Everyone has the privilege of saying vows, throwing a party, and going on vacation. I've been at some really wonderful extralegal commitment ceremonies. Love is awesome and I'm totally with you on celebrating it. That has nothing to do with marriage as a legal construct. So I don't think those people were protesting what you seem to think they were protesting, and I'm not entirely sure those people are the people you seem to think they are. Specifically, bisexual people are conspicuously missing from your analysis. We have that privilege and also we don't, depending on a throw of the cosmic dice.
sinboy and I had a lovely wedding. My brother officiated; my mother made the cake; my girlfriend knit the handfasting ribbon; my godmother astonished us all by jumping up to dance the Charleston. We are very definitely married. Only two entities were explicitly disinvited from the ceremony: my evil ex-stepfather, and the state of New York.
I didn't even know there was a national marriage boycott. I just know that it didn't feel right to me, as a queer polyamorous woman marrying a queer polyamorous man, to sign papers that I couldn't sign if it had ended up that my girlfriend was the marrying kind and my boyfriend wasn't rather than the other way around. I find that I rather object to being lumped in with super-privileged straight people when the whole reason I'm not taking advantage of my straight-appearing privilege is because I'm queer.
I'm not sure that you're reading what I wrote, or it may be that I did not write it clearly enough.
I specifically acknowledged that "I believe that people can come together in love and create a new family for themselves, in and part of their community, that strengthens their commitments to each other and to society, too. I believe that people can do this without marriage, too, but in this society, we extend the married many, many privileges and rights and responsibilities, and that if we have any pretense to justice as a society, these must be extended to everyone who wishes to avail themselves of them."
Perhaps I should have further clarified that I'm speaking of civil marriage there, but I thought that sufficiently clear (privileges, rights, responsibilities).
You specifically chose to not have a civil wedding. But you also are clearly married in emotional fact, if not legal. My upset with NMB isn't about the validity of the extralegal ceremonies people celebrate their commitments with. I've been to lovely ones, too. NMB is attempting to protest that queer people (at least, those with same-sexed partners) are left out of the legal aspect. I disagree with the way they're going about it, for the reasons I go into in the post.
As for us bisexual people--just to be clear, I am bisexual, and one of the tags on this post is "i am a militant bisexual" and one of my defining lenses is being bi, and being politically queer--we have our set of privileges and disadvantages, and it seems to me that a discussion of that topic is a whole different post.
That you and your husband chose not to avail yourself of the heterosexual privilege you have as different-sexed partners, albeit both queer, in getting civilly married is, in the rhetorical space I was attempting to limn, an actual sacrifice. I think you're also part of a rather small group of exceptions. For the purposes of the essay, for saying what I wanted to say about how I feel about this all, I think that bisexuality gets--as it often does--subsumed. However, I don't feel that in this particular discussion, the subsuming of bisexuality into either a straight or gay civil identity (for the purposes of civil marriage) is unfair. For the purposes of the law, either way, we walk and talk enough like a duck that the question of Mallard or Muscovy gets decided for us: the role of those cosmic dice, as you said, affects the privileges we get.
The ethical quandary that you and your husband faced is different from the one a straight couple would face. You're queer--and the stakes are higher because of it. But you know that already. I am sincerely glad that the choice you made has made you happy, and I do think that it's a brave decision, as most are when it's a matter of "I just know that it didn't feel right to me." I said above, "just as I don't think Rosa Parks would have sparked a revolution had she been white, I don't think that straight people can win this fight for us"--you would be in that "us" even if I didn't call us bi folk out specifically.
From where I'm standing and writing, that inclusion is a priori.
I probably would have been quite glad to march with that group. That's the "us" I identify with. So you are talking about me, or people like me. I am that person who has actually given something up. I am that person with het privilege intact. And if I were marching with that group, you would look at me and see a straight person. You want to talk about real sacrifice and ethical quandary? I am never automatically part of the queer "us", no matter how many women I kiss or how many times I buzz my hair, because I am a woman whose live-in primary partner is a man. That's what I've sacrificed. That's the ethical dilemma I live with every day, this question--as you say--of whether following my heart means betraying my people. And it hurts to be invisible again and again and again, to realize that I would be invisible (or, worse, make people uncomfortable by looking like something I'm not) in the middle of Pride of all places, to have my queerness not count and then to be told that the subsuming of my identity is "not unfair". What does that even mean? "Fair" is a null term. But it's certainly unpleasant, and I think it's also unnecessary. And you can't tell me that my identity is subsumed and tell me that I'm automatically part of the queer "us" at the same time. That is not how it works.
You can't know how many of the people who were marching there are queer or straight, but you seem to think you can tell by looking, or that it makes any sense to categorize by privilege and dismiss any efforts to use that privilege for good because they're doing it a different way than you do. I think it's pretty fucking awesome that a group of allies are adopting an obvious physical emblem that they display every day to say "You are safe around me". I would rather see privileged people doing small things than see them doing nothing. And saying that you're pro-love does rather suggest that the NMB people aren't, which I think is highly disingenuous.
Don't dismiss the power of unity and alliances. There's a lot to be said for people standing together. At least then the invisibility has a purpose, is a way of saying that what we are doesn't matter when there is an injustice that affects us all. And if I'm going to be invisible, then at least I would like to be invisible in some way that is useful.
As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I'm of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free. --Eugene Debs
I'm of different minds on how I want to reply to this.
First, I should say this: I understand how frustrating and painful bisexual invisibility is. I share your pain. If you felt hurt by my words, then I'm sorry.
2nd: but what of that invisibility? You're complaining--albeit your right--of the fundamental unfairness of the situation of that invisibility. But in my opinion, complaining about it changes nothing, since by the nature of how our society works most of the time, bisexuals will perforce present as either straight or gay. Unless we take to wearing symbols all the time to signal our sexuality, we are going to be only partly seen, almost always. That sucks. But, there's only so much complaining about it that I can a) do, and b) put up with.
3rd: yes, you do have that heterosexual privilege. You can't escape it unless you changed your life utterly, and why should you? But you do have the privilege of being perceived as straight, even if you'd prefer not to be. That's the reality of the situation. If it's uncomfortable... well, see the second point above.
4th: you chose a path that came with privilege, and bless you for it, for it meant following your heart. But that means that you don't get perceived automatically as queer, even by other queer folks. Again, that sucks. That said... Cope.
5th: in the census form of civil marriage, bisexuals don't get a special ticky box. We don't. That's what I'm talking about when I say we get subsumed, not this other thing you're talking about, which is all about your pain.
6th: if you really want to talk about your "real sacrifice" when I haven't said that yours isn't real and have in fact acknowledged throughout that it is, please do so in your own journal. I'm not interested in Oppression Olympics, which is where that statement seems to me to lead. You're derailing the topic I'm addressing here in my journal, and I've allowed it to a point, but if you wish to go further, do it elsewhere.
7th: to get back to the fifth point--when talking about civil marriage, we're talking about a marriage that allows only two participants (whether that should be the case or not is NOT germane), and since our laws identify only two sexes and/or genders for the purpose of civil marriage, bisexuals get subsumed into either the straights or gays. That seems obvious to me. One, a legal man or woman, marries one other, a legal man or woman. The orientation of the legal men and women: not actually on point, I think.
8th: where am I claiming that I can tell by looking if those marchers were queer? What I AM doing is running off the logical inference that only someone who has an actual legal right to marry the person whom they love (i.e., a straight person, generally speaking) can effectively pledge not to exercise that right. By and large, we don't allow gay people to marry in this country, so gay people pledging not to marry is a moot point. Might as well give up bacon for Lent when you're a devout Muslim vegan.
If you feel that the NMB is a worthwhile expenditure of energy and resources, cool. I don't. I would rather that my allies take steps that are more concrete than something that seems like wearing a Livestrong bracelet. We can disagree on that.
9th: seriously, you're going to purposefully misconstrue my statements about supporting marriage and love as suggesting that NMB doesn't support love? Seriously? If you are serious, then you clearly aren't reading what I wrote, and if you're not, then "disingenuous" is the kindest way I can describe your statement.
10th: who's dismissing unity and alliances? The thing is, I'd like those alliances to be effective, and that unity to be useful. I like a round of Kumbaya as much as the next person, but I'd like a bit more than that when we're fighting for social justice. Also, quoting Debs at me? Really? That's totally rolling a +5 on Sanctimony.
Lastly, if you would like to address what I actually wrote, then please know that you are welcome to do so, but if instead what you are going to do is talk about how your pain is painful, then I again must suggest that you have a perfectly good journal of your own in which to do so.
sinboy and I had a lovely wedding. My brother officiated; my mother made the cake; my girlfriend knit the handfasting ribbon; my godmother astonished us all by jumping up to dance the Charleston. We are very definitely married. Only two entities were explicitly disinvited from the ceremony: my evil ex-stepfather, and the state of New York.
I didn't even know there was a national marriage boycott. I just know that it didn't feel right to me, as a queer polyamorous woman marrying a queer polyamorous man, to sign papers that I couldn't sign if it had ended up that my girlfriend was the marrying kind and my boyfriend wasn't rather than the other way around. I find that I rather object to being lumped in with super-privileged straight people when the whole reason I'm not taking advantage of my straight-appearing privilege is because I'm queer.
Reply
I specifically acknowledged that "I believe that people can come together in love and create a new family for themselves, in and part of their community, that strengthens their commitments to each other and to society, too. I believe that people can do this without marriage, too, but in this society, we extend the married many, many privileges and rights and responsibilities, and that if we have any pretense to justice as a society, these must be extended to everyone who wishes to avail themselves of them."
Perhaps I should have further clarified that I'm speaking of civil marriage there, but I thought that sufficiently clear (privileges, rights, responsibilities).
You specifically chose to not have a civil wedding. But you also are clearly married in emotional fact, if not legal. My upset with NMB isn't about the validity of the extralegal ceremonies people celebrate their commitments with. I've been to lovely ones, too. NMB is attempting to protest that queer people (at least, those with same-sexed partners) are left out of the legal aspect. I disagree with the way they're going about it, for the reasons I go into in the post.
As for us bisexual people--just to be clear, I am bisexual, and one of the tags on this post is "i am a militant bisexual" and one of my defining lenses is being bi, and being politically queer--we have our set of privileges and disadvantages, and it seems to me that a discussion of that topic is a whole different post.
That you and your husband chose not to avail yourself of the heterosexual privilege you have as different-sexed partners, albeit both queer, in getting civilly married is, in the rhetorical space I was attempting to limn, an actual sacrifice. I think you're also part of a rather small group of exceptions. For the purposes of the essay, for saying what I wanted to say about how I feel about this all, I think that bisexuality gets--as it often does--subsumed. However, I don't feel that in this particular discussion, the subsuming of bisexuality into either a straight or gay civil identity (for the purposes of civil marriage) is unfair. For the purposes of the law, either way, we walk and talk enough like a duck that the question of Mallard or Muscovy gets decided for us: the role of those cosmic dice, as you said, affects the privileges we get.
The ethical quandary that you and your husband faced is different from the one a straight couple would face. You're queer--and the stakes are higher because of it. But you know that already. I am sincerely glad that the choice you made has made you happy, and I do think that it's a brave decision, as most are when it's a matter of "I just know that it didn't feel right to me." I said above, "just as I don't think Rosa Parks would have sparked a revolution had she been white, I don't think that straight people can win this fight for us"--you would be in that "us" even if I didn't call us bi folk out specifically.
From where I'm standing and writing, that inclusion is a priori.
Shorter version: I wasn't talking about you.
Reply
You can't know how many of the people who were marching there are queer or straight, but you seem to think you can tell by looking, or that it makes any sense to categorize by privilege and dismiss any efforts to use that privilege for good because they're doing it a different way than you do. I think it's pretty fucking awesome that a group of allies are adopting an obvious physical emblem that they display every day to say "You are safe around me". I would rather see privileged people doing small things than see them doing nothing. And saying that you're pro-love does rather suggest that the NMB people aren't, which I think is highly disingenuous.
Don't dismiss the power of unity and alliances. There's a lot to be said for people standing together. At least then the invisibility has a purpose, is a way of saying that what we are doesn't matter when there is an injustice that affects us all. And if I'm going to be invisible, then at least I would like to be invisible in some way that is useful.
As long as there is a lower class, I am in it.
As long as there is a criminal element, I'm of it.
As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
--Eugene Debs
Reply
First, I should say this: I understand how frustrating and painful bisexual invisibility is. I share your pain. If you felt hurt by my words, then I'm sorry.
2nd: but what of that invisibility? You're complaining--albeit your right--of the fundamental unfairness of the situation of that invisibility. But in my opinion, complaining about it changes nothing, since by the nature of how our society works most of the time, bisexuals will perforce present as either straight or gay. Unless we take to wearing symbols all the time to signal our sexuality, we are going to be only partly seen, almost always. That sucks. But, there's only so much complaining about it that I can a) do, and b) put up with.
3rd: yes, you do have that heterosexual privilege. You can't escape it unless you changed your life utterly, and why should you? But you do have the privilege of being perceived as straight, even if you'd prefer not to be. That's the reality of the situation. If it's uncomfortable... well, see the second point above.
4th: you chose a path that came with privilege, and bless you for it, for it meant following your heart. But that means that you don't get perceived automatically as queer, even by other queer folks. Again, that sucks. That said... Cope.
5th: in the census form of civil marriage, bisexuals don't get a special ticky box. We don't. That's what I'm talking about when I say we get subsumed, not this other thing you're talking about, which is all about your pain.
6th: if you really want to talk about your "real sacrifice" when I haven't said that yours isn't real and have in fact acknowledged throughout that it is, please do so in your own journal. I'm not interested in Oppression Olympics, which is where that statement seems to me to lead. You're derailing the topic I'm addressing here in my journal, and I've allowed it to a point, but if you wish to go further, do it elsewhere.
7th: to get back to the fifth point--when talking about civil marriage, we're talking about a marriage that allows only two participants (whether that should be the case or not is NOT germane), and since our laws identify only two sexes and/or genders for the purpose of civil marriage, bisexuals get subsumed into either the straights or gays. That seems obvious to me. One, a legal man or woman, marries one other, a legal man or woman. The orientation of the legal men and women: not actually on point, I think.
8th: where am I claiming that I can tell by looking if those marchers were queer? What I AM doing is running off the logical inference that only someone who has an actual legal right to marry the person whom they love (i.e., a straight person, generally speaking) can effectively pledge not to exercise that right. By and large, we don't allow gay people to marry in this country, so gay people pledging not to marry is a moot point. Might as well give up bacon for Lent when you're a devout Muslim vegan.
If you feel that the NMB is a worthwhile expenditure of energy and resources, cool. I don't. I would rather that my allies take steps that are more concrete than something that seems like wearing a Livestrong bracelet. We can disagree on that.
9th: seriously, you're going to purposefully misconstrue my statements about supporting marriage and love as suggesting that NMB doesn't support love? Seriously? If you are serious, then you clearly aren't reading what I wrote, and if you're not, then "disingenuous" is the kindest way I can describe your statement.
10th: who's dismissing unity and alliances? The thing is, I'd like those alliances to be effective, and that unity to be useful. I like a round of Kumbaya as much as the next person, but I'd like a bit more than that when we're fighting for social justice. Also, quoting Debs at me? Really? That's totally rolling a +5 on Sanctimony.
Lastly, if you would like to address what I actually wrote, then please know that you are welcome to do so, but if instead what you are going to do is talk about how your pain is painful, then I again must suggest that you have a perfectly good journal of your own in which to do so.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment