Coffee Time: Metro →
(via Instapaper)
A snapshot of the poseur as an old man.
-
View high resolution
hfml:
From Yasmin Nair of Against Equality:
“I know this will seem obvious to what is, after all, the Facebook page for Against Equality. But sometimes, the obvious needs to be stated, especially in the face of an overwhelming tide of forgetfulness and a disregard for the larger context in which gay marriage operates.
Gay marriage is not simply about “love” and “commitment” between sweet and adoring couples who “just” want to get married. It is a multi-million dollar campaign waged and controlled by some of the most powerful non-profits and richest gay neoliberals, and it is about a systemic disregard for those who want no part of an institution that continues to oppress women, children, and anyone who does not fit the norm. Dan Savage and others who celebrate this recent Obama declaration might want to pay heed to how much the Prez has damned and shamed anyone who is NOT in a “normal” marriage: Three-ways, begone! No more rights for you if you dare have an open relationship! But much more importantly: Gay marriage is one more spoke in the wheel of the neoliberal state; it persuades us to forget that, in a world driving relentlessly towards the privatisation of what should be the most basic benefits like health care, water, electricity, the air we breathe, “rights” discourse has become the most effective way to prioritise the wants of the very, very few against the greater good and the often desperate needs of the many.
When gays and straights celebrate Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage, they are admittedly celebrating what might look like a common-sense matter: the end of a discriminatory practice that willfully excludes some from an institution. BUT, and here is the very large “but” to which I wish they would pay heed: gay marriage, particularly in the United States, is an argument not for inclusion but for denying benefits to those who choose not to get married, gay or straight. In states like MA and CT, you HAVE to get married to get health care for your spouse, or face the consequences - watch your partner die without insurance. If gay marriage were simply about “leveling the playing field,” its advocates would have first refused to compromise the health of the unmarried and taken the more ethical stance that health care needed to be de-linked from marriage and that marriage ought simply to be a civil/private/religious matter. But they didn’t, so they’re perfectly aware of and support the discrimination that is written into marriage and the state. Just as importantly: Obama’s statement allows gay marriage supporters, gay and straight to forget the harsher truths of his administration: He has deported more people than both Bush II administrations combined, continues to wage war on nations, accepted the fucking Nobel PEACE Prize with a statement about the necessity of war, thinks indefinite detention without trial is just fine and dandy, is in bed with multi-billionaires (including several gay ones, natch) and will compromise your abortion rights if he thinks it will get him more votes. The man plays to win: He made this statement based on advisors telling him how popular it would with be a rich and powerful gay lobby. The only thing this statement proves is that gays now constitute one of the most powerful political lobbies in this country, not the rightness of this cause or the worth of relationships which have never needed state legitimacy to survive. And here’s why gay marriage will never do a damn thing for most of you. Your tits will rot in hell, but they will look so divine in those tuxes and gowns. Evolve Already. See this for what it is.”
((emphasis mine))
I want to put Dan Savage’s response to Obama’s announcement here because it’s not really the celebration one might expect, and it also touches (lightly) on the idea of a “normal” marriage.
Today Barack Obama announced that he supports the freedom to marry. Personally. Because he knows monogamous same-sex couples who are raising children. (Non-monogamous couples aren’t allowed to get legally married, of course, unless they’re straight.) But the president also supports the “concept” of states “deciding the issue on their own.” (States like, say, North Carolina, which yesterday banned any recognition of same-sex relationships in reality, not in concept.) So the president supports same-sex marriage while also supporting the right of states to ban the same-sex marriages that he supports. Which means, of course, that once the dust settles… everyone is going to be upset, supporters of marriage equality and opponents alike.
I wouldn’t say that this “completes a turnabout” for the president on the issue of marriage equality. I’d say he’s almost there. His support for marriage equality in concept is huge, of course, and it’s welcome, and I’m pulling out my gay checkbook. (I’m pulling it out again.) But as delighted as I am by this news—and I’m freakin’ delighted—I’m nevertheless disappointed that the president’s support for marriage equality doesn’t extend to same-sex couples in North Carolina and other states that have already banned same-sex marriage.
I’m not going to claim that just because my own gay marriage is unlikely to be monogamous it’s somehow radicalizing an institution that does have very real baggage. Nair makes a very real point here:
“its advocates would have first refused to compromise the health of the unmarried and taken the more ethical stance that health care needed to be de-linked from marriage and that marriage ought simply to be a civil/private/religious matter”
However, the phrase “civil/private/religious matter” is making the same mistake that religious opponents of marriage make. There is civil marriage (conferring those oft-cited 1,400 legal benefits) and there is religious marriage (conferring you a spot in heaven forever with your loved one or else your own planet if you’re Mormon or whatever). I think the “sanctity” of religious marriage has pretty much been shown to be a complete sham by this point. The legal benefits conferred by the institution are tougher for me. Personally, I’m an idealist but not an activist. I also consider myself rather pragmatic. Advocating for gay marriage itself is an uphill battle that not long ago seemed entirely impossible. Advocating for the complete dismantling of all legal benefits it confers two people seems even more absurd.
That being said, maybe making marriage available for everyone really will destroy it. Conservative politicians backed against a wall could choose to stop providing the benefits for everyone lest they be forced to provide them to two women or two men. I don’t know if I should actually voice this here, but before I even get married I’m not sure it’s going to last forever. I love Matt and want to be with him for a very long time. I also want an easy way to become legally entangled with him (through civil marriage) and then legally disentangled (through a vicious gay divorce) from him. I can see that being a possibility in Illinois by 2013. I can’t see the larger social issues raised changing that quickly. And maybe that is cynical and lazy on my part.
I think expanding marriage benefits is a step forward for more than very, very few that’s not going to somehow worsen these other issues. Just think, if the billionaire gay neoliberal lobby doesn’t have to fund gay marriage legal battles anymore, they can move on to bigger and better social ills! Yes, I am looking at this from the viewpoint of my own personal rights. These rights don’t take anything away from anyone else. Reading Nair’s entire “Gay Marriage Hurts My Breasts,” I don’t think her thesis holds up. Lack of access to universal healthcare hurts her breasts, not gay marriage. She states she has no interest in a committed relationship. Even if she was, merely being married to someone is no guarantee that that someone has any better of a healthcare situation than you do. Getting engaged doesn’t magically grant your partner’s place of employment with health benefits. This is all fine. It means you have to find healthcare for yourself. Yes, this is a shitty situation, but Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act is at least attempting to do more about it than any lack of a Republican alternative would. I may be missing something big here. When I started my current job and got onto its insurance plan Matt was still uninsured. I learned our plan didn’t cover any sort of domestic partner benefits. That sucked. Eventually Matt got on a plan at his place of work, which would cover me if I wished to switch. This is more telling of a bigger flaw in our healthcare system, namely that our fucking places of employment control our insurance for the most part, than an issue of marriage. So yes, there are lots of things hurting Nair’s breasts, but I really don’t see how expanded marriage is one of them. Just because I support gay marriage doesn’t mean that I don’t support a plethora of other non-gay marriage causes.
Healthcare is not my sole reason for wanting gay marriage. A big drunk party and a Kitchen Aid mixer are two others. I’m more than willing to share the bounty with the community and with my extra-marital affairs. I tend to shy away from political discussions, but lately I’ve been thinking I should actually have an opinion sometimes. It would be excellent if this makes you hate gay marriage more. Critical differences of opinion are what make things interesting. We can get drunk, argue about it, and make out. Then I can spend the next month regretting all the stupid shit I said and all the points I failed to make.
edit: I failed to make my biggest point. No one gets to define what my marriage will and won’t be. I do. And it’s going to be as non-normative as I damn well please.
Theme: Linear by Peter Vidani
