Opinions

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by BullDog

White, middle class people are not the only people who get married.

My point, exactly. Trans people of all income levels get married. Very poor people get married. The benefits to them are many, and that seems to be the issue here. Why are lgbt people who don't believe we should be working on marriage equality in the habit of telling me that marriage is a privileged state precisely BECAUSE it brings financial benefits? If it's so privileged, why is it just as easy for a poor person to get married as a wealthy one? And, what's wrong with anyone accessing a state that brings some financial stability?

I don't have the energy to search through this thread to find Ender's post wherein he asserts that there's no real benefit to bi-national couples who want to marry. That pissed me right off, but I'm already so irritated that I decided not to answer. That's a flat out ridiculous assertion, and there are a few people on this site who would be breathing fire if they were to have read it because of how deeply their forced seperation hurts them. There are far too many lgbt binational couples who are kept apart by their inability to marry. Amongst my friends, the butch member of the binational couple in the direst circumstance due to marriage inequality is a low-income woman of colour. There, now. Does that mean you can care about marriage equality now?

[Quintease]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

My point, exactly. Trans people of all income levels get married. Very poor people get married. The benefits to them are many, and that seems to be the issue here. Why are lgbt people who don't believe we should be working on marriage equality in the habit of telling me that marriage is a privileged state precisely BECAUSE it brings financial benefits? If it's so privileged, why is it just as easy for a poor person to get married as a wealthy one? And, what's wrong with anyone accessing a state that brings some financial stability?

There are people in this thread whose sole argument against marriage seems to be that minorities won't have access to it. That's crazy. Straight people don't have to be white to be married. In fact any old poor, non-white, sex-working, non-monogamist with a criminal record can put a ring on their beloved's finger, provided they're of the opposite sex. But not gays of any ilk*.

In my own life I've had TWO ''gay" marriages. One to a TRANS MAN from a working class background (as am I from a working class background) and another to a woman who was NON WHITE and wasn't even born in the western world. Part of the reason we broke up was because she wanted to return to her part of the world which didn't recognise gay marriage (the other part was because she was an asshole, but enough about that).

Earlier I posted a link to a Facebook page. If anyone believes that Bi-national couples don't need marriage, please click on it.


*depending where you live of course

[DapperButch]

I admit to not reading every single post, but I think I pretty much have the jist here.

Not to sound ageist here, BUT, I do think that age may play a part in how significant one sees this announcement.

First, living history is different from reading/hearing about it, so the feeling of validation from the President after spending a chunk of your life sneaking into gay bars, or just worrying about being beat the hell up (with societal support), is pretty damn powerful.

Additionally, for those of us who are looking ahead to retirement and death, we tend to think about what we will need as we age and also what we will be leaving to our partners (including social security benefits). When I was in my late 20's or early 30's, this stuff wasn't as important to me. Now that I am 41 (and also had a serious health condition), I do.

I guess I am saying two things. One is tangible and one is not. Both are important.

One, for some of us Obama's announcement is the highest validation that we are just people, just like anyone else. We haven't heard that before. There is reason to believe that this will trickle down to how N. American society views, and then subsequently, treats us (like when I, a butch, am laying in a hospital bed and need my pain pill, the nurses might not move as slow to give it to me as they do now).

Two, there is more hope now that I will be able to marry my partner and she can get my social security benefits at my death. Yeah, that is a big deal.

Late for work or I would clean the above up a bit. Hope it makes sense.

[Glenn]

Pardon me for jacking the thread. Not trying to belittle anyones point here. I agree on boths points. There's no shortage of identities except for human identities. But, I think I missed the part about Prop 8 and how big business (aka money) influences politicians and the media. I just can't think of a time in herstory/history when this was'nt true. Where there is money, folks will use it to influence politics. Hell, there's almost no point in being rich if your not going to use it to control politics and the media and the environment, and I don't think this is ever going to change.

[girl_dee]

Maybe i'm a dreamer but i look forward to the day when none of this is an issue.

In the grand scheme of things the President announced equal rights in marriage for all... whoopdee doo! To us that should be a given, equal rights. BUT He is also the FIRST President to make such a (sadly) bold statement. If he isn't re-elected, never heard of again, he paved the way for the next ..... and that is a BIG thing. He has made it OK for the President of the United States to speak up for our rights.

i am not a big flag waiver, i never have been. i don't want to stand out because i am gay, i want to fit into society, to show society that we live and breathe just like they do. Straight folks don't waive the straight flag.
But until we are equal in ever single right it's necessary for us to stand up for every single right we are denied. Some of us NEED a President to speak up for us.

Being gay in Canada is so much different than in the states. It's just not as big of a deal here, i hope one day it is like that in the states. Until then we can't stop speaking up and backing those who do! If we pick apart the people who are trying to help, what good will that do?

[Cin]

Ya know I get that words are not legislation. But it is also true that you cannot legislate acceptance. Therefore it is also useful to have people in the public eye, especially respected individuals, advocating acceptance. Yet we do need the legislation. However to get the legislation before the acceptance is not without its own set of difficulties. I imagine you could pass a law making bigotry of any type illegal and you would not have any less bigots just more criminals.

Still laws need to change, however when they do it does not guarantee much of anything except exactly what the law allows. If you are allowed to marry then that’s exactly what you will get. No more, sometimes less, like when someone refuses to marry you because it’s against their religion, or if you can afford and want a wedding some will still be able to refuse to plan your wedding or allow you to hold your wedding in their establishment because of religious concerns. Perhaps because they advocated enthusiastically for the preservation of their particular version of human rights.

When humans are not allowed to exercise what are considered human rights there needs to be a law in order for many of us to have any recourse, because clearly human rights are not a guarantee for all human beings. And for many of us humans they are non-existent unless specifically legislated.

Legislation won’t change the fact that some people will still hate queers of any ilk (or hate some particular ilk much more energetically and emphatically than other ilks) and wish us nothing but pain and misery and even participate in various activities geared toward ensuring that we suffer pain and misery abundantly. But it will make certain activities geared toward creating specific pain and misery against the law. It will also add a small measure of protection in the form of consequences for breaking the law and trying to withhold the specific human right a specific legislation has granted us. And whether we personally want that right or not it’s still in all our best interests that we are validated legally as being worthy of a specific human right. I get that doesn’t mean diddly squat in regards to the plethora of basic human rights many of us are still denied.

It also won’t change that some of us can and some of us will choose to join mainstream society. It won’t change that some (queer republicans come to mind) willfully, even cheerfully participate in their own oppression because they realize that the oppression of the rest of us, even if it means that they are also minimally oppressed in one aspect of their lives, is of more financial value to them than personal freedom and that equality in any form simply means less for them.

It won’t change that some of us are myopic and see the world through a very privileged lens. It won’t change that some of us only have interest in what personally affects us and when we get what we want we go back to apathy, beer and baseball or whatever entertains us. It won’t change much, but it will require one particular human right to be available to one group of human beings previously denied it. And to me this can never be a bad thing.

I guess I am trying to understand what exactly is being said here. If you are against gay marriage could you explain specifically what gay marriage will do to oppress certain segments of the queer population? Is it that it drains too much energy from various movements? Or is seen as the only legitimate movement? And if you are not against gay marriage per se, could you explain what you are against surrounding gay marriage.

I have to add that the fact that without Canada’s federal recognition of same sex couples rights to immigrate Truly Scrumptious and I would not have been able to live together and that might make it difficult for me to understand another point of view. Neither of us are occupationally or financially privileged so we would have had no way to circumvent the immigration laws in the US. Family class was the only possible avenue open to either of us for immigration. So without Canada’s immigration laws it would have been exceedingly challenging, probably impossible, for us to be together sharing our lives every day (at least legally). I get that kind of relationship is not for everyone but it is for some of us and I doubt that sexual preference, class, race, gender, sex, intelligence, or even mental health dictates the existence of this need in an individual. Besides I don’t believe human rights are rights because they are popular or because everyone wants to exercise them.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I don't blend in with society's version of normality I'm also one of those people who feel I should not have to argue, prove, or debate my civil rights. I'm glad Obama took a stance but I'm also aware that what will trickle down as far as benefits will be so for those who do want to marry. Marriage shouldn't garuantee my rights that to me falls under that whole binary you gotta be married to be validated. I'm also ELATED that those who can CAN!

I think Obamas gay marriage endorsement is a tool for all of us under the LGBTQI spectrum to get out there and fight, not stay silent, change legislations etc.


"I" would love for this to be a Federal law not just state to state. I'm also very aware unless we (queers,gays,etc) do something it isn't going to happen overnight.


My kids have it a tiny easier because change has happened.

[julieisafemme]

This is frustrating. I support marriage equality 100 percent! I am extremely pleased that President Obama has publicly stated that same sex couples have the right to marry.

Ok. So now let's look at what exactly he said and how that affects the still ongoing fight for marriage equality. DOMA, while not being defended by his Justice Department, is not on his agenda to repeal. He said that on The View yesterday. Without the repeal of DOMA same sex couples will not enjoy the rights of tranferring social security benefits, having access to federal pensions, enjoying federal tax treatments for married couples or surviving spouses, and immigration. These are all things that have been mentioned in this thread that will not be changed by what President Obama said.

We are still in the same space as before. Yes we have recognition and that is very important!!!!

The second issue is the emphasis on gay marriage as THE issue facing queer people. It is one issue. Everyone has their idea as to how marriage equality will affect other issues queer folks face. I have heard compelling arguments on either side. I do not understand why we have to all be if the same opinion.

[Cin]

I don’t care to have to argue, prove or debate my civil rights either. Yet, nobody is offering to give them to me. And I sure don’t fit society’s idea of normal. That’s not likely to change any time soon either. And I’m very okay with that. Nor do I believe gay marriage is the only gay issue. As far as human rights issues are concerned it’s not even in the top ten. That said I certainly support gay marriage. And although Obama’s personal declaration concerning queer marriage is not going to translate into legislation at this time, it is acceptance on a personal level and that has value. You cannot legislate acceptance. You cannot legislate public opinion. You cannot pass laws that will erase bigotry. That happens gradually over time and movements in that direction are just as important as legislation in my opinion because once you have acceptance legislation is much easier to come by. Although traditionally it is not done that way. It is usually civil rights that are legislated and then with any luck acceptance follows a few hundred (sometimes a few thousand) miles behind.

I have to say I am having a bit of a difficult time understanding what is going on in this thread. I'm not following it. I'm not even sure where the dissention lies exactly. People seem to mostly agree or maybe it's just that I don't get it. I don't know where the paths diverge, except maybe in regards to the level of importance that should be placed on Obama's declaration. Or maybe on gay marriage? Too much thinking makes my head hurt.