Opinions

[Quintease]

Originally Posted by aishah

also...we live in a society that is fundamentally unequal.

i respect that gay marriage will help a lot of people in the immediate future, but it does not mean that all people will have marriage equality, and it won't make our fundamentally unequal society that much less unequal. it will make a lot of people's lives easier in the interim, so yeah, i'd be really happy if it were equally applied throughout the u.s. (i.e. not treated as a "separate but unequal" states' rights issue). but imho it should not be treated as the only issue or the endgame if we are really talking about wanting equality.

i am troubled because i frequently am in a position of educating straight people about lgbtq issues, and many of them are completely unaware of other immediate and life-threatening issues besides gay marriage (and maybe bullying of queer youth). i'm worried about the perception in some circles that if gay marriage is passed, we'll be living in a "post-homophobic" society. and i'm worried about how many people we're leaving behind.

I don't see how denying gays equal rights to straights is helping the equality cause?

Surely we want to make being gay as legally safe and as normalised as possible so gays won't be discriminated against simply for being gay (or trans)?

[aishah]

Originally Posted by Quintease

I don't see how denying gays equal rights to straights is helping the equality cause?

Surely we want to make being gay as legally safe and as normalised as possible so gays won't be discriminated against simply for being gay (or trans)?

i don't see how it's helping the equality cause either, lol that's why i said i'd be very happy for gay marriage to be passed. but i'm not under any illusions that that will make everyone equal.

the problem with being "normalized" is that many of us will never be able to conform to the standards of normalization according to mainstream society. some of us might be able to gain a little bit of acceptance and that's really great. but it's conditional and it can be taken away as easily as it can be given.

i'd love to live in a society where people aren't discriminated against for being gay and trans*, but passing gay marriage laws won't make that happen. it will help some lgbtq folks who want to get married, but as long as we live in a society that holds up a certain idea of normalcy and only confers a little bit of acceptance on those who conform to it, we're going to be second class citizens. the history of every minority in this country bears that out.

that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek for policy changes. policy changes can help a lot of people. but people are confusing changing laws with equality, with actually gaining widespread acceptance and ending discrimination, which are not the same thing. no matter how many laws we change, many of us are still going to face discrimination, hatred, abuse, and violence for decades if not longer. because we still live in a society that privileges the "normal" and many of us will never be "normal," no matter how hard we try. and what little bit of protection we ARE able to get can be taken away from us or denied anytime.

[aishah]

and i'm not saying that because of some place of privilege, i'm saying that because i and people i love belong to groups who will still experience discrimination no matter how many laws are passed. and the rhetoric around gay marriage has created the idea of "good queers" who conform with mainstream heteronormative society and "bad queers" who don't, and honestly, policy changes tend to mainly benefit "good queers" and leave the rest of us behind.

that's why personally, while i'll vote and encourage others to vote for laws, i prefer to put my time into other kinds of activism because those laws really aren't doing much to protect me or folks i love right now.

[julieisafemme]

I totally agree with you Aishah. Marriage equality does not include transpeople either. Not every state allows it. Not every state will let you even change your birth certificate. Even if a state will allow it, the marriage can be challenged. Until it is clear that all human beings have the right to marry each other same sex marriage is not going to cure everything. All human beings should have autonomy over their own bodies., the right to marry whom they choose and the right to procreate or adopt in any way they see fit.

[blush]

I have been hearing many folks toss around terms like "normalized" and "mainstream" as though these are dirty words and "real" equality warriors don't want families. I find this especially laughable given that many of these so-called "mainstream" queer folk have endured the same hatred and discrimination. Do we really think Phelps is going to distinguish his hatred between mainstream and non-mainstream queer folk?

[aishah]

Originally Posted by blush

I have been hearing many folks toss around terms like "normalized" and "mainstream" as though these are dirty words and "real" equality warriors don't want families. I find this especially laughable given that many of these so-called "mainstream" queer folk have endured the same hatred and discrimination. Do we really think Phelps is going to distinguish his hatred between mainstream and non-mainstream queer folk?

phelps isn't, but a lot of other people do.

we live in a society where we have a certain conception of what normal looks like (usually male, white, middle/upper-class, able-bodied, cisgender, monogamous, for starters). everyone else tends to be judged by how well they conform to that idea of normalcy. we police people's identities based on that conception of normalcy. some people who don't fit into those categories have some amount of acceptance, but that acceptance is always conditional and can be easily taken away.

so, for example, being a woman - if you are a woman who's monogamous, white, and middle class, and you have the right job and you dress well and you stay inside certain lines, you have a certain amount of safety because you are trying to conform to the best of your abilities. if you are poor or a woman of color or a sex worker or fat or otherwise not a "good" woman, you are policed. and sometimes even if you try as hard as you can to be a "good" woman according to the standards of our society, that one time you get raped they'll try to find ANY indication that you weren't "good" and you'll get smacked upside the head so fast.

i don't think there's anything wrong with being a monogamous, white, middle-class lesbian couple who just wants to get married and live in suburbia. i do think that that vision of what "queerness" is is what gets privileged. i do think there is a problem with saying "all queer people want to be just like you normal straight people! we're all mainstream!" because those of us who don't fit heteronormative society's ideas of what mainstream looks like then end up getting labeled as "bad queers." we're setting the movement back. recently a friend of mine who's a bisexual middle class 20-something white cisman with a nice professional job, living in suburbia, said, "god, those crazy queers at pride parades and you poly people are making us look bad." if i had a nickel for every time someone told me that...i'd be a wealthy woman.

i don't have anything wrong with mainstream people. i think mainstream people deserve rights as much as the rest of us. i'm not saying every middle class lesbian who just wants to get married and live in suburbia needs to go live on the streets and be homeless. the problem is mainstream people tend to get rights and the rest of us tend to get left behind, in my experience (at least with the mainstream feminist and disability movements). i know so many straight people who are like "i'm all for gay marriage, but all that partying and hookup culture and crossdressing and stuff is just icky and gross." if we look like monogamous middle-class straight (mainly white) couples, it's sorta kinda okay. other expressions of queerness are not okay.

obviously some straight people will never accept us no matter what. but it is true that if you try hard enough to conform and you don't have certain markers that automatically put you outside of the mainstream, you can get a little bit of conditional acceptance. and that's great. but it can be taken away in a heartbeat because that's how the society we live in operates. (and as we've seen with violence against poc and with the recent war on women, just as examples, it can be taken away from you no matter how much legal protection you think you have.) and some of us will never even have that.

[blush]

Originally Posted by blush

I have been hearing many folks toss around terms like "normalized" and "mainstream" as though these are dirty words and "real" equality warriors don't want families. I find this especially laughable given that many of these so-called "mainstream" queer folk have endured the same hatred and discrimination. Do we really think Phelps is going to distinguish his hatred between mainstream and non-mainstream queer folk?

Originally Posted by aishah

phelps isn't, but a lot of other people do.

we live in a society where we have a certain conception of what normal looks like (usually male, white, middle/upper-class, able-bodied, cisgender, monogamous, for starters). everyone else tends to be judged by how well they conform to that idea of normalcy. we police people's identities based on that conception of normalcy. some people who don't fit into those categories have some amount of acceptance, but that acceptance is always conditional and can be easily taken away.

so, for example, being a woman - if you are a woman who's monogamous, white, and middle class, and you have the right job and you dress well and you stay inside certain lines, you have a certain amount of safety because you are trying to conform to the best of your abilities. if you are poor or a woman of color or a sex worker or fat or otherwise not a "good" woman, you are policed. and sometimes even if you try as hard as you can to be a "good" woman according to the standards of our society, that one time you get raped they'll try to find ANY indication that you weren't "good" and you'll get smacked upside the head so fast.

i don't think there's anything wrong with being a monogamous, white, middle-class lesbian couple who just wants to get married and live in suburbia. i do think that that vision of what "queerness" is is what gets privileged. i do think there is a problem with saying "all queer people want to be just like you normal straight people! we're all mainstream!" because those of us who don't fit heteronormative society's ideas of what mainstream looks like then end up getting labeled as "bad queers." we're setting the movement back. recently a friend of mine who's a bisexual middle class 20-something white cisman with a nice professional job, living in suburbia, said, "god, those crazy queers at pride parades and you poly people are making us look bad." if i had a nickel for every time someone told me that...i'd be a wealthy woman.

i don't have anything wrong with mainstream people. i think mainstream people deserve rights as much as the rest of us. i'm not saying every middle class lesbian who just wants to get married and live in suburbia needs to go live on the streets and be homeless. the problem is mainstream people tend to get rights and the rest of us tend to get left behind, in my experience (at least with the mainstream feminist and disability movements). i know so many straight people who are like "i'm all for gay marriage, but all that partying and hookup culture and crossdressing and stuff is just icky and gross." if we look like monogamous middle-class straight (mainly white) couples, it's sorta kinda okay. other expressions of queerness are not okay.

obviously some straight people will never accept us no matter what. but it is true that if you try hard enough to conform and you don't have certain markers that automatically put you outside of the mainstream, you can get a little bit of conditional acceptance. and that's great. but it can be taken away in a heartbeat because that's how the society we live in operates. and some of us will never even have that.

Yanno, you're absolutely right. And so is Ender on this one. I shoved my thinking through a shit-ton of my white privilege. Sorry about that.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Quintease

I don't see how denying gays equal rights to straights is helping the equality cause?

Surely we want to make being gay as legally safe and as normalised as possible so gays won't be discriminated against simply for being gay (or trans)?

Originally Posted by Quintease

I hate these people as guess what, WE DON'T LIVE IN THAT WORLD THAT YOU WANT!

I really think gay people stamping their feet and insisting that gays don't need marriage are hurting the cause, sorry but I do. It's very carriage-before-the-horse.

Yes it would be ideal to live in that world where gender and wedded bliss don't matter, but until we get there can we focus on something that the mainstream world/ Governments/ Religions/ Allies will understand? Can we just have a chance to be equal to everyone else first, before we start trying to change the society we live in. Surely equality is more important than fantasy right now?
People are dying out there, families are being split up , lovers are losing the right to see their loved ones, but these tossers have so much privilege that they can't be bothered to care about any of that? Fcuk them.

The bolded statement you've written is precisely why many of us do not see same sex marriage as the most important issue that should be at the forefront of queer/trans rights. Over and over again I've spoken as person who currently lives in a country where same sex marriage has been legal for years. Here in Canada "the policy" is there...what does it mean? Little to nothing for anyone who isn't a white middle class or upper class able-bodied cis sexed and wanna be normative gay. You want equality? Marriage rights isn't the most important drive towards equality. There are thousands of queer and trans people who are denied refugee status from nations where they truly are under threat of death or physical violence. Just as many or more who are imprisoned for being trans or queer, who are assaulted at the hands of governing bodies. Just as many who are homeless or live in subsidised housing, who are denied employment. Marriage for these people...it doesn't mean shit as far as being seen as human beings in the eyes of the government or society. Just like in Canada, same sex marriage will be passed in the US...and the white middle and upper classes will rejoice and forget about all other struggles...just like in Canada. Just like with the second wave feminist movement, those with the least social privilege will again be left behind, while the most privileged normative gays will be left to their white picket fence dreams.

That isn't the queer/trans community that is my community or the community I will fight for. I'm not going to sit here and fight for a time where only married couples are able to be united through immigration, or who can visit each other in the hospital or have benefits. You want to fight for the normative normalised dream, go ahead. But don't be surprised when there are so many of us who don't want that and who recognise that as much as certain classes of people will get the benefits, we aren't going to ignore the shit that continues to exist in marginalised communities.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I specifically started the thread because we ALL have different opinions on what's going on politically with "gay marriage" being a focus. We all aren't going to be shaking our head yes yes yes, some will stop think others may not.

The article I posted has some things I agree with others not, it certainly is nor has my opinion been stated by whining, shredding Obama apart or demonizing the marriage thing.

I expected different views and opinions with some being agreeable some not. It's not a pick a camp thread I'd hoped it could should be a conversation that could be civilly had knowing not everyone has to or will agree.


Opinions are just that, opinions

[The_Lady_Snow]

PS

I also agree strongly Toughy, religious hands are way to deep in the government cookie jar but that's a whole other thread and a whole other brain aneurism

[Gráinne]

I personally believe that one day, hopefully soon, gay marriage will be on the national level. It wasn't that long ago, in my lifetime actually, in which whites and minorities (not just African-Americans) could not marry. One by one, the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down until 1967. Then as now, it was the Deep South who were the last to get rid of them. Gay marriage will do the same.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by guihong

I personally believe that one day, hopefully soon, gay marriage will be on the national level. It wasn't that long ago, in my lifetime actually, in which whites and minorities (not just African-Americans) could not marry. One by one, the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down until 1967. Then as now, it was the Deep South who were the last to get rid of them. Gay marriage will do the same.

The Zealots don't share this viewpoint, they see interracial marriage being accepted finally as "natural" between man and woman. The Christian Nation is defending the sanctity of natural marriage what we do according to them is against scripture. Churches are SCREAMING in anger that Obama is betraying Christian law.


A law that has no business in Government buy I'm telling ya that's a whole other thread about us (queers) and Zealotry running this nation.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

I'd hoped it could should be a conversation that could be civilly had knowing not everyone has to or will agree.

Yes, and as with basic human rights equitably assured for all, it is certainly something we can hopefully achieve.

[Sachita]

I don't need someone's approval or acceptance about who I love or fuck. If it was illegal, lets face it in some places it is, I would have to be more careful. As a human being I want the same rights as everyone else, of course, however having lived in this USA I can't support any government venues. The whole thing with marriage, paperwork, etc is a big turn off to me. I understand equality but if you think about we have never ever been treated equal and as women we may not see that day in our lifetime. I also feel like its a sell out on their part and although I think Obama is a fucking great president I don't trust any of them.

I don't need legal marriage to show my love and devotion.

[Sparkle]

I am finding some of the posts in this thread disturbing and a bit mind boggling because it seems that the message is: if you're not exclusively cheerleading Obama in response to his announcement then you're a naysayer and a nitpicker and a parade-pee'er.

What is wrong with looking critically at the Presidents' actions and words?

I think Obama is a fantastic President. I admire him. On some issues I don't agree with the choices his administration has made. On other issues I am 100% behind him. I consider his bravery and progressiveness in relation to the LGBT rights groundbreaking, but let us be honest, the bar wasn't set very high (in terms of presidential support for equality). I think Obama publicly supporting gay marriage is amazing, unexpected and quite possibly political suicide.

I voted for Obama once and I will vote for him again, he already had my vote prior to his announcement and despite my critical view of his administration.

And I strongly agree with the posts of aishah and julieisafemme (and a few others), I believe we must CONTINUE to take a critical view of all of our political leaders. I believe we must keep our eye on the big picture, which includes a number of different legal rights, not just marriage.

I believe that "gay marriage" is one piece of the pie when it comes to LGBT rights. It is potentially a large piece of the pie IF (and only if) DOMA is repealed and legislation happens on a federal level.

While DOMA exists, marriage equality does not.
As an aside, I far prefer the phrase/term "marriage equality" to "gay marriage" which sounds a whole lot like "special rights" to me.

I live in Massachusetts, I've had the legal right to marry for years. I'm very proud of my state and grateful for the rights it affords me and very-very-very aware of the rights my state has no ability to give me (federal rights). I expatriated for this reason. I continue to funnel my resources in to immigration equality because my lack of rights impacted me so deeply.

Meanwhile...there are so many other pieces of the pie to be advocated for, to be fought for and to be won. And Obama saying he supports gay marriage, while a wonderful endorsement, does not equal legal change on any front.

It really bothers me that taking a critical view, not only of Obama's announcement but also the actual and potential legal and political ramifications of the announcement (or the lack there of) is labeled "picking apart" the President!

I celebrate Obama's announcement, I tip my hat, I salute him, I throw a virtual ticker tape parade for his announcement.

And I want more - I want full legal parity.
I want my basic human and civil rights. Full stop.

And I will not stop taking a critical view.
I hope, when the virtual confetti is swept off the virtual streets, the rest of our community won't either.

[BullDog]

Hmm well I am not some mindless cheerleader.

Those taking a "critical view" - what exactly is it that you want? What should be done differently?

I believe in riding momentum for all of it's worth rather than sitting around and criticizing. I think we have a better chance of positive change with that type of strategy. That's just me.

I think everyone is well aware that same sex marriage is not the only important issue in this world.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Hmm well I am not some mindless cheerleader.

Those taking a "critical view" - what exactly is it that you want? What should be done differently?

I believe in riding momentum for all of it's worth rather than sitting around and criticizing. I think we have a better chance of positive change with that type of strategy. That's just me.

I think everyone is well aware that same sex marriage is not the only important issue in this world.

Perhaps we have different views of the language I used...

I think taking a 'critical view' and 'criticizing' are wildly different, in connotation and denotation.

Taking a critical view is saying: "I'm proud of my president AND I'm really concerned about how marriage equality can be achieved while DOMA continues to exist? how do we move forward from here? what are the next steps? how can we capitalize on this endorsement?"

criticizing is saying: "our president sucks, he should have said this 4 years ago, this is all motivated to win more votes, he's disingenuous, he doesn't care about us and I think his tie was really ugly."

[BullDog]

Yes how can we capitalize on the momentum- I believe that is something many people could agree on. I do think those of us who find the President's announcement to be a positive thing are quite aware there is much more work to be done. I think President Obama is aware of that as well.

[Kätzchen]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

And I want more - I want full legal parity.
I want my basic human and civil rights. Full stop.

*best strand of thought, ever.*

Thank you Sparkle for articulating your point of view with clarity.

~D

ps/ when I am feeling better, I will come back in participate more fully in this particular conversation/subject.

[aishah]

i agree with sparkle. and many others.

i don't understand why what i said earlier seems to have been so unclear, but...

* i am not against gay marriage. i am very much for it, as i stated over and over and over again. i think it will help many people.
* yes, it's true all kinds of people get married, not just middle class people. (though in my experience marriage tends to be less of an ideal choice for poor people of color, but that's neither here nor there to what i was saying earlier.)
* i think it's cool obama came out in support of gay marriage. i don't trust him (or any politician), but i voted for him and i probably will again. i suspect it was an election stunt, but honestly that's also neither here nor there.
* the response to what obama has said has been overwhelming, and while his words carry some weight, they don't actually make concrete change for us right now. i'm not sure they ever will. i hope they will. but the fact remains that (as julie and others have pointed out also) he is treating it as a states' rights issue and does not see it as a federal civil rights issue. so despite his support, even he still believes we should be treated as separate and unequal.

here's where i seem to have lost some folks.

* i have a problem with the fact that the mainstream lgbtq rights movement has turned itself into a single issue movement - gay marriage.
* the frustration i most deeply have with this is that every time a politician says something about this issue, or the mainstream media prints something about this issue, i am painfully and deeply reminded that this is almost the only issue that gets any attention in the mainstream. other issues that disproportionately affect working class and poor queers of color, disabled queers, and other marginalized folks get very little attention. passing gay marriage will not fix these other issues. at the same time, most straight folks i know don't even know these issues exist because all that they hear about is gay marriage.
* obama won't ever talk about these other issues, like incarceration and murder of trans* women of color. the nyt isn't about to put it on the front page. because the mainstream lgbtq community barely pays it any attention to begin with, so why should the rest of the world? i'm not frustrated because i disagree with gay marriage, but because i disagree with the way we've made gay marriage the ONLY issue. bulldog asked what i would change...that's something i would change. i wish that the big lgbtq organizations talked deeply and critically about other issues besides gay marriage. i wish that we brought other issues to the attention of the media and politicians.

and here's where i apparently REALLY lost some people...

* gay marriage does not mean equality, and passing gay marriage laws does not mean we will all be "mainstreamed" and "normalized." these laws extend a few more rights to monogamous same-sex couples, but as we've seen with the war on women and many other situations, those rights can easily be ignored and taken away. as can any other legal rights we get. that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek for them, but personally i don't feel that that's the ONLY thing we should focus on because it's so tenuous. often the most marginalized among us are the first ones to have those legal protections violated.
* our society is fundamentally unequal, and as i pointed out in post 49, the attempts to push the idea of a "normalized" gay person has set up the dichotomy of "good queers" (those who are most easily able to conform to a heteronormative society, to the best of their ability, usually but not always middle/upper class white gays and lesbians)/"bad queers" (the rest of us). this is not directly relevant to marriage in and of itself, however it is relevant to the mainstream lgbtq movement's attempts to say "we're just like (middle/upper class white) straight families" and the fact that the rest of us frequently get told we are making queers look bad. because of what i posted in post 49, i don't think being mainstreamed or normalized is a helpful goal - it just reifies the existing oppressive structures in our society.

it boils down to the fact that i believe our movements have the capacity to actually be inclusive of all of us, including the most marginalized, and the issues that disproportionately affect us. and that in the history of civil rights movements, the argument of "just wait til we get x law passed and then we'll care about other issues that affect you" never actually ends up happening. the mainstream movement gets its single issue passed and everyone else is still stuck in the shadows with no funding and no coverage. i think gay marriage is awesome, i think people supporting it is great, but it's not the only or the most immediately pressing issue for many of us.

i don't care if you agree with me, but i'd appreciate it if you at least consider what i am saying without misrepresenting what i am saying. (or just ignore it. whatever floats your boat.) nowhere have i said that i don't agree with gay marriage or don't support what obama said. and people of all ages agree and disagree with what i've said...it is not an age issue.

normally i wouldn't have posted in a gay marriage thread at all, because i can see the backlash coming from a mile away, but i felt some of the issues i brought up were relevant to the article snow posted (which was not unquestioningly applauding obama's announcement). if it had been a "yay obama supports gay marriage" thread i would have walked on by. just as i have walked on by the news about gay marriage and other threads. i thought this thread was to critically discuss the implications of this issue, not to unquestioningly all agree that obama is wonderful and anyone who doesn't think he is is a mean person who's setting the movement back.