So, Why Gay Marriage?
TNG reader and activist, Phil, submits this post questioning our true intentions and goals in the support of gay marriage.
It’s a great thing to be reading all of these posts about how angry we are against California passing Proposition 8. Something I find missing from this discussion, however, is why we REALLY want gay marriage?
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for equal rights and protections. The disproportionate distribution of rights is an injustice, and gay couples everywhere are hurt because of it. LGBTA activists around the country have done a great job in conveying why gay people deserve marriage, and our right to equal treatment.
While essential to the cause, this activism relies on an unexamined view of just WHY we want gay marriage, and HOW gay marriage will bring about equality. If we are ever to succeed, I argue that we need to address our underlying assumptions of marriage and equality. Specifically, as a gay movement we need to solidify (as best as possible) just why we want gay marriage, and how that adds to the common good.
Fundamental to this search is actually examining the institution of marriage. Margaret, who wrote a piece last week, expressed her own apprehension: “marriage is a flawed way of organizing society…the system should be dismantled in favor of a more inclusive system.” In addition: “it actively marginalizes those that it does not represent.” However, she then goes on to champion the cause because it A) legitimizes the economic/social arrangements of gay couples and B) it will engage a social acceptance of gay people, while also advocating other LGBT-related societal ills. While she admits that gay marriage won’t solve it all, she taps into a predominant idea among many gay people (myself included.) This mentality is that marriage will give us the social acceptance that we so crave and deserve. We need to examine whether or not marriage will lead to social acceptance, whether in the short or long term. This question is especially important when we remember Margaret’s criticism of marriage. If it is a flawed institution (one that is not indicative of actual relationships and can serve to privilege certain members of society) then will it truly give us social acceptance? Should we even want it at all?
A word that is commonly used is “equality.” At the very least, equality means having the same protection under the law. Gay marriage would certainly give us this. But does it mean more than that? Somewhat implicit in this is that we need what straight people have in order to be equal. Do we want marriage so much only because everyone else has it? (I really have no idea). If so, then that is somewhat of a let down. Because one of the advantages of being so marginalized is that we have more freedom to choose who and how we love, no matter how unconventional. If we are so ardent in our pursuit to have the same relationship guidelines, does that make us equal? Or does it limit our freedom to choose?
Finally, we need to ask ourselves how gay marriage serves the common good. Hands down, it will benefit thousands of gay couples out there. And if individuals are better off, then the common good is more realized. My only concern, then, is that the illegality of gay marriage is only a symptom, and not the disease. Many sociologists and intellectuals argue that homophobia is inextricably linked to gender norms. And if feminists are right, gender norms easily oppress women everywhere. And how different is the hate that some have for African Americans different than the hate of gay people? My point is that a lot of social ills are intertwined in ways that are not so visible. Will getting the right to marry seek to address those social ills? Or will the legalization of gay marriage DRAIN our angst, unique perspectives, and drive for a better world? Because if that is true, then who will be there to advocate our underlying social ills?
Honestly, I really can’t make up my mind. I ask these questions to start a dialogue about our underlying assumptions. So before you go to the TNG Ban Marriage Party or to the protest on Saturday, let’s talk. Otherwise, I’ll see you on Saturday.
22 comments:
Thanks for this post. I hope it provokes some good discussion. I feel like, when people start talking about gay marriage there's this assumption that of course it's what we all want or should want, and I'm always the one in the room going, "Um..."
Some time in the 90's the gay and lesbian movement took a really sharp right turn. First we were fighting for a bigger definition of family, then suddenly we were fighting to make it as narrow as possible. I think the reason marriage captured the imagination of the gay civil rights movement is that it touches on a very basic human insecurity, a fear of being alone. A fear which is exacerbated by growing up homosexual, especially for older generations whose only queer role models were reststop trolls. (I use that expression with the utmost affection!) We all want to believe in the myth of Mr. Right or Ms. Right, Prince Charming, we all want to flip through bridal magazines and dream about a fairy tale life full of sweet love, and oh my god how will I ever get to wear a white dress and marry the man of my dreams if it's illegal!
I think it would be more fair, more progressive (and, just as importantly, more palatable to the mainstream) to be fighting for the rights of ALL families, unmarried heterosexual partners, homosexual partners, and all the varieties of families that aren't structured around a sexual relationship (elderly sisters who share a home, a disabled person and his or her caretaker, friends who live together communally long-term, single parents with kids ...). All these relationships should have the benefits and societal support that civil marriage has now.
I say it all the time to my friends (who usually just roll their eyes at me) and I'll say it again. Marriage is a fundamentally conservative institution. It is conservative people who promote it (Andrew Sullivan, Dan Savage, etc.) in order to create a world in THEIR image. But as an institution, it's been broken for a long time. It doesn't even work for straight couples. Why do you want it?
I can appreciate the ambivalence of some towards marriage. Let me offer this as a modest goal:
There are gay families that currently exist and there are gay families that have yet to be formed. They deserve equal protection under the law, and they deserve to have that equal protection without being relegated to some separate but equal marriage-lite such as civil unions. It's that simple. If you personally do not want to participate in marriage, that is your choice. I would just hope that those who are ambivalent can nonetheless recognize the need for civil equality. Will marriage rights cause us to be more respected? Maybe. I tend to think the causal relationship goes in the other direction: when we are respected, we will be allowed to marry. The defeat of same-sex marriage is an indicator that we are not respected. The achievement of these rights likewise would signify that we are making progress. Let's keep making progress.
Beyond respect from the broader community, let's remain focused on the more modest, yet quite radical, goal of full civil equality. We can debate the merits of marriage as we go along, but if you want freedom, you want diversity, you want choices for people, how does banning an entire class of people from marriage accomplish that? We should respect the diversity within our own community enough not to impose our own preferences for what "gay culture" should be (whatever that is) on everyone.
Am I crazy? I understand ambivalence towards personally participating in the institution of marriage. I do not understand ambivalence towards wanting the right to marry extended to all. Frankly, I am less concerned with the common good (really hard to identify what this ever is)or gay culture or anything so abstract and subjective than I am with guaranteeing rights for thousands upon thousands of families. I want to focus on tangible goals that demand action and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.
My point is that allowing homosexual couples to get married is not equality at all. It leaves out the vast majority of families that are not centered around a sexual relationship. I think part of the reticence on the part of otherwise liberal straight people to accept gay marriage is a basic, real understanding that homosexual couples ARE different. We are being disingenuous when we say that they are not different. But just because there are many types of families doesn't mean they shouldn't all have the support of the government.
Thanks, Steven. I had a nice long rant on exactly the points you brought up, and then the internet ate it and I was too lazy to retype it. Civil union structures that support all families are far more valuable to the LGBT community, and America as a whole, than marriage.
I feel like marriage is kind of a red herring issue. The word "marriage" carries a lot of religious baggage that has us butting heads against a fair number of religious people who would otherwise not care. Trying to extricate religion from marriage is a lost cause.
Also, because it's makes for so much lovely news-worthy drama, the marriage thing overshadows and dominates other important issues. Job place discrimination, housing discrimination, hate crimes, health care - these affect more of us every day. I wonder where we would be if we had collectively put our efforts into those sort of issues instead of wasting our time arguing with Religious America about marriage.
Well, allowing homosexual couples to marry is definitely more equality, if not the final destination on the way to full equality. I am perfectly comfortable with other sorts of families having legal protections. But two elderly sisters living together are probably not agitating for marriage rights. And holding out for the dismantling and rebuilding of whole institutions, while perhaps a good idea, is probably a case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I think we need to stand up for all those who want to participate in marriage, even if we think it's conservative and hokey. It turns out that there are a lot of gay people who want that traditional arrangement, and they should be allowed to have it. When other sorts of families ask to be given legal protections too, I'll stand up for them. In the meantime, I will have a singular focus on what is imminent and what is possible. Anything else, to my mind, is a distraction. Having said all that, I appreciate where you're coming from.
I don't really care about gay marriage per se, I'd be happy with getting 100% of all the rights and tax benefits that any hetero couple can get. What irritates me to no end is the conservative folk who just want to keep it away from gays who want to get married simply because they want to discriminate and hold gays down. I don't buy for 1 second when bigoted groups say they'd let gays have civil unions that are equal in all but name only, that's just one way for them to put us on the defensive. In reality, they don't want gays to be happy because they hate gays and they don't want them to have any rights.
Because some of us aren't so attached to the term, doesn't mean others aren't more traditional and shouldn't have the desire to get "married". I just don't see what the big freaking deal is. If marriage was somehow delegitimized by gays getting married, you'd think right wing groups would go to war with Canada, Massachusetts and Connecticut. It's utterly ridiculous that the US is still struggling with these issues.
I was listening to NPR today and these right wing groups were really optimistic, thinking that if Obama advocates for a really progressive agenda, like real equal rights for gays and enacting laws that defend abortion, that the religious groups will get energized and somehow come back stronger than ever and foist a Palin-esque dictator upon us again.
If people want to go get married, fine. Go get married in a church, or with your friends, or whatever. But making the conversation "Same Sex Marriage" makes it only a gay rights issue, when the underlying question - "What role should the government play in validating and supporting families?" - is relevant to every American.
It shouldn't be an issue of "what gets me what I want fastest?"; it should be a question of what's best for the country and its citizens.
It's not about Gay Marriage. It's about civil rights, separate but equal, Jim Crow. Gay Marriage is but one of the tools.
Look, like many heterosexuals, I don't want to get married but, like all heterosexuals, I deserve the right to do so.
A book about this just came out called Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage, which I would recommend. It's by Nancy Polikoff. She's more articulate than I can ever hope to be.
Mark, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to get married. I'm not even saying that Prop. 8 was not a serious civil rights setback. What is disheartening to me is that nearly the whole gay and lesbian community has joined a chorus of, "They have it, I want it too!" rather than participating in a critique of what marriage is, what families are, in relationship to government and communities.
Marriage is the wrong battle.
John:
"Frankly, I am less concerned with the common good (really hard to identify what this ever is)or gay culture or anything so abstract and subjective than I am with guaranteeing rights for thousands upon thousands of families."
That's fine, I understand where you are coming from. But if gay marriage is to become legal, then we really need allies. And when you think about it, these potential allies don't have a VESTED INTEREST in advocating gay marriage. Which means that if we are to recruit them, we must appeal to their conscience; convince them that gay marriage is a GOOD thing (both for us and society). I just don't see how we can ignore other societal problems but expect others to care about us. Where is the reciprocity?
re: Steven
Yes, "marriage" is a joke, a flawed social practice. One that we should reject. Marriage originated between two men as a means to convey property (i.e. daughters, dowrys). As Dan Savage said on AC360 last night: straight people (not Gays) are the ones who fundamentally changed marriage by moving it away from a financial transaction and making it into an institution of romantic love.
If "marriage is the wrong battle" what is the right battle? As second class citizens forbidden to marry Gays are not yet in a position to critique marriage. I'm all for the necessary critique of what marriage and family is but not at the expense of my civil rights. The only way marriage will change is by granting it to people who need and want for it to change: The Gays.
Why can't we do both: get our rights and work to transform anachronistic social institutions?
im so glad you brought this up. its something ive been thinking over and over in my head. is gay marriage just giving in to heteronormativity? whereas relationships are only seen as "normal" when people fit into gender roles that fit into two categories - male and female. bride and groom blah blah blah? i think it is important to look at the idea of why we want marriage. by gaining this are we giving up what makes our culture so radical? is monogamy the only answer? so many things to consider.
at the end of the day i think of the rights of the people. and if i dont want to marry someone thats cool but should i deny someone else? i feel like thats what people who supported prop 8 did. gay marriage didnt affect them, they didnt want it for themselves, and yet they got to decide for the rest what was right. just because im not crazy for gay marriage doesnt mean i shouldnt support it, because its a big big deal to people even if not for me. and aside from all the money and legal reasons, this culture is in love with the idea of "family." and if one day i want to adopt or foster children, that might depend a lot on whether im married or not as we can see in arkansas - which might i add should be getting as much attention. again, single parents should have just as many rights as married parents.
the sucky thing about being a part of a marginalized group is that we are forced to deal with these baby steps. gay marriage is just a baby step towards equality. will we gain equality with gay marriage? fuck no. but its something. and im glad to see so many lgbt people standing up for SOMETHING even if its not the most important cause in my eyes.
“I personally have no desire to imitate a fairly corny, expensive heterosexual tradition, though I certainly know gay couples who are married who should be. I am all for it."--John Waters, ordained minister
I generally make it a personal rule never to post comments on blogs, but this is a really fascinating issue to me and one that I'm glad you brought up, Phil. I am of the strong school of thought that I do not have the intention of ever marrying and buying into the institution of marriage. I feel it is fundamentally patriarchal and heteronormative, and that it needs to be dismantled and redefined as to incorporate a broader range of familial structures, including polyamerous relationships who are probably just as capable of raising children, having a fulfilling sex life, succeeding in careers, etc. However, my beef with proposition 8 is that it furthers the sanctity of this oppressive institution, rather than showing the law's potential for malleability and change. Although I don't much care for buying into institutions, I'm also not about denying couples the right to buy into them. If you think that gay marriage is what will lead to greater equity, acceptance and tolerance in American society, then good! I'm glad, fight for that. But I think something we should all be able to agree on is that the institution should not be strengthened as hetersexually based, even though it is still to be monogomously based.
An interesting film and Bay Area based group that discusses and critiques the hegemonic function of the gay marriage issue is homotopia. You can check out their trailer on YouTube or visit http://www.homotopiafilm.net/index.php.
Marriage (I hate the term gay marriage) rights allows us to have an even playing field. It will serve as an opportunity to establish other rights such as housing and employment discrimination protection. Marriage shows that our relationships are valid. Our beings are valid.
Do we have to believe in the messed up institution? No. But we should be given the opportunity to do so if we choose.
I am a child from a divorced marriage and a messed up one at that. So I know that marriage is not perfect, but at least, give me the opportunity to do so.
There are a lot of different relationships. All of the gay and straight relationships that I know are complicated, as Facebook so eloquently uses. But by at least being able to have to have a marriage and mess up, we are one step closer to true equality.
Personally, I am scared shitless of being in a similar situation to Janice Langbehn where I am denied to visit my significant other while they pass away just because my f**king sexual orientation. I am afraid of what happen if something were to happen to me or my boyfriend when we are in Virginia. Gay relationships do not count there. So if I get by a bus in Rosslyn (God forbid), my boyfriend and I are f**ked for a lack of a better term.
Don't want to get married? That's fine, but don't start splitting hairs with these pointless ideological discussions.
And the religion aspect, interracial marriage went through the same shit gay marriage is going through regarding religious excuses for hatred. Our President-elect would be a bastard if his parents' relationship was not validated.
"Marriage (I hate the term gay marriage) rights allows us to have an even playing field. It will serve as an opportunity to establish other rights such as housing and employment discrimination protection."
There's the fallacy in a nutshell. Legal gay marriage will not serve to establish rights for gay people; it will serve to establish rights FOR MARRIED PEOPLE.
This is why so often I just keep my mouth shut when this subject comes up, because somebody always says, "If you don't want to get married, fine, but why shouldn't I be able to?" You can do whatever you want; but recognize that what you want is discriminatory, reactionary, counterproductive, and fundamentally conservative.
This is not a "pointless ideological discussion." Either the state is in the business of supporting stable family relationships or it isn't. If it is going to support families, then I have a problem with creating a special class of families that get rights and benefits while others don't. Especially when that one privileged type of family depends on a sexual relationship, which is not exactly the most sturdy foundation.
Exactly. The point is not that gay people should have different/lesser rights than straight people, it's that there is no reason to limit the rights that marriage as a legal contract embodies to people who happen to be sleeping together.
You want to be "married", insofar as it is a public statement of commitment between two people? Great. Throw a party, let everyone know, knock yourself out.
You want to be "married", as a religious ceremony? Fantastic. Go to MCC or some other supportive congregation and have a ball.
But please explain to me why our secular government has any interest in echoing those ideas and enshrining them in law as better and more valid than families that aren't based on a life-time (theoretically) sexually monogamous (theoretically) pair.
If you haven't yet, I HIGHLY recommend checking out this statement called "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships": http://www.beyondmarriage.org. It lays out a really interesting vision and has been an endorsed by a really interesting array of queers.
Will you marry me, Anderov? Just kidding.
Is there a TNG group marching/rallying today? I'm going alone to this thing. Help.
yes. thanks steven. whenever the right-wing nut-jobs go on about gays wanting "special rights" and then the pro-gay side denies that that is one of the movement's goals and that they're really after "equal rights", i kind of cringe. it IS about special rights--the special rights that married straight people get.
i totally agree with you about marriage being exclusionary, conservative, discriminatory...but for selfish reasons i really hope some legislation passes because i want to marry my boyfriend so i can stay in the country. i'd accept some special, exclusive, discriminatory rights if it meant i could get a greencard.
Kald grew three inches and lightning flashed, it seemed like. The idea appealed to the newly awakened exhibitionist side of hernature, a side she never knew she had until John awakened it.
free incest sex stories
incest stories
stories about bestiality
ganny beastiality stories
gay beastiality stories
Kald grew three inches and lightning flashed, it seemed like. The idea appealed to the newly awakened exhibitionist side of hernature, a side she never knew she had until John awakened it.
Post a Comment