Marry Me?

I write tonight about a mixed blessing. Those of you in the know out there probably already know that prop 8, the controversial California referendum that banned gay marriage, was thrown out on appeal. This is, by and large, good news. Us homos, well we deserve equal rights. And as long as people can get married relegating our relationships to 'separate but equal' domestic partnerships, or not recognizing us at all, well that's plain fucked up. Support marriage rights for all, and such.

However, I'd like to talk about the mixed part of this blessing. Marriage is an inherently conservative institution that is designed, by and large, to further conservative aspects of our society. Marriage promotes traditional family structures and child rearing. Marriage has consistently placed women in the subservient roles of cook, maid, and baby maker. Marriage continues to be defined by tax cuts and insurance rights as much as it does by healthy and functional relationships and families (see this article from the nytimes this weekend: www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/fashion/01Undivorced.html).

So why should we queers be fighting to be included in such a problematic institution? Should we spend our time and energies fighting against the very notion of marriage itself, fighting the requirement of a government contract to love?

I would like, as a counter point, to discuss a news piece that surfaced recently. This is the story of a man who murdered the young child of his girlfriend because he was acting too feminine (http://sdgln.com/news/2010/08/04/video-new-york-police-say-man-killed-baby-boy-acting-feminine).

This tragic story is but a dramatic extension of the way gender roles play out in our society on the day to day. It is fact that those of us who do not fit into traditional gender identities are not only at risk of not marrying, but we are in real and physical danger every day. It's the case here on the street in New York City and I can guarantee that it is the case in my home town in the rural Northwest. I wonder if by focusing on marriage we have allowed our movement to focus on what is but a small aspect of the struggle ahead. We can't worry about marriage until we sort out how to be safe.

I find that the conversations that are nucleated by talk of anti-gay violence have a great potential to challenge deeply rooted societal norms that are oppressive not only to queer people but also to women, and also, believe it or not, to straight men. The type of deep seated hatred of queer folks is rooted in society's traditional definition of masculinity and femininity. The definition of masculinity (the man is a provider, he doesn't show weakness, he is honorable, he is the authority figure) has been the basis for generations of oppression. Men who fall outside this norm (men that are feminine, men that aren't strong, men who fuck men, or even worse, men who get fucked by men) challenge the very center of this system. And, I would argue strongly, while straight men do gain privilege from their identity, they are also placed in a vulnerable position. A man who loses his job and ability to provide for his family has lost not only his material possessions but also a central aspect of his identity. A straight man who choses not to overly sexualize women, or choses to be sexually selective has his masculinity questioned. This is an unsafe space for queers (who fall outside of the prescribed norm), women (who have been the economic and social victim of this definition of masculinity) and even men (who can fail, no matter how hard they try, to ever ensure their absolute masculinity).

So I would like to ask why we are NOT having this conversation on CNN and MSNBC and even occasionally FOXnews. A couple of the quotes from the nytimes article tonight offer a bit on an insight (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html?hp):

“This decision says that we are Americans, too. We too should be treated equally,” said Kristin M. Perry, one of the plaintiffs.

Why, I would like to ask, is it important that we are Americans? Should not all humans be treated equally, regardless of nationality? Or is it that we are overtly trying to buy into a problematic system (ie all Americans should be treated equally; therefore if we can define Americans narrowly enough we can continue to discriminate based upon, for example, race and class).

Another quote: “Being gay is about forming an adult family relationship with a person of the same sex,” said Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles.

Maybe being day is about that to you, Ms. Pizer. But I know some people for whom being gay is about poppers and slings. And others for whom being gay is about self expression and not about making a family at all. And what is being trans about? What is being bi about? Is being straight about making a family? Because I know quite a few straight people who have absolutely no interest in marriage or family. These definitions only continue to exclude people who do not fit into some new, narrowly defined "gay-but-not-too-gay" norm.

Ironically, the judge in his ruling made a more provocative statement than any of the activists on hand. He said, "Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender."

Wow. Finally some one who talks about gender norms. And actively calls them (or some of them at least) antiquated and discredited.

Here we have a judge (a gay republican appointee apparently) looking at the facts of a case making a more progressive stand than any of the lawyers or activists on hand.

So I would like to end with a few questions for the movement:

Is it more effective to gain acceptance and change society gradually through the normalization of non-normative peoples and behaviors? Or is it better to use our minority status to question and problematize the norms in society that create our oppression? Is it better to gain acceptance to the club, or is it better to question the importance of the club in the first place? Can we get married and still have the credibility necessary to challenge the role of marriage in society? Can we finally win the right to marry and still realize the importance of talking about the violence that is still propagated day in and day out against queer people? Is the gay rights movement irrevocably divided between those fighting for what is the essentially upper middle class right of marriage and those who remain, on a day to day level, afraid to lose their job, their property, or their very life because of whom they love.


PS: Before you blast me for my choice of image, know that it was carefully selected. I think this perfectly exemplifies the way in which the movement has chosen to drape itself, literally, in the American flag. LOOK, they say, WE'RE AMERICANS TOO! We are refusing to take a step back and examine why it is so important to seem to damn American. What, over the course of history has this flag represented? And isn't using the ultra-American gay tactic only going to serve to exclude those of us gays who don't feel particularly American at all? Who don't want a traditional family? Who don't want a relationship with a fem and a masc (man or woman)?