When i found out that the law-firm that was supposed to defend DOMA for the House withdrew, i posted
the story to my Facebook page with the following comment: “I guess DOMA is doomed! Time to stop defending an outdated institution!” A friend of mine emailed me reflecting that my comment could be read as dismissing or downplaying the struggles of the LGBT movement. With his permission, i would like to respond more publicly since his reaction warrants addressing – because i see several underlying assumptions that i would like to address and, hopefully, raise some consciousness in the process.
Assumption 1
The first assumption seems to be that someone who is anti-marriage must also be anti-same-sex-marriage and therefore anti-same-sex-rights. That assumption made it very difficult for me to deal with Prop 8. On the one hand, i found Prop 8 repulsive on many levels – it imposes conservative religious values on all of us and, well, it is plain discriminatory! On the other hand, i am saddened by the single-minded focus of the LGBT movement leadership on marriage. Not only does this focus sideline people who would like to see other fights being fought but it is also ignoring the history of the gay rights movement
. Probably the most famous debate is the Ettelbrick-Stoddard debate (here is one possible source
for reprints of their articles). But i found Michael Warner’s
take more enlightening. He pointed out that the fight for same-sex marriage stems from a conservative move within the LGBT movement. It was a reaction to AIDS fears and fears around gay sex in general. And it reflected the idea that if gays (yes, mostly gay men) were able to participate in such an esteemed institution like marriage, they would be accepted. You know, the whole heteronormativity stuff: The more you look like “normal” people, the more accepted you will be. That’s dangerous stuff and Warner’s whole book is a call for not embracing this idea.
Clearly, then, critiquing marriage has a strong history within the gay- and LGBT-rights movements (another historical note: “Gay-rights” are gay, that is same-sex men, rights – the movement started out with that focus, reflecting some of the sexism that was captured in the Harvey Milk movie among other places). There are many who are calling for alternatives. Nancy Polikoff
and the Canadian Law Commission have presented some of the best ways to value all families. The idea is, basically, to move closer to same-sex equality by fighting for recognition of all constellations of living together rather than privileging one, marriage. Or as Polikoff puts it so wonderfully: Instead of fighting to move the bright red dividing line between married and unmarried people, let’s remove that line! And that leads me to…
Assumption 2
The second assumption seems to be that there are no single LGBT people – or at least none who would like to remain single (a variation is the assumption that all singles are heterosexual; another variation, addressed in Bella DePaulo’s book
, that all singles want to become unsingle). Again, history shows that there are many ways that people would like to – and are – living together. These many forms ought to be honored, rather than funneled into the standard heteronormative institution, marriage. This assumption is related to…
Assumption 3
A third assumption might be that same-sex marriage is the most important gay-rights issue. I am grateful to Tommi Avicolli Mecca for raising my awareness of this assumption. During a panel bringing together many of the contributors to the book he edited, he mentioned all the issues that were not being addressed because of the single-minded focus on access to marriage. Those less important issues – “less important” apparently according to the leaders in the LGBT movement – were basic survival issues of, especially, trans people who were loosing their jobs, faced harassment, and homelessness. While millions were spent to fight for a questionable right, these other issues were ignored! So, focusing on same-sex marriage might just be an anti-LGBT move… That is one reason i’ve also become hesitant to call this an “LGBT movement” or even an “LGBT community” – what community would leave large parts of their community out in the rain?!?
Do i now support DOMA? Hell no! It is wrong! Instead, I would like to see all forms of families honored, actually, i would like to see all people honored in whatever type of relationships they are – and relationship defined as broadly as possible not the narrow couplemanic definition. Instead of focusing on expanding the right to marriage, let’s take a step back and ask what would really support our community – as a community. For example, fighting for universal health care seems to be a much more inclusive fight, something that would resolve many issues that the marriage-bandaid is attempting to solve – but it would resolve it for more people and would no longer force people into marriage.
I was uncertain how to react to the recent decision in NY to allow same-sex marriage. I guess i was leery of being the scrooge again… That’s why i was particularly excited when i read Kathrine Franke’s op-ed piece “Marriage is a Mixed Blessing.” It includes gems like these:
So, i guess another assumption is that all same-sex couples want to marry, actually that all singles want to marry!
(Hat tip to Bella DePaulo)
I’m not sure that being against marriage, straight or gay, would lead someone to conclude that a person is against gay rights. It would seem to me that someone who is not in favor of marriage would probably have a more radical view, and thus would probably be more accepting of gay rights. Though given that the gay community is pushing hard for marriage, I can see how opposing marital status discrimination can be seen as opposing gay rights.
Not really surprised at a conservative strain in the gay community, as I’ve encountered that before. When I objected to an anti-single argument during the Prop 8 court fight at a prominent gay site, 3 of the 4 following comments were negative about singles. The funny thing is, I could see some of those same comments directed at gays as well as singles…
Hi Rachel, nicely written! On 1), I don’t assume that someone who is anti-marriage is anti-same-sex-rights, at all. I do think that responding to victories in the gay marriage struggle with disparaging comments about marriage is disempowering and also has the effect of stealing the limelight from one struggle onto a different one. On 2), I don’t see where that assumption comes from, whether talking about straight or gay people. And on 3), where does that come from? The fact that one sees something as important is a mile away from seeing it as the most important. And concluding that gay people should repurpose their energies toward fighting for universal health care is a hard leap for this relatively straight man to make.
Bud: My main point is that the struggle for same-sex marriage is only one small part of the struggles that gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgender folks have been and are fighting. My “disparaging comments about marriage” honor those struggles because they are not about marriage, they are about equal rights – and respect and dignity even for those who live differently than “normal.” And i believe that there are not two struggles but one – unless we’re fighting for moving the bright red dividing line because that fight leaves out tons of people. I am fighting for more inclusive rights.
The second assumptions comes from ignoring the bigger issues. If we focus on marriage, we miss that not all people want to get married (or that they cannot get married because they don’t have partners!). That does not mean that excluding people from the institution of marriage isn’t wrong – it is discrimination.
The third assumption comes from an analysis of where the money and energy within the main LGBT organizations is being spent on. I am by far the only one calling those orgs out on this focus (Mecca and Warner are two other examples). They are angry about that focus because people who could use our help are not being helped.
Finally, i find it a bit offensive to be accused of “disempowering” and “stealing the limelight.” First, “outdated” is not disparaging. Then, i don’t see how asking that “equality for all” truly includes everybody not just those who want to be coupled (another example where assumption 2 is coming from) is disempowering. And, then, again, the limelight is only stolen if you define the struggle so narrowly that you pit coupled people against singles. Lastly, you are ignoring a big swath of the struggle: The swath i am trying to bring out – the struggles that are being fought by people who are too hungry to begin to think about marrying someone. The struggles that Mecca is documenting in his book. I invite you to read the last few pages of Mecca’s intro to the book he edited. This whole thing isn’t my idea. And it’s not about “singles rights.” It’s about everyone’s rights.
Reading Bella DePaulo’s column about singlism and the birthers this morning, i realized that there seems to be another troubling assumption lurking in your “stealing the limelight” comment: There are different struggles and we cannot use one to illuminate the other. In Bella’s case, she examines racism to help us understand singlism. In my case, i examined homophobia and heteronormativity to better understand singlism and couplemania. All of these are based on stereotypes and are oppressive. And as Bella put it:
By slicing and dicing, we end up with ideas that passing same-sex marriage will help all people when in fact, it only creates new privileges rather than dismantling all privilege.