I kind of think about marriage in relation to settler colonialism and the indigenous category of analysis. In my own perspective, I look at settler colonialism in Hawaii and the work that has been done on kinship systems. Governments, such as early Spain, eventually Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, have imposed colonial norms on indigenous peoples, attacking kinship distinctions and different forms of diversity, including gender and sexuality norms. What's wrong with marriage being the defining issue? Well, as someone who is completely opposed to marriage as a goal, I believe it all goes back to property and settler colonialism. British common law's influence in North America and the imposition of heterosexual marriage norms by the missionaries who went to Hawaii from Connecticut and Massachusetts in 1820 is an example. They tried to eradicate indigenous practices of polyandry, polygamy, and same-sex sexuality. They also targeted sibling chiefly incestuous relationships. Marriage, to me, is intertwined with the subordination of Hawaiian women and issues of sexual autonomy, particularly with the missionaries' attempt to enforce subservience to men in the name of marriage and civilization. Marriage, for me, is not disconnected from the missionaries' push for Hawaiian land privatization and coverture for women, where women's civic status became tied to their spouses. This connection between land, gender, and sexuality demonstrates how marriage serves as a way to solidify ownership and proprietary relationships. It reflects American property rights as the foundation of society and the spread of individualized title as a marker of civilization globally. The issue of same-sex marriage and the struggle for acceptance is not much different. While there are limits to the assimilationist critique, the desire for marriage equality is a way of seeking acceptance within the existing societal framework. Additionally, the intertwining of marriage and militarism, such as the military's discriminatory policies towards...