Dragon ([info]ryuutchi) wrote,
@ 2009-07-20 00:58:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:gay, politics

There are probably going to be who disagree with me
I was reading the comments to this lovely blog on Pam's House Blend about a gay couple that went to a friend's wedding, officiated at it, and opened hearts and minds just by being out and loving.

It startled me that there were a number of comments that responded that they would never go to a heterosexual couple's wedding and/or stop respecting said couple because that couple is entering into a discriminatory institution by getting married.

I just don't understand how someone who would never DREAM of sitting at a segregated lunch counter, crossing a picket line, or any of dozens of other violations of solidarity with the disenfranchised, would participate in a discriminatory institution by choosing to get married at this time. Yesterday a wonderful woman who devotes her life to peace and justice told me she was getting married and wanted my address to invite me to the wedding. I was mute I was so hurt and shocked. She was oblivious to what she was doing.


I never thought of it that way-- marriage isn't like a lunch counter, and you can't put pressure on the owner by boycotting. Refraining from doing something harmful-- like crossing a picket line-- or boycotting a private institution, like a lunch counter is entirely different from refraining from making a public commitment to each other. Civil Marriage is a number of privileges that are conferred upon the couple that are useful and, indeed, in some situations necessary. It's a recognition of commitment, and refraining from making that commitment to each other (and gaining the ability to make medical decisions for each other, among other rights) doesn't get me any closer to being able to make a commitment to (and medical decisions for) my girlfriend.

I don't think in this particular situation that choosing not to get married in solidarity is something nearly as useful as getting married and then continuing to advocate for others to have the same rights. And while I don't doubt that a group like The National Marriage Boycott might send a strong political message, it bothers me on multiple levels. For one thing, a heterosexual couple is still exercising their choice-- they still have the privilege of being able to choose whether or not to marry, and if they don't understand that, the exercise is useless. And for another, I don't want someone to deprive themselves because I do without. I see it as the same sort of situation as someone choosing not to buy themselves necessities because someone else is going without. It's a nice gesture, if and only if combined with giving to or advocating for the other person, but I don't expect a lot of people to do it, and in the end it seems like a mostly self-centered response anyway. It also centers a certain primacy around marriage rights-- which, yes, marriage rights are extremely important in settling family rights laws and setting the precedent that LGBT people are part of ordinary families, but there are lots of gay rights and advocacy that have nothing whatsoever to do with family/marriage rights.

In the end, if a heterosexual couple chooses to refrain from getting married in solidarity with the LGBT community, that's a nice gesture. I appreciate it. But I don't respect someone who doesn't get married because I can't more than I respect someone who gets married because they're in love, want to make that commitment in front of their God, their country and everyone. Not choosing what's best for you as a couple seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.


If this sounds like a visceral, gut reaction, that's because it is. My friend, [info]jhyanmar, is getting married in a few weeks, and I have every respect for the guy. If, God forbid, he should fall into a coma, I want [info]letiwolf to be able to make those medical decisions for him. If they want to foster a child, I want them to be able to do it together. I don't want them to have to jump through hoops and get dicked around just because I'd get dicked around in those situations.

(19 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]notrafficlights
2009-07-20 09:03 am UTC (link)
I'd say a lot of it depends on how you view marriage.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ryuutchi
2009-07-20 06:14 pm UTC (link)
Probably. :/

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]boyastridgirl
2009-07-20 02:38 pm UTC (link)
http://boyastridgirl.livejournal.com/145148.html

You mean kinda like the conversation I had with my friend who's getting married herself next year, or somewhereabouts?

Yeah, I completely understand.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ryuutchi
2009-07-20 06:23 pm UTC (link)
Yeah. I mean, on a really deep level, it's kind of nice that someone is depriving themselves because I'm deprived-- but that's a really revenge-driven impulse, you know? Wanting to lash out because I've been hurt.

On a less lizard-brain level, though...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]linenoise
2009-07-20 04:18 pm UTC (link)
I've been seeing shades of this conversation in other places. "I'm going to disrespect all my married friends by calling their spouse 'partner' instead, because marriage equality hasn't happened yet."

Well, yes, you're** welcome to do that. But, really, there's a few problems with that. A) The people that you're disrespecting don't have any direct power to *do* anything about the problem, so you're barking up the wrong tree. B) Those same people are often already your allies, and are already exerting all of the indirect influence that they have available, so you risk losing an ally by being a spaz. C) It sounds a whole lot like childish sour grapes.

I saw it a lot more right after the Prop 8 ruling, and about half the people that were doing it back then backed off of it once they calmed down.

I like the part about pointing out the contrast between picket lines and lunch counter boycotts, vs. the marriage thing. One person choosing not to get married doesn't really *change* anything. Crossing a picket line might give the factory enough money that the strike fails. Boycotting a lunch counter might make the owner lose enough money that he has to change the rules to stay open. Choosing not to get married doesn't change anything because you're pulling on the wrong lever. It's not connected in the right ways to exert real force. And it skips past the part where you still had a *choice*, when choice is the whole point, really.

The only way I could see the denial of marriage actually being an effective propaganda tool would be if it was very, very public. Get some celebrity couple that's known for having an amazingly stable marriage, and have them very publicly divorce, but still stay together, and then chronicle all the myriad ways that their life together is suddenly made massively more difficult by the change in legal standing. Bonus points if there's kids involved, or one of them has medical issues.

But if someone is just choosing not to get married, and the only people that know about it is their closest friends.... Are you really raising awareness that much? It's already a front page news item in a lot of places.

*Generic 2nd person pronoun, not aimed at anyone in particular, yadda yadda.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ryuutchi
2009-07-20 06:37 pm UTC (link)
I think the difference between this and the "partner" thing, though, is the difference between an oppressed group doing something minor to lash out and the privileged group depriving themselves in a way that mostly just serves to make them feel good.

I think The National Marriage Boycott is trying to make it very public and high-profile so they can make an emotional impact, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]offside7
2009-07-20 04:40 pm UTC (link)
I definitely understand your reasoning when you say, "I don't want someone to deprive themselves because I do without." But I'm not sure I agree that it's self-centered. (I assume you mean that in a "revolving around them" not "selfish" but either way, it seems like a selfless gesture of solidarity to me, and it probably at the very least gets people around them talking about the issues whenever someone asks, "so, when are you two getting married?"

By itself it probably doesn't accomplish very much, but I think most of what anyone does for gay rights (or other issues) are drops in the bucket... but most of what we can do is just keep on contributing those drops.

The best argument for not boycotting heterosexual marriages comes in the little story in the link- by going, they increased exposure and opened up one mind. Only one mind, yes, but to me that feels relatively huge.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a heterosexual couple is still exercising their choice-- they still have the privilege of being able to choose whether or not to marry, and if they don't understand that, the exercise is useless." What about the people who boycott implies they don't understand it's a choice? It seems to me like they do understand it- and then choose not to exercise that right.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ryuutchi
2009-07-20 06:12 pm UTC (link)
I see the teaspoon/drops in a bucket argument, but I stand by my "selfish" comment-- although, you're right and "self-centered" is a better term for it. It's not that a heterosexual couple who chooses not to marry is doing something for themselves without regard for the well-being of others, it's that they're doing something that will make themselves feel emotionally good that doesn't actually have any impact on the oppression of others.

IMO, it also, to use the anti-oppression jargon, has the effect of centering the discussion on the people with privilege-- it becomes no longer about the fact that LGBT persons can no longer marry, but about the straight couples who have the choice not to.

As for "understanding your privilege", I think that if this boycott takes off, it will become a way of "showing solidarity" without actually doing anything to fix the oppression. They are exercising a right without trying to find a way to extend that right to others.

If that makes sense.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]offside7
2009-07-20 06:50 pm UTC (link)
I think "self-centered" was a term I borrowed from you. ^_^;;

I think you're right that if someone makes this gesture to make themselves feel good and stop right there without taking further actions, it's probably a self-centered act (especially if they weren't planning on getting married in the first place.) It's almost like saying, "see, now I'm a victim the same way you are, so I don't have to feel bad about your lack of rights."

On the other hand, that's making the assumption that they have stopped right there, but I would think that the kind of person who would state that they're refraining from getting married because others can't is also the sort of person would do other things as well, such as... I dunno, collect signatures or something.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2009-08-02 05:48 am UTC (link)
I feel like you're missing the other part of the campaign. I actually joined the campaign because I did not want to support a discriminatory institution. Part of boycotting marriage is wearing a ring that says "Equality" on your left ring finger. This has been a really great conversation starter, allowing me to let others know my story and why I think equal rights are important enough. Conversations have been, in my experience, the most influential tool in fighting for equal rights. It is vital to let people know that these laws hurt their coworkers, family members, and friends.

In response to what you were saying about there being more important issues to fight for, I would say that these issues are all tightly linked. Marriage equality is a huge step in the LGBTQ rights movement, one that will help build momentum for other campaigns. Additionally, back to the Equality Rings, they are a clear statement of support of the LGBTQ community. I think it is important that visible symbols of support are present so that our youth feel less like the whole world is against them.

I understand a lot of your points, but after really thinking about the movement for a few days I decided to join.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]letiwolf
2009-07-20 08:28 pm UTC (link)
I occasionally feel guilty that society so whole-heartedly /approves/ my union. We're white, Christian, educated-class heterosexuals*. Society APPROVES. We're both even northern/western European stock, so match on sub-race too!

(We're also feminists, I'm not entirely sure yet I want biological children - probably, but see more 'guilt' reaction to the idea of doing that instead of adopting, I'm not changing my name, he's the one that moved to be with me, but society doesn't SEE those; I do get raised eyebrows when they're mentioned, quite a lot.)

But I want to marry him.

I am currently of the opinion that I do more good by saying "I'm married, and I don't think OMG THE GAYS ARE COMING will reduce the sanctity of my marriage one bit" than I would by saying "Oh yeah? Well, I'll live in sin until you let them marry!" Because, that's the way the people who need to be reached see it. All I do by not marrying is confirm their opinion that only godless libruls would care about gay marriage.

*Or at least it's a heterosexual monogamous union, which is the same thing in society's eyes.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ryuutchi
2009-07-21 01:00 am UTC (link)
All I do by not marrying is confirm their opinion that only godless libruls would care about gay marriage.

Yo play RPGs, like queers, and are probably in favor of nationalized health care. You're still a Godless Librul. But, yes, you're right. ♥

(I'd rather adopt but that's because childbirth looks like it hurts.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]letiwolf
2009-07-21 05:04 am UTC (link)
I'm just not entirely sure a) I want to bring kids into the vicious, nasty world, when there are so many children who need love and protection already in it b) that I want to go through childbirth and pregnancy, and c) that I want to be leashed to someone for 18+ years and of course, our society puts all the burden on me; I BELIEVE Brian will carry his share, but... if he doesn't, I'm the one that'll turn into my mother, because I wouldn't have the same option to walk away and screw up. (I love my mother. But I would not want to live her life. I don't want to sacrifice anything near as much as she did.)
Of course, that last is a problem with adopting as well. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jhyanmar
2009-07-20 08:58 pm UTC (link)
Teace has pretty much said our part; I feel somewhat uncomfortable with talking about it a lot because of, well, my choices. I want to be married. I argue passionately for sharing that institution, and my stock response is not simply that gay marriage does not cheapen the marriage I hope to have, but if someone cites it as cheapening theirs, such a statement says more about their faith, loyalty, and dedication than it does about the institution as a whole. So I think I'll leave it at that and simply say, "Thank you," for your last paragraph, and I ask that you know this-- when I call you 'pseudosis', I mean 'sister of my heart.' I asked you to stand up with me -- to, effectively, become a part of the wedding, because you are indeed a sibling, and your participation in the marriage ceremony that I am about to pass through with the love of my life not only does not cheapen it, but strengthens it in many ways.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ryuutchi
2009-07-21 01:01 am UTC (link)
♥ ♥ ♥

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]joie_de_livre
2009-07-20 11:13 pm UTC (link)
I think the reality is that gay marriage has existed for thousands of years, and will continue to exist no matter what. The real issue is state recognition of gay marriage. Maybe once we stop structuring the discourse around this subject as being about whether gay marriage should exist, people will wise the fuck up and realize that they don't get to have a say in whether two girls get married, or whatnot!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ryuutchi
2009-07-21 12:04 am UTC (link)
I think this is why, although I think Gavin Newsom is a huge tool, I respected that whole "give gay people their damn marriage licenses" thing he did a while back. Because he essentially said that there's no reason why it would be different for a any adult, consenting couple.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]lady_ganesh
2009-07-22 02:11 am UTC (link)
Yes!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]lady_ganesh
2009-07-22 02:16 am UTC (link)
To turn the debate around a few degrees, I don't think I'd be so passionate about marriage equality if I hadn't been married, and I didn't realize the benefits it gave me. My husband was in a (relatively minor) car accident in our first few years of marriage, and the emergency department called me! Right away! And told me there'd been an accident and he was okay! And no one had to wonder about this, because we were married. I didn't have to worry about the asshole in-laws coming around and bugging us because, you got it, we were married! So, really, for me at least, I think being married has made me a better advocate.

I wonder, are these advocates going to come and get married in states where everyone can legally be married now? (I cynically wonder if some of them just, you know, don't really want to get married.)

(Reply to this)

(19 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…