Like a Horse and Carriage

Tuesday, September 20. 2005

In any civil rights fight, it is of course necessary to present an unified front. But in order to present that front, the oppressed have to be confident that they want what they are fighting for, don't they?

So I've been thinking about gay marriage a lot lately. For both personal and political reasons. While I don't think any group should be deprived of rights and privileges afforded to another, I can't help but think back to the queerness of the '80's and '90's and it's quest to legitimize all walks of life and end discrimination based on (consensual) sexual/gender practice/expression.

Which leaves me asking the following questions: what exactly are we fighting for? Should we be fighting to gain the same rights and privileges given to married heterosexuals? Or should we by fighting for a society where married, monogamous pairs of people aren't granted privileged stauts because they are participating in an "ideal" arrangement for raising kids?

Gay marriage would create another privileged group (married lesbians and gay men); it would not help legitimize single parents, alternative families (foster and adoptive homes, siblings raising kids, or other more tribal arrangements), or even alternative relationships (masters/slaves, triples, polyamory). It would not help legitimize the lives of people who decide to remain single for their entire lives. Is it more privilege we want? Or is it universal acceptance of personal life choices?

Look, I am not against the fight for gay marriage, per se. But it does seem like a step backward to decide to fight for a few happy couples and stop fighting for the mass of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and straight people who have different ideas about how their sexuality and gender identity can be useful to society outside of wedlock.

On a lighter note: "Love and marriage/Love and marriage/Go together like a/Horse and carriage..." Sure Frank Sinatra sang it, but what's it from? Yes, that's a real question. Answer via comment.

Posted by Bigmouth at 11:08 | Comments (8) | Trackback (1) |

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

Welcome to the Premier Edition of the Carnival of Bent Attractions!
First, a huge thank you for all of your submissions, and to everyone who helped spread the word about this carnival! For those of you who may not have heard about the carnival before visiting this site today, the Carnival of Bent Attractions will b...

Weblog: daily dose of queer
Tracked: Dec 10, 17:01

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

There is so much inherent truth in your argument against gay marriage and I can't help but be moved to think deeper about all the reasons against gay marriage that actually promote our right to be ourselves. I agree that everyone should have the same rights but you're right about ulitmately marginalizing already marginalized groups.

Unfortunately, for better or for worse, marriage affords people certain very important rights and benefits. Those benefits of course are not all monetary but rights for such important things like sponsoring our same-sex partners who are not natural born US citizens to stay in the country like 16 other countries in the world do. Of course it's true that this should be a right given to us irrespective of marriage but the simple fact is we are deprived these rights.

Your argument also begs the question about the origins and purpose of marriage and monogmy (since we're sort of on the subject of traditional institutions) from an historical perspective.

#1 Anonymous on 2005-09-20 11:30

Yes, absolutely - Immigration Equality and Marriage Equality are linked issues here in the US, as are inheritance, insurance, adoption, and social security issues. Which is why I'm reluctant to step forward as entirely against same sex marriage. I just hope we're looking at the big picture, too.

But as the gay rights movement flows more and more into the mainstream, we should all be wary of it going the way of feminism - becoming a movement increasingly promoting only the rights of its white, middle and upper class members. Even before more radical queerness, the gay rights movement started with people being proud of who they are, not how well they could make themselves fit in.

#1.1 BigMouth on 2005-09-22 14:20

Or should we by fighting for a society where married, monogamous pairs of people aren't granted privileged stauts because they are participating in an "ideal" arrangement for raising kids?

Yes I think that is precisely what we should have been fighting for all along. Thanks for this brave post. I find the "united front" pressure very oppressive because I disapprove of marriage (full stop), for many of the reasons you listed above and also for feminist reasons.

In the current climate, if you attempt to express a few reservations about the quest for gay marriage, you are practically accused of being a traitor. Any attempt to critique the campaign is interpreted as you not wanting people to have equal rights! I just feel debate on this subject is increasingly being silenced. It's so easy to forget all about the queer and feminist critique of marriage (as an institution) when it seems to offer such enormous benefits.

#2 Winter (Homepage) on 2005-09-25 07:38

I just think that the fight for the equal rights of these gay couples is not progressive thinking since it almost translates into asking for special privileges. It's just true that every single person should be experiencing the same rights and privileges, but when I think of favoring same-sex marriages, I don't think about equal rights; I instantly think of bias and special favors.

#3 Anonymous (Homepage) on 2005-11-15 03:37

I don't think changing the the law in 1967 to allow asian people to marry white people or black people to marry latin people was a speical right. I also do not think queers are asking for special right in asking for the same rights afforded to straights.

Until 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in the USA and some of the same arguments used then are now being used against gay marriage today (e.g. it's against the bible, etc.).

It's important to note that while much of America was up in arms over "heathen" bi-racial couples it was the "activist" judicial system that secured their rights to marry whomever they wished in 1967. We can never expect a majority to protect the rights of the minority that's why we have a judicial system and that's why the judicial system must have the chance to affirm queer rights such as marriage and other rights granted to all others.

#3.1 sascha on 2005-11-15 21:49

Talk about way behind the times --

but it's from Married With Children.

#4 Sara on 2006-09-07 23:41

Ooooo, Sara...yes, but no.

It's actually from the televised musical version of OUR TOWN starring Frank Sinatra. "Married...with Children" did indeed use it as their theme song, but it was composed by James Van Heusen with lyrics by Sammy Cahn for the TV adaptation of that ol' Thornton Wilder chestnut in 1955.

#4.1 Big Mouth (Homepage) on 2006-09-08 07:16

i tend to agree with you.
not in the sense that gay marriage eradicates the respectability of other couples, because think about it-- heterosexual marriage exists, yet plenty of heterosexual couples delay marraige or opt for alternative arrangements.

however, i agree with your perspective in the sense that there are other issues that lgbt communities should be mobilizing around. i.e. hate crime, homelessness among queer youth, AIDS, etc,
gay marriage is the final frontier.. it's something that persons would not have enoguh stability or resources to access unless they enjoyed other types of priviledge already...

while i do think there is a civil rights issue here, i think it's the issue encapsulated by civil unions. it IS a travesty that gay couples can be together for 40 years and still not be afforded visitation rights, or be able to inherit property if they didn't draft a will, etc. however, whether we have to call in marriage in order to reap its benefits is another issue. i don't think the separate but equal aspect of all this bothers me as much as the outright refusal to recognize same sex unions.

finally, your discussion reminds me of debates i've heard about regarding the tax benefits that married couples receive. that is definitely an antiquated practice that does precisely what you object to -- values married couples more highly than other types of relationships. what about pushing to excise that?

#5 chin (Homepage) on 2006-11-11 05:40

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry