[Preemptive note: read the whole post before you start arguing with me.]
Consider the implications of this editorial from the NY Times.
Mr. Spitzer is right to be fighting for gay marriage. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are an important recognition of gay relationships by a state. But they still represent separate and unequal treatment. One federal study identified more than 1,100 rights or benefits that are accorded only to the legally married. That means that even in states recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships, gay couples often have to use legal contortions to protect their families in ways that married couples take for granted. Gay couples may also be discriminated against when it comes to taxes and pension benefits.
The argumentative blocks of this paragraph are as follows:
1) Many states recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships.
2) Although these fall short of "marriage," they are well-intentioned.
3) However, these good intentions neglect the practical "discriminations" against those who are not fully and legally married.
4) Therefore, NY should pass a law legalizing gay marriage as opposed to these half-measures.
This logic is specious at best, because it ALSO assumes the following:
1) Gay people should want to buy into the institution of marriage
2) Only gay people are being "discriminated against" by marriage laws (taxes, pensions, etc).
3) That it is easier to promote gay people to marriageable citizens rather than dismantling an obviously-prejudicial pro-marriage system.
I would have to be really naive not to see that gay marriage is a hot issue for reasons other than those having to do with pensions; and obviously straight people who choose not to get married are in a different situation: BUT REALLY, MARRIAGE IS DUMB. Anything the Catholic Church and George Bush are so keen on defending, which is THE institution for reinforcing RHN (reproductive heteronormativity), that is (even in this pro-marriage editorial) an instrument of discrimination, socially compulsory, homophobic, patriarchal, etc. etc. etc.
So, gay marriage. Excuse me for my lack of enthusiasm about it. In my mind, it will only ever be (gay) marriage. And as long as the issue of homosexuality is an issue about "tolerance" and "the other," these are the sorts of ultimately irrelevant battles that will take place (over constitutional amendments): ones that ultimately supports "the system" and self-ascribes to degrading legalisms, etc. In short, marriage IS homophobic; why try to play their game?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So, what then? if I reject this one political project du jour, what should those energies then be directed towards?
I'm not sure, but here is my basic take:
- The project should not be for "tolerance" of the Homosexual, for some kind of "equal rights" that need to be extended to an other. While the desired Utopic condition would look something like that, I suppose, that is simply the wrong rhetoric. Gays are not "other." And ought not be a political entity as such. To paraphrase a recent DA Miller article: To "other" the Homosexual is to deny a relationship which already exists, in every individual consciousness and within every social/political entity. To talk of tolerance and "recognition" is inherently bogus.
-Marriage may be a universal, anthropologically. Whether it is universally whack is up for debate, but it is not worth saving.
-What finally needs to be accomplished is not altering the legal definition of this or that, or the type of justices appointed to the supreme court, but the dismantling of Christianity (thanks, Nietzsche) and its bogus moral structures. As long as people are "good Christians," they will be homophobic. Bottom line. Please note the legal success of Roe v. Wade undermined by the persistence of Christianity twenty-five years later.
See also: Zizek on the glass ceiling, wrangling with Laclau and Butler [who insist on pragmatism, which Zizek basically calls blindered gradualism].
It's not really about the rights a gay couple gains by having their marriage recognized. Those just underline how the recognition isn't only a title. The real heart of the matter is recognizing there's no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in this arena. If you think marriage can suck it, that's fine. But I find it hard to believe you found a bone to pick with a politician recognizing "a simple moral imperative" as just that, simple. I've always measured politicians by their stance on gay marriage because it seems like such an obvious issue—being against it means either being politically crafty or just ignorant. But, frankly, I'm quite surprised that a leading politician has made the right decision.
... because one thing gay people are short on is advice from heterosexuals.
That's a valid (if a bit obvious) point. However, I'm not saying, "Listen up, homosexuals! Here's how it is," but rather something about marriage in general. And, if *only* gay people were voting for gay marriage, well... we know how that vote would end up.
Besides, the pro-gay-marriage editorial by the NY Times is definitely "advice from heterosexuals," though I imagine "advice" is really the least of anyone's problems.
People should read this.
Post a Comment