It's strange to start a column without Tori Amos, but it's time for a change. I've enjoyed writing "Our Genderation" for the past two semesters, but this spring I will focus on queer politics and issues. Though the subject matter will differ, the feminist perspective will not, so let's dive into the wreck à la Adrienne Rich and see what we find.
The mainstream (white) LGBT agenda of late has nauseatingly concerned itself with same−sex marriage. Why? Historically, marriage as an institution has reproduced oppression and consolidated power within families, notably amongst the men. Also, it cannot be pried from its intimate ties with misogyny and racism. Marriage boasts legality and social currency and weight, all of which legitimize nuclear family structures while devaluing other formations, which lack legal recognition and social prestige. This brings us to the concern of this column: Gay marriage as a symptomatic reform cannot solve the issues surrounding marriage.
The rhetoric of those supporting same−sex marriage frames the issue as one of civil rights (Remember that time when Gay was the new Black?). Conceptualizing it as such has led to a troublesome polarization of critiques as either pro−gay or homophobic, which effectively silences debate and obscures the absurdities of the institution itself. Radical queer thought has been left out without a viable venue to shape public discourse and incite institutional changes.
The label itself recreates and reinforces the gender binary and inconsequentially expands the heterosexist definition of marriage. That is to say that it still excludes those residing outside the male−female narrative (e.g., trans identities). Catering to a need to legitimize queer couplings on the majority's terms will benefit only a select few.
To expand, race plays a notable role in the differential access to marriage and its benefits. As always, we should consider who is shaping the public discourse and for whom the benefits are sought. White, middle−class lesbians and gays are a major driving force behind the push for same−sex marriage. They already benefit from race and class privilege and a social mobility, so marriage becomes just another handy civil right to have.
Yet many queer people of color are disenfranchised, cannot easily climb the social ladder and lack access to healthcare, but these concerns, among others, have not struck a chord with the white−driven queer movement. Why?
To continue, reasons for supporting gay marriage do not address the main issue underlying the problems inherent in marriage. For instance, why do legal sanctions of heterosexual relationships determine who has spousal rights? The government should not interfere with our choices in the private sphere of interpersonal relationships. To give another example, marriage has been extolled as the solution to issues of custody for lesbians and gays. However, when we throw race into the equation, that argument begins to break down because it is a major determinant in the recognition of parental status. Thus, marriage may be an answer for some (white) people, but it falls short of creating a world of equality for many queers, especially queers of color.
Marriage should not be such a locus of queer activism. Let's re−envision the legal enforcement of entitlements and privileges in relationships and recognize that gay marriage is not the marker of equality or humanity, nor is it the main concern on many queer minds. It only perpetuates a system that regards some as deserving certain rights, such as healthcare and economic benefits, and also polices interpersonal relationships and circumscribes love within a very narrow definition. In short, radical queer thought does not limit itself to employing the tools of the master, to borrow Audre Lorde's apt metaphor.
--
