Or Alternatively

The Scottish Government's consultation on the possibility of legalising same-sex marriage in Scotland is being heralded (rightly) as an important step forward for LGBTQ rights. But, as a queer, polyamorous person, I am worried that by seeing it as the holy grail of LGBTQ rights, we might be missing the point.

Marriage, as it is, is an institution which reinforces the idea that a monogamous, life-long relationship should be central to life. This is not the only way of having relationships – for starters, marriage equality would not allow a polyamorous person to marry two or more partners. I'm not, however, arguing for marriage to simply bring another oppressed group into its loving embrace. I want to question it in the way that we questioned the idea that you could only love someone of a different gender, or that you had to accept the gender that you were assigned at birth.

I am not saying that marriage is necessarily a bad thing, any more than I would say that heterosexuality is a bad thing; what is problematic is the idea that it is the only possibility open to us. And that idea is drummed into us all the time – watch any Disney movie... Polyamorous people love more than one person at once, and in diverse ways; LGBTQ people who have been rejected by their natal families to pursue relationships which are outside social acceptance know acutely how important 'chosen families' are. If we uncritically campaign for marriage equality, we are in danger of slipping back into a way of thinking which accepts institutional frameworks uncritically and does not allow for the creation of diverse relationships outside of them.

Some couples want to get married, and we should absolutely support their right to do so. However, we must never give up the on the right to create our own templates for relationships, and we must not forget that gay marriage will not automatically give us equality. We are in danger of hitting some of the same walls as feminism: in the same way that some claim that legal equality has ended the need for feminism, some will no doubt point to marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws and claim that we've won. But this does not mean liberation, and it does not mean an end to heterosexism. It means a step towards formal equality in a world which is still full of prejudice, and ways of thinking which box us in. It is not enough.

Like feminists campaigning for the vote but acknowledging that the way that parliamentary democracy works is flawed, we can back marriage equality and simultaneously be critical of the institution as it is. We should be campaigning for self-determination in our relationships – in their length, commitment, gender-make-up, and number. This means getting equality in the traditional forms, for those who want it, but not seeing it as the final step. We are creative, diverse and strong, and we should not underestimate our capacity to shape our own lives and loves; to create a world in which the couple making a life-long monogamous commitment can stand beside the polyamorous web of lovers, and both can be glad for each other.