So the California Supreme Court overturned a California statue that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. And, as happens when any barrier is removed, there are fervent responses from all sides. The so-called "defenders of the family" are in an uproar to "defend marriage" (I'ma come back to this in a minute). The supporters of same-sex marriage (SSM) are applauding CA. Those who don't necessarily agree with SSM but don't think they should have a say in other's marriages are saying "whatever." And of course, those seeking same-sex marriage are super pumped and probably planning trips to California before the November elections. Radical queers are frustrated with a movement that is focusing on an issue that benefits only a few, especially because marriage is a part of a greater structural system and contributes to the oppression of those whose relationships do not fit into the narrowly defined category of marriage. And I know I'm leaving out parts of the discussion. Feel free to fill in any blanks.
The radical queer in me tends to fit into the latter category. When I'm wearing my radical queer hat, I think the state sanctioning of a religious ritual or personal relationship is ridiculous. It only benefits those who choose a certain path, minimizing the experiences and denying tax breaks for those who are not in committed, opposite-sex (except MA and CA) relationships. This includes single parents, polyamorists, same-sex couples, anyone who's single, swingers, and anyone else who just doesn't fit into the structurally defined "marriage," "common-law marriage," "domestic partnership," or "civil union." Furthermore, people are starving. Homeless. Without health care. Water. Safety. Civil liberties. We live in a nation that can't sustain itself (well, it can, it just won't try). We destroy lives and economies in other nations just so we can live in luxury. We support regimes that slaughter people by the thousands (then we take them to war and slaughter even more people, all in the name of democracy). So really. Why all this fuss about same-sex marriage? Aren't there more important things? Isn't capitalism and patriarchy (and capitalist patriarchy and patriarchal capitalism) in need of demolishing?
The half radical/half liberal queer in me just doesn't understand why the LGBT movement is so focused on marriage when members of our community are homeless and jobless, when our queer youth are getting kicked out of shelters and struggling with bullying on a day-to-day basis, when so many Americans don't have health care, when diseases are destroying peoples' lives, when our culture centers around excessive drinking and drugging and we wonder why we have higher alcoholism and addiction rates (i know i'm leaving a lot out). Our community is becoming more divided. Us younger queers don't hold the reverence for our elders nor for the queer community that once made us unique. The older queers don't understand us. Racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, classism, and elitism are rampant in the LGBT community. We are in DIRE need of some solidarity and a shift in the focus of our energies if we are ever to go anywhere. Oh. And I DO NOT support the HRC.
Then there's the part of me that's in a committed, same-sex relationship. I want all the benefits afforded to my straight peers. I see a lot of my friends around me getting married, and want what they have. I'm selfish, I admit it. I want my relationship treated as equal in the eyes of the law (and in the eyes of my entire family and my partner's family, but that's never gonna happen). And since the eradication of civil marriage doesn't seem likely, I want marriage equality in the eyes of the LAW.
"But," to quote Andrea Gibson, "the fuckers say we can't." And I don't get it. State sanctioning of SSM will not force churches to perform SSM. Churches still refuse to marry those of differing religions or denominations, different races, or for whatever reason a pastor/priest/whatever decides that a couple isn't fit for marriage in that place of worship. Furthermore, same-sex marriages are performed all the time in places of worship that allow for them, and in personal ceremonies that celebrate the marriage/commitment/relationship of a same-sex couple. So I hate to break the news to the radical right, but we are already getting married. We just don't get the same tax breaks.
There are three main arguments given against state-sanctioning of SSM-Biblical, historical, and for the sake of our children. In the Biblical sense (pun not intended), people argue that the Bible condemns homosexuality and defines marriage as one man and one woman. The former is true (although contextually this is arguable, but I'm not going to get into that now)-the Bible does condemn sex between men (it also condemns a lot of other things, like wearing mixed blended fabric).
However, the Bible does not define marriage as between one man and one woman. Let me repeat: NOWHERE in the Bible is marriage explicitly defined as between one man and one woman. There are examples of marriages between one man and one woman, but there are also several other different forms of marriage. These include: one man and several wives, a man and his female rape victim, a man and his servant or servants, a man and his slave or slaves, a man and female prisoners of war (I feel like I'm leaving something out...). Even the father of the 12 Tribes of Israel didn't have the "traditional" two-parent household-he married two sisters and then two of his servants. So, the Biblical argument doesn't hold. Period. If the radical right wants to use the Bible to fight for traditional marriage, they need to fight for all forms of Biblical marriage if they don't want to be hypocrites. Why are they only choosing this one form of marriage? And why are they using the Bible anyways? Whatever happened to the "wall of separation?" The Bible and Christian ideology/"morals" have no place in the legal definition of marriage.
Opponents of same-sex marriage are also arguing that marriage has been historically between a man and a woman, and serves in the interest of maintaining a healthy home for the future of children. NOT TRUE. Marriage has come in many many forms, and has historically been for the sake of maintaining and passing down property to males in future generations.
The last argument-"for the sake of the children" (I can't come up with anything else at the moment...)-is also ridiculous. To begin with, most gays I know (sorry I haven't really read the literature on this) have straight parents. A lot of gay parents I know have straight children. Kids in straight homes and gay homes alike are abused, maltreated, exposed to drugs, sex, alcoholism, and inappropriate behavior. Kids get teased on the playground for things ranging from weird parents, weird teeth, lack of size or strength, lack of athletic ability, tomboyishness, poverty, etc. The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all support same-sex adoption and marriage, because it BENEFITS children.
So, basically, opponents of same-sex marriage also need to work for the following things: polygamy, marriage between a rapist and a rape victim (instead of incarceration of rapists), an end to divorce, the ability to take multiple prisoners of war as wives, an end to playground bullying, an end to child abuse (for the sake of the children), a re-establishment of property being handed down through children, etc. Same-sex marriage is only the tip of their iceberg.
When I moved to Denver for graduate school, my cousin's 8-year-old was really confused that my partner wasn't moving with me (she had her life and her school back in St. Louis). My cousin said that she thought of us as she did her married aunts and uncles. The 8-year-old gets it. She doesn't see a difference. Only we do.
I'm planning on getting married someday. I don't care if the government sanctions it. I'll still have a ceremony, file all my taxes as if I were married, "forget" to put the company's portion of health care as my or my partner's income on my income taxes (or delete them if included), and do whatever I can to work the system.
But the system must be changed. Our queer movement needs change. We need to focus on more important things, as do our rivals. Let's end poverty, let's make sure everyone has health care, let's make sure that everyone has a place to live and food on their table, let's make sure that child abuse and partner violence get eradicated, let's end violence, let's end our dependency on oil, let's become more sustainable and less dependent on import/export economies. But we can't do any of this with a narrow focus on marriage. We need to broaden our perspectives to include our entire global family. Let's create real change and do something that will make a real difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment