Opinions

[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.

[BullDog]

aishah, you didn't lose me. I get that you are frustrated and that you think there are other issues that don't get addressed. How do you think things should move forward?

Obama's public support of same sex marriage doesn't address other issues. True statement. If Obama came out in support of rights for trans sexed people it wouldn't necessarily address same sex marriage. It wasn't an all encompassing statement. You're right it doesn't cover everyone. The Civil Rights Act really didn't cover me either, but I am very happy for the movement and the laws that have been passed.

I am 50 years old and never thought I would see the day when a President of the United States would acknowledge us in ways that President Obama has. It does mean a lot to me and it seems to me it would be politically smart to rally behind it more. That is my opinion. Not everyone has to be rah rah cheerleader, but this is an historic moment. I am frustrated by queers too. I guess just in different ways.

I think it's funny that people are suspicious that this is politically motivated. Well if it is we should be pumping our fists that we have that much political power, lol. If not, maybe President Obama really has evolved. Or maybe they've carefully calculated things and are reasonably sure according to the polls that it won't hurt Obama and so now he can say it publicly.

Seriously whatever the reason, the President of the United States said something supportive. We are actually mentioned and supported in the Democratic Party's Platform. The Republican Party's Platform specifically states in several places that they are against same sex marriage and will actively work to legislate. Is the Democratic Party perfect? Absolutely not, but when people go around talking about mistrusting all politicians it seriously makes my head spin. There are huge differences between the political parties.

I am frustrated aishah that you continue to align marriage with white, middle class. I am white and middle class. I don't want to have the right to have a legal marriage so that I can be heteronormative and live out someone's fantasy of the "good lesbian next door." I want to have the rights because I love my partner and I want to make sure we have all the legal protections that heterosexual married couples do. People of all races and classes marry.

Heterosexual as well as queer singles and polyamorous people are left out of some of the same legal protections that married couples receive. I get that. There is more than one issue that needs to be addressed. It's also true that it is not always financial advantageous to be married. If you are queer or an unmarried heterosexual partner you aren't legally responsible for your partner's debts and taxes. If you are legally married then you are.

[aishah]

thanks, bulldog i feel like we tend to agree on most things here.

i did not align marriage with white and middle class. i aligned the mainstream lgbtq movement with white and middle class. it's something of a coincidence that the single issue there is marriage - that does not mean that marriage isn't important to other folks. the distinction i'm trying to make is that the rest of us have other issues that disproportionately affect us, but don't necessarily affect the face of the mainstream lgbtq movement (which is mainly white and middle class), and that's why (it seems to me anyway) that our issues are not considered as important.

i'm grateful for obama's statement. i know it was not meant to address other issues - i didn't expect it to. i'm just frustrated that he will NEVER address other issues because the mainstream lgbtq movement has ignored those other issues. for example, i don't see obama coming out and saying something about the recent murders of trans* women of color in the bay area the way he did about gay marriage.

i do understand and respect that in this particular instance that would have been a tangent. i'm looking at the bigger picture - what are we doing in our movement that is causing this situation where other urgent issues aren't being covered in mainstream media and by politicians? and the answer to that, to my understanding, is the single-pointed focus on gay marriage. that doesn't mean that in this particular instance i don't think it's great that obama came out (sort of, as a states' rights issue) in support of gay marriage. it's just - if we look at the larger picture of media and political coverage - could our movements be more inclusive? i hope so.

i can't apologize for mistrusting all politicians, unforunately. given the oppressive structure of our systems, and the corruptive weight of lobbying interests and other issues.... well. i have trust issues out the wazoo anyway i'm glad i voted for obama. originally it was a last minute decision out of fear for safety, given the violent islamophobic tension in the last election, but this time i will be voting for him with eyes wide open. he's the best option we have. i just...have too much faith in people to settle for the idea that our current way of doing things is the only way. like sparkle said, i want my basic human and civil rights. full stop.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by aishah

... i suspect it was an election stunt...

...so despite his support, even he still believes we should be treated as separate and unequal...

... these laws extend a few more rights to monogamous same-sex couples...

... 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)....
.

Apologies for cutting up your post. I pulled out some quotes that I wanted to directly address.

Election stunt? Do you seriously think that Obama thinks he's going to gain votes from anywhere with his statement of support? He already had the gay and liberal vote. He almost certainly lost some centrist votes, and energised the evangelicals who are lukewarm about the Mormon candidate, but white hot about denying us full civil rights. All the indicators are that this WILL hurt him at the ballot box. Apparently, Obama had come to his decision a month or more ago, and decided to announce his position prior to the Dem convention to avoid a divisive floor fight during the convention. The CW on this is that it would have been far better for his campaign if he had waited until after the election.

"Seperate but unequal" would have been Obama's previous position in favour of civil unions. Supporting marriage equality means equality. Period. Yes, I would have been far more impressed had he not said he thought it was a states' right's issue. On the other hand, he's laying the groundwork for the repeal of DOMA. The reality is that once DOMA is repealed, states will no longer have the ability to discriminate against a person who has been legally wed in another state.

Why on earth do you assume that marriage means monogamy? I have never been monogamous, nor would I become monogamous if I were to marry. Many married couples are non-monogamous, and I don't mean cheaters. The government can't legislate monogamy, and frankly doesn't care to despite the efforts of all the, (probably cheating), tea baggers. Additionally, when you assert that marriage equality only provides "a few more rights", you expose tremendous ignorance about the real legal ramifications of marriage, which is odd when you're so passionate about this subject. There are more than 1,100 specific rights and privileges granted to legal spouses. For someone so invested in the welfare of poor people you seem to be willfully ignoring the plight of lgbt elders who are, on average, far poorer than their straight counterparts because they are denied their deceased partner's social security benefits. This is a very serious hardship since many poor people rely on social security as their sole support in old age.

I'm an avowed pervert, non-monogamous biker leatherdyke, hippie artist. I just went out to look at a pro dungeon where the Lesbian Sex Mafia might decide to throw our Leather Pride party, which I am organising. There is not a soul in my community who suspects that I may be "normalized", or a "good queer". This pervert is just as happy about the prospect of full marriage equality as I am about the advancement of any other major civil rights issue. And I'm that much happier because many people that I care about stand to gain more than 1,100 specific benefits when their relationships are recognised as equal. Oh, and many of those friends are not white or middle class. It would be OK to care about their wellbeing even if they were, though.

[aishah]

to me, states' rights issue essentially means separate but unequal. either they are rights we should have or they are not. if you look at the civil rights movement, in terms of laws actually being enforced, people's rights were not ensured until it was treated as a federal issue.

too tired to deal with the rest right now - bed night.

[Cin]

I don't believe federally recognized marriage for same sex couples means equality for queers.

I don't believe legislation giving me the right to marry whom I choose makes homosexuality acceptable in the eyes of Mr. & Mrs. Straight America.

I don't believe gay marriage will change society's belief there exists only two sexes and two genders and that even within that extremely tight structure there will continue to be no mix and match.

I don't believe winning the battle for gay marriage federally will somehow increase in numbers or in enthusiasm those kinds of queers who believe the best course to achieving equality is to tip toe quietly, blend in as best you can and attract as little attention as possible and who blame the rest of us for the hold up. I think you either are that or you are not that.

I don't believe that there is a danger of being mainstreamed or normalized or a purposeful goal by a certain segment of the queer population to mainstream or normalize that is in any way meaningful enough that I want to give up the opportunity to receive the immigration freedoms and social security benefits that federally sanctioned marriage will allow (and the 1000 other benefits).

I don't believe federal marriage equality reifies or has an affect whatsoever on existing oppressive structures in our society. Oppressive structures in our society are already as real and concrete as they can get. My gaining the right to federally sanctioned marriage will not affect that.

I don't believe a push for gay marriage is a push for the idea of a “normalized” gay person.

I don't believe a desire for marriage equality or a desire to marry is heteronormative or will set up a dichotomy of “good queers”/”bad queers” or will align me with the mainstream lgbtq movement in general or with their attempts to say “we’re just like middle/upper class white straight families.

I don't believe that I have anything in common with middle/upper class white families be they straight or gay, period, whether or not federal marriage for same sex couples ever happens. Or that I ever have to in order to enjoy the benefits of federally sanctioned marriage.

I don't believe that mainstream movements of any type are going to help me or queers like me (or people like me in regards to mainstream movements not of the queer variety) except by accident or by incidental and unavoidable trickling down. It would not be anyone’s goal in a mainstream movement, even a mainstream movement for and about marginalized people to help the most marginalized of its people. Once a movement achieves mainstream status it’s probably sold its soul to the devil for the privilege and it’s time to find another movement. However this will not stop me from enjoying any human or civil rights they win for their mainstream queers.

I don't believe any politician ever has as his/her goal to help the least powerful in society. Again though I will enjoy any rights they get standing up for or next to the marginally powerful movement in my group of marginalized people.

I especially don't believe that human or civil rights won today won’t have to be fought for and won again. I need only to look at the current attack on women’s reproductive rights happening in the US today to have that underscored emphatically.

I do believe that there is interconnectedness to achieving equality. Any gain clicks another piece in place. And while it is certainly not desirous, necessary or even really possible for everyone to become mainstream nor is it acceptable to be defined or valued by one’s ability to closely resemble society’s definition of normal, there is a benefit to gaining any human or civil right that will, above and beyond any trickle down effect, bring a group of individuals closer to being seen as people deserving of basic human and civil rights (which is different from being seen as mainstream or normal). It will also shine a light on the reality that one segment of society is without the basic human and civil rights most take for granted.

I also believe that the fundamental inequality inherent in our societal structures makes me closer in class and in political purpose to a poor straight person than it does to a middle class queer.

[BullDog]

The more I think of same sex marriage supposedly being a class issue the less it makes sense to me. This isn't just in response to things aishah has said because I have heard it outside of BFP too.

Let's say you have a wealthy gay male couple and a poor lesbian couple. Who do you think needs legal protection for their relationship more?

The wealthy couple can hire attorneys, tax accountants, financial planners, estate planners etc etc. What sort of access does the poor couple have?

[Cin]

Originally Posted by BullDog

The more I think of same sex marriage supposedly being a class issue the less it makes sense to me. This isn't just in response to things aishah has said because I have heard it outside of BFP too.

Let's say you have a wealthy gay male couple and a poor lesbian couple. Who do you think needs legal protection for their relationship more?

The wealthy couple can hire attorneys, tax accountants, financial planners, estate planners etc etc. What sort of access does the poor couple have?

You know that's exactly what I was thinking but I feel like I must be missing something. And as a poor, definitively marginalized, quite the opposite of mainstream, butch woman who has never been confused with a middle/upper class white queer, I keep trying to understand what I am missing. Growing up how I did and being poor all my life I usually grasp stuff like this but I'm not seeing how marriage equality whether or not it is an over emphasized and over valued issue can be anything but a good thing for me. Plus it opens up coming back to the US as an option.

[BullDog]

I certainly get that white and middle class issues often dominate and others have to continue to fight to be heard and have their issues part of the movement as well. We only have to look to feminism to clearly see that.

However the way same sex marriage is described as a white, middle class issue truly makes no sense to me. As Cheryl said, what about low income people who lose their partner and then don't have access to social security benefits that a heterosexual would have?