bringing sexyback (aka ranting about gay marriage)
i have been thinking about writing about this for a while. i will do my best to articulate viewpoints about an issue i think is important. i very much encourage anyone who reads this to engage me in debate, ask questions, be critical, etc
( Read more... )
I have heard this opinion before, from Jacob Seelbach in particular, and I think it's very valid. There aren't many options for those who don't wholly support marriage, and I agree that in a society where so many aren't a member of a "normal family" (myself included)there should be valid, supportive, and fair alternatives to marriage. I also agree with the argument that marriage is more of a religious institution, and partnerships or civil unions should be equally recognized under the law. Something like that. I'm with ya.
However, the issue that we can't forget is that no matter how idealistic we are, in a manner of speaking we're stuck with what we have, and in this country marriage is the easiest way to be recognized as a partner to another, to have immediate power of attorney as well as so many other rights, and in situations where children can be at stake if one partner should pass away, couples need as much protection as possible. And also, I heard Rosie O'Donnell once say something like this: (obviously not verbatim)
I once asked a fellow fighter for gay marriage 'why don't gay people just make up their own word for marriage, something that would only apply to queer people? Why don't we just call our partnerships "partnered" or something? And he said to me "because no one will recognize that. no one will understand when me and my husband say that we're "partnered" when we go travel abroad, or when we want to get something done in a different state. In this country, in this world, we need the term marriage, and that's why gays are fighting for recognition.
I think that really states the point well. As much as we would love for marriage to not be the one and only ideal, the fact of the matter is that right now that's what we've got. And if we split our focus in the fight for equality, because as you said the pro-marriage side is the pro-queer side and vice versa, we're going to lose the fight for equal rights. The other side is not splitting focus. If we divide into two camps, we'll lose sight of what it actually is that we want, and that's equality under the law. Best work it one step of a time, first get marriage, then try and revamp what marriage means.
Reply
i hear what you are saying, and this is also an argument i have heard before.
the following is my response. please feel free to poke holes in it as you see fit.
i think my issues with the "marriage is what we've got argument" start off with just a refusal to accept that flat out. for a while the "separate but equal" structure for blacks and whites was "all we had" and that was an enormously detrimental and oppressive course. not at all a perfect parallel, but perhaps you see where i'm going...
my real issue, however, is the following: when we push to include gays into the institution of marriage, it is absolutely imperative to examine the TERMS of this inclusion. the rhetoric of court cases arguing for gay marriage seeks to convince those wary of gay marriage that gays are just as good at being good citizens in normative, monogamous, socially productive relationships as straight people. the language is not exclusively pro-gay people, it is pro-marriage. the argument for gay marriage that is made, is that including gays in marriage is advantageous for the STATE in that it serves to STRENGTHEN the institution of marriage. for example, the argument in the gay marriage case in massachusetts "Without question, civil marriage enhances the "welfare of the community." It is a "social institution of the highest importance." French v. McAnarney, supra. Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones." (for the full court decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health check out http://www.masslaw.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm).
what we are doing here is valuing one type of family unit and normative lifestyle over all the others. this is no longer about gay rights. this is a value judgment about what type of people in general are worthy the almighty institution of marriage, and once you prove yourself to be good enough with your fantastic and always "stable relationship" you can have some rights.
the inclusion of (hetero)normative gay couples only reifies and solidifies the terms under which all persons in the US are able to receive rights. this is where the argument of "let's get gay marriage, and then revamp what that means" falls apart for me. the logic of let's work really hard to strengthen an institution (which although it may not be the way the gay marriage is framed in popular discourse, is ultimately the argument being made in court) and THEN we'll expand on it just simply doesnt make sense. it will, i think, push non-normative family units into an even more dire situation that the one we currently face.
in short, the gay marriage debate has repercussions well beyond the realm of gay rights (and we are talking specifically GAY rights here, let's not even talk about transgender rights because their rights will come second or third or most likely never in this debate...).
ultimately i just dont buy the one step at a time argument. already through simply having this discussion and opening up this debate it is clear to me that the fight for gay marriage is NOT all we have. we are already "split" in the fight for equal rights. now is the time to make an intervention into this course, which is not the only or best way to get equal rights for all, but rather a path to solidify the exclusion of any nonnormative person or family from receiving many social services and other benefits.
again, alex, i really appreciate you taking the time to read this as well as respond. i hope i was clear in my response, and please feel free to ask for clarification or whatever else.
i hope you are doing well!
Reply
However, the one problem I have with your argument, especially when compared to seperate but equal, is that I can't think of who marriage is oppressing? Maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying, but seperate but equal needed to change because seperate was inherantly not equal and something needed to be done to make that injustice right. While marriage is heteronormative and all of that, and I agree with that, what would be better? Do you think civil unions would be better, something without the name of marriage? In my opinion, marriage is just a way of demonstrating an important person in your life, acknowledging to the world that you are sharing your life with another, and then entrusting them the rights that go along with that. Who is that hurting? The way I see it the only people hurt by marriage right now are those who aren't allowed to have it, gay people, and not just because of the title but because of the rights that come along with it. I don't know if I can picture a different way.
It could very easily be my socialization that I can't really comprehend anything outside of marriage, and I acknowledge that and welcome your thoughts on what would be better. I think there are a lot of problems right now, but I still think that fewer people are hurt by the institution of marriage itself than how many are negatively affected by not being allowed to have the title.
:) hope that was clear too.
Reply
also, sorry for the long delay.
basically, marriage is an institution that has been so heavily supported by the government that there are a billion benefits for anyone who does choose to be married. these benefits are both economic, and legal. the status of being married allows people greater access to government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance. other situations involving hospital visiting rights, and so on also privilege married persons.
i'm basically advocating and expansion of options so that more people who dont want to participate in marriage can be afforded the same rights as those who do... in effect, the economic and legal advantages to marriage are oppresive and hurtful to anyone who lives outside of a marriage.
marriage privileges legally and economically only one type of relationship, and when over half the population of the US lives outside of that kind of relationship... something has to change i think. we are talking about providing rights to a large number of household arrangements including but not limited to single parent households, close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers, households in which there is more than one conjugal partner, senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers, and etc etc.
i am talking about expanding existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all types of households and families.
please let me know if you are looking for more specifics or more clarification... i can go on but am currently slightly lazy and wanted to respond finally to your thoughtful and helpful comment!
thank you for taking interest alex, and for forcing me to clarify :)
Reply
Leave a comment