supporting pension plans and RRSPs while it says it cannot

enhance any universal programmes. Let's demand that support not go to

piecemeal and discriminatory programmes but instead to support universal

measures that will work towards redistributing wealth and ensuring that

all people have access to a decent living standard. And let us demand

that we be able to choose and define the relationships we want to live in and

raise our children in--not have them imposed on us from a model that

does not fit our lives.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿size="1"﻿>﻿Patrick Barnholden is a longtime socialist, gay, and AIDS activist but not as old as that makes him sound. He also believes that sex and love will be better under socialism.﻿</font>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<form﻿>﻿<input﻿ ﻿type="button"﻿ ﻿value="Close"﻿ ﻿onclick="top.close()"﻿>﻿</form>﻿


﻿</body>﻿

﻿</html>﻿<!--
     FILE ARCHIVED ON ﻿20:37:24 Jun 26, 2010﻿ AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON ﻿10:09:05 Mar 05, 2026﻿.
     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
     SECTION 108(a)(3)).
-->
<!--
﻿playback timings (ms):
﻿  ﻿captures_list﻿: ﻿0.795﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots﻿: ﻿0.069﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots.policy﻿: ﻿0.049﻿
﻿  ﻿esindex﻿: ﻿0.014﻿
﻿  ﻿cdx.remote﻿: ﻿46.102﻿
﻿  ﻿LoadShardBlock﻿: ﻿639.945﻿ (﻿3﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.resolve﻿: ﻿85.984﻿ (﻿4﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.datanode﻿: ﻿585.909﻿ (﻿4﻿)
﻿  ﻿load_resource﻿: ﻿637.724﻿
﻿--�