While Harvard students were spread across the world this summer, something important changed on campus. The Board of Ministry of Harvard's Memorial Church met to affirm the legitimacy of same-sex marriage ceremonies. Second to Stanford University, which spearheaded university recognition of same-sex unions earlier this year, Harvard marked itself as committed to the equal treatment of lesbian, gay and bisexual affiliates. And word spread, making national news.

Some view this policy change as cause for celebration. Others think that there remains work to be done. I belong squarely in the second camp. Same-sex marriage is a start, but it is by no means a final destination for the movement.

At first glance, symbolic same-sex marriage seems like great policy. But the oppression of lesbians and gay men is far greater than what can be remedied with a spiritual ceremony. The inclusion of lesbians and gay men in a church ceremony at one university-even if it is Harvard-is more like a bone thrown to the gay and lesbian community than it is a burgeoning national commitment to lesbian and gay issues. Marriage is a way for lesbians and gay men to fit in, to mimic the norm. Same-sex marriage is, in fact, quite conservative; there is no radical departure from social mores, just an attempt to integrate those previously excluded into a culture that is unchanged.

There is nothing radical about lesbians and gay men assimilating, attempting to be just like normal, married straight people. As a lesbian, my politics is based on questions-questions about society, sexuality, gender and power. Same-sex marriage doesn't ask these important questions. Marriage itself is a questionable institution, historically used for the economic and political oppression of women. As a feminist, I find it especially difficult to find marriage in any form attractive, and the last thing I want is a wife. Same-sex marriage is only the beginning for a movement with far higher aims. And yet this University and this country is obsessed with same-sex marriage.

Let's face it: It is illegal for lesbians and gay men to get married. We may be able to use that lovely space in Harvard Yard, but as far as the honeymoon goes, there is nothing to look forward to. President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act last year which preempts any federal acceptance of same-sex marriage. Last year, ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which prohibits job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, did not pass. If you don't live in Hawaii, where the State Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage, you are effectively just two roommates living together. In Vermont, same-sex couples are suing for marriage rights, but it is not yet a reality.

The reality of lesbian and gay marriage without legal recognition is not pretty. A partner can be denied the right to visit a lover in the hospital because the partner is neither family nor a spouse. A partner can be denied access to children raised with a lover. A partner can live without medical insurance because an employer does not offer domestic partnership benefits.

I may be able to wear a golden ring on the same hand as my Harvard class ring, but I-and people like me-am beaten up, denied housing, and discriminated against by employers. In Georgia earlier this summer, the State Attorney General Michael Bowers revoked a job offer when his potential employee revealed her recent lesbian commitment ceremony. Symbolic marriage offers no protection from discrimination. In recent years, numerous referenda have come to ballot to legalize discrimination against lesbians and gay men in such states as Maine, Oregon and Colorado. According to the Anti-Violence Project, anti-lesbian and gay violence-bashing, violent attacks, shootings and other incidents-increased by 6 percent in 1996. We are still on the defensive, trying to prove we are human beings.

I may be able to marry in Memorial Church, but an academic department of Lesbian and Gay Studies remains a fantasy, a full-fledged student center for gay and lesbian students a distant dream. In the dormitories, a homophobic student scribbles "faggot" on the wall, as occurred in Dunster House this past spring. When Angels in America playwright Larry Kramer offered millions of dollars to Yale University, his alma mater, for the creation of a professorship of Lesbian and Gay Studies, it was denied. When students at Harvard agitated for a University-sponsored lesbian and gay student center, we were offered a tiny basement office for the BGLTSA due to a Harvard-wide policy against single-issue student centers.

We are still fighting. At Harvard, we are fighting for transgendered people, who as of now have no legal recourse against discrimination, as they are excluded from the University non-discrimination policy. Nationally, we are fighting for the freedom of sexual expression in a country where anti-sodomy laws are still on the books in many states. When we regard symbolic marriage in the context of the larger picture of lesbian and gay issues, we begin to see that marriage is not a radical agenda at all. When and if I stop worrying about job and housing discrimination and anti-lesbian and gay violence, then and only then will I consider concerning myself with symbolic marriage.

Diana Adair '98 is the Undergraduate Council Executive Director of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues.