The dialectics of marriage equality

[RedMaterialist]

With the news about the U.S. Supreme Court argument on gay marriage there has been a lot of discussion in the media about how and why the subject of gay marriage has suddenly coalesced and come to be accepted by the majority of the U.S. population.

I think it is a classic case of quantity changing into quality. Since the late 60s (the Stonewall riots) there have been daily, small, changes in the cultural perception of gay rights. Individuals "coming out," gay rights parades, fighting against discrimination (aids, job discrimination, etc.), gay politicians, gays on television, movies, less acceptance of homophobia (at least the open bigotry), gays in the military, etc., etc. Besides that, every day now you can see gay couples buying $250,000 dollar houses on HGTV. How is a consumer culture like the U.S. going to deny marriage equality to people with that kind of money?

Over time these small changes, sometime big changes, slowly begin to establish a cultural critical mass and then suddenly there is a qualitative cultural change.

Any ideas?

[Sidagma]

They aren't going to deny marriage equality to people with that kind of money, which is why marriage is the one issue you see parroted about in mainstream American political discourse, while in reality issues like poverty, homelessness, abuse, suicide, etc, are far more pressing. There is a social change happening but it's one that pretty much only affects white cis males. An overt focus on the issue of marriage allows rich white people (and Obama) to look super progressive without actually addressing the material conditions of the oppressed group in question.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Glen Greenwald has the best take on this, I think...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/26/gay-marriage-supreme-court-defeatism
Thesis



It really is a bit shocking how quickly gay marriage transformed from being a fringe, politically toxic position just a few years ago to a virtual piety that must be affirmed in decent company. Whenever I write or speak about any of the issues on which I focus, I always emphasize that a posture of defeatism - which is a form of learned impotence: a belief that meaningful change is impossible - is misguided. This demonstrates why that is true: even the most ossified biases and entrenched institutional injustices can be subverted - if the necessary passion and will are summoned and the right strategies found.

Antithesis


I don't want to overstate the lesson here. There are reasons why such radical change on this issue is easier than on many others. Social issues don't threaten entrenched ruling interests: allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't undermine oligarchs, the National Security State, or the wildly unequal distribution of financial and political power. Indeed, many of those ruling interests, led by Wall Street and other assorted plutocrats (including Obama's donor base), became the most devoted advocates for LGBT equality. If anything, one could say that the shift on this issue has been more institution-affirming than institution-subverting: the campaign to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" continually glorified and even fetishized military service, while gay marriage revitalizes a traditional institution - marriage - that heterosexuals have been in the process of killing with whimsical weddings, impetuous divorces, and serial new spouses (as Rush Limbaugh might put it: I'd like you to meet my fourth wife). And these changes are taking a once marginalized and culturally independent community and fully integrating it into mainstream society, thus making that community invested in conventional societal institutions.

[Klaatu]

The interesting thing here is that those same people that try to impose their religious beliefs upon others (e.g. prohibiting gay marriage) are the same people that fear the imposition of others' religious beliefs upon themselves (e.g. Sharia law) Can you say hypocrite? Those hair-on-fire Christians shunning Sharia Law being imposed in their communities have no compunction of imposing their own opinion upon others of whom they choose to marry?

Bottom line: This is not about religion. This is about equal protection under the law. The anti-gay bigots have no valid legal argument.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I have dabbled in this topic before and wrote this piece for the Kasama Project: http://kasamaproject.org/feminism-sexuality/4290-thoughts-on-queer-liberation-the-recent-elections-and-revolutionaries

From this piece a discussion developed (http://kasamaproject.org/feminism-sexuality/4291-there-s-nothing-revolutionary-about-marriage-ish-repsonds-to-curtis-cole-s-article) but since the transfer to the new site the comments on both pieces have been lost so one cannot truly see the full-scope. But has it has been said from both sides-both pro and con-the topic of marriage equality, especially those in the revolutionary movement, are of mighty importance.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think that the relativly small ammount of LGBT consumer cash or niche markets are really any part of this. A decrease in more over daily harassment and bigotry (both informal/inter-personal and systemic) along with the LGBT liberation movement has allowed for some gay enclaves of "middle class" people to develop and this has allowed there to be a niche gay consumer market - but black people are a much bigger niche market and probably no one would argue that this niche would prevent anti-black racism. And the more upwardly mobile enclaves also distort views of "the gay community" and conflates it with people who live in middle class "gayborhoods". Both the niche market as well as perhapse a little more disposable income compared to straight professionals and workers in the same fields are a sort of side-effect of gay oppression: the need to have shops which cater to you when the mainstream is hostile or at lest neglectful, and having difficulty in having children because of restrictions (by which I don't mean simply biological ones) meant that many people in the previous generation, while able to get a modicom of relief from some of the worst harassment resigned themselves to a life without adopting or having their own children which means more income could go towards personal consumption rather than on raising the next generation.

At any rate I mention this because I think there are class raminfications and class divisions among gays or lesbians or transfolks. Part of that is that, contrary to the view of some of the left who put anti-marriage politics above anti-oppression politics, I think that there is a tenency among more of the elietes to settle for "civil partnerships" and bow to pressure from liberal democrats that pushing "too hard" will cause the right-wing to win political seats in elections. Annecdotally, the street protests for gay marriage in the bay area brought out a decidedly young student and worker audience with sizable minorities of straight folks involved. I think this shows a "new mood" and "new expectations" among post-LGBT lib/post-AIDS generation - both LGBT and stright. Marriage is the tip of the iceburg politically and hopefully it will play out that way in the battle against oppression too and help re-motivate a deeper struggle out of those raised expectations of a generation who haven't had to deal with as much forced closeting or the AIDS crisis and homophobic AIDS victim-blaming.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

They aren't going to deny marriage equality to people with that kind of money
What kind of money? Most of the LGBT people I know are working class. A large percentage of homeless youths are LGBT. I think the studies of the so-called "pink dollar" are biased because they reach their conclusions by ignoring significant numbers of LGBT people.

[Sidagma]

What kind of money? Most of the LGBT people I know are working class. A large percentage of homeless youths are LGBT. I think the studies of the so-called "pink dollar" are biased because they reach their conclusions by ignoring significant numbers of LGBT people.

My point exactly. Issues like marriage sure as hell aren't raised with poverty-stricken homeless LGBT youth in mind, it's all about the relative handful of rich white gay dudes that those laws are looking out for. Those rich white gay dudes get to represent the queer community while the vast majority of queer people are homeless or on welfare or whatever. Therefore the issues that it LOOKS like the queer community is fighting for are the ones raised by the white gay men and other straight people who are looking to feel good about themselves. They do this by drowning us all out by being rich white guys with hells of social and monetary privilege.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My point exactly. Issues like marriage sure as hell aren't raised with poverty-stricken homeless LGBT youth in mind, it's all about the relative handful of rich white gay dudes that those laws are looking out for. Those rich white gay dudes get to represent the queer community while the vast majority of queer people are homeless or on welfare or whatever. Therefore the issues that it LOOKS like the queer community is fighting for are the ones raised by the white gay men and other straight people who are looking to feel good about themselves. They do this by drowning us all out by being rich white guys with hells of social and monetary privilege.

I disagree with this, I think by and large you'd find that gay elites are more ambivalent about marriage, if only because being rich allows them to create a partial barrier to the problems of oppression. I've read academics who worry about "assimilation" and writers who warn that moving "too fast" will hurt Obama and cause a backlash.

For working class folks and even professionals, increased acceptance doesn't errode Lgbt identity, it makes it easier to be out of the closet. On top of that the modest legal incentives or benefits connected to marriage in the US would have a positive impact on regular people rather thn rich people who can use their wealth to get around legal restrictions connected to Lgbt oppression.

[Sidagma]

I disagree with this, I think by and large you'd find that gay elites are more ambivalent about marriage, if only because being rich allows them to create a partial barrier to the problems of oppression. I've read academics who worry about "assimilation" and writers who warn that moving "too fast" will hurt Obama and cause a backlash.

For working class folks and even professionals, increased acceptance doesn't errode Lgbt identity, it makes it easier to be out of the closet. On top of that the modest legal incentives or benefits connected to marriage in the US would have a positive impact on regular people rather thn rich people who can use their wealth to get around legal restrictions connected to Lgbt oppression.

I feel as though we're working on different definitions of "rich" here. I'm a disabled lumpenproletarian trans woman of color, for whom being considered a "professional" is a distant pipe dream. I'm afraid even the people of whom you speak occupy an economic position far above mine, and are a relative minority in the queer community. Apologies for the miscommunication

In my position, marriage is an irrelevant concern when compared to other concerns that I have raised earlier in the thread, homelessness abuse etc.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

My point exactly. Issues like marriage sure as hell aren't raised with poverty-stricken homeless LGBT youth in mind, it's all about the relative handful of rich white gay dudes that those laws are looking out for.
Marriage equality has become an important issue for LGBT people who are working class, too. I remember what a working class lesbian friend went through when her partner was in the hospital, dealing with things that would have been moot had she and her partner been legally married.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm a disabled lumpenproletarian trans woman of color
I'm a disabled working class trans woman, so it sounds like we have some things in common.


In my position, marriage is an irrelevant concern when compared to other concerns that I have raised earlier in the thread, homelessness abuse etc.
Those are important issues, and there's no doubt that petit-bourgeois LGBT people overlook those issues.