And so, having enjoyed that short break, let us all take a Jennifer Holiday-sized deep breath and plunge onward.
As promised, I'm back for some long-overdue mouthing off. Gay marriage is something I've generally refrained from blogging about, for a number of reasons. For one, it has never struck me as a particularly complex issue: all we want to do is have some Big Gay Weddings (oh, and I guess maybe it'd be nice to have some state sanction and cultural capital invested in our relationships, too). Secondly, people always seem to have very clear ideas regarding where they stand on the issue of gay marriage, so that I'm not sure how much an only-moderately-informed blogging undergrad can hope to bring to the table. This South Park Clip seems to sum up the whole thing pretty nicely (Apologies for casual throwing around of the word "faggot," which is one of the few places where South Park and I diverge). Finally, and I am aware that this is a pretty stupid reason, but marriage has always felt like an issue that was pretty far removed from my own life and, as such, I have refrained from weighing in.
The current U.S. political landscape, however, is making it all but impossible to avoid talking about the M-word (which raises its own set of questions). On a national level, Barack and his administration have (finally) recalled their support of the Defense of Marriage Act (For all intents and purposes, they might have called it the Keep the Homos Out of Here Act. I think they went with DOMA for acronym purposes). Barack has always been downright infuriating in his continually delayed action regarding LGBT policies, so I'm borderline giddy to see him finally taking some action, even if that action seems like something that should have been undertaken ages ago. Barack, I'll be honest: I voted for you and now I'm thinking Hilary (who is just kicking ass and taking names as Secretary of State) might have been a better choice. On a more local level, Maryland is close to joining DC and the cadre of other smarter-than-average states in passing legislature that enables Big Gay Weddings.
I've tended to tell anyone who will stop and listen how problematic I find the "mainstream LGBT movement's" focus on marriage. Many organizations seem to focus on marriage, eschewing all else. Marriage is by no means the bottom line of LGBT rights, and it is far from the most pressing matter facing LGBT identified people (a lesson that people hopefully learned from the horrendously tragic events of this past fall).
But this still doesn't quite answer the question of how we are supposed to feel about marriage. Are we supposed to understand marriage as a simple celebration of love (I can barely get that sentence out without vomiting all over my keyboard)? Or is it an outdated and grossly sexist institution that should be quashed, and that we queers have no business further enabling? The truth is, it might be both, but I think marriage, in its current incarnation, is best understood as something that straight folks can do, but gay folks are not allowed. Marriage, for better or worse is a right we are denied (Anyone mentioning the phrase "civil union" in response to this point is going to get the dirtiest look I can muster, by the way. And gay men are genetically predisposed to dirty look-giving). As such, I am firmly in favor of gay marriage, even if I might never get one myself.
Of course, there are all sorts of strange cultural implications to consider: If gays can get married, does this mean that when I am in my forties and own thirty-seven cats, all named Emily Dickinson, I will be a spinster? If I'm in my mid 30s and I've been divorced three times, is it time to pack it in and commit myself to a life of prostitutes and platonic friendships? And, of course, there are all the grotesque Romantic Comedies that are just begging to be written about the subject. While I mostly kid, I do think that this changing political tide with regard to gay marriage also gestures in the direction of shifting cultural scripts, though as to what form this shift might take, I haven't the slightest.
Have a good rest of the week folks.
Will Danger
(Jennifer Holiday screen cap courtesy of Vincent Allport)
I will not put my two sense in about gay marriage as a whole, but I will say I enjoyed reading this. With so many marriages ending in divorce I am starting to question the point of it all -- "celebration of love" or a "sexist institution". I agree with you that it is probably both.
ReplyDeleteI think marriage has become a religious thing rather than a celebration of love. To deny anyone the right to marry is shameful and silly of the US government. Sure, America is a country built on Christian values, however, the mingling of religion and state is very dangerous. Marriage licenses are granted by the state, not the church. There is no reason for the state to deny giving people marriage licenses based on religion. Someone please explain this to me.
ReplyDeleteWell, first, I think the idea that we have actually properly executed a separation of church and state is sort of laughable. Whether in name or not, we do live under a Christian government.
ReplyDeleteIsn't what you're proposing a domestic partnership/civil union (a state sponsored relationship void of any religious influence or connotation)? The problem with such unions is that they don't carry any of the cultural weight that marriage does, which is just as important as the governmental benefits, tax cuts, etc. The idea of a domestic partnership seems a "separate but equal" approach, which I had hoped the American government/public might have learned by now is never actually equal.
Though I feel our efforts are better spent elsewhere, the marriage issue, for me, boils down to the idea that straight people can do something that we cant, either in religious contexts or governmental ones (a distinction that I'm not totally convinced is real). Obviously that isn't any sort of equality.