Today I read an article titled, "Marriage Will Never Set
Us Free" by Dean Spade and Craig Willse. I came across the
article in my Facebook newsfeed, posted by a high school friend. Intrigued
I read it and found myself unconsciously nodding or shaking my head along.
The more I read the more I wanted to see how others reacted. Mostly, this
article takes old issues that we learned about long ago in "Methods
of Critical Analysis" and applies them to 2013. Although, it would be
interesting to have the authors take on the article now that same-sex
marriage is legal in all 50 states (with some friction still in place).
"There is nothing freeing nor equalizing about such a system."
-> In response to this quotation I would argue that many people would suggest that being able to express a life-long devotion to another person of your choosing is a very liberating emotion.
"Societal myths about marriage, which are replicated in same-sex marriage advocacy, tell us that marriage is about love, about care for elders and children, about sharing the good life together--even that it is the cornerstone of a happy personal life and a healthy civilization. Feminist, anti-racist, and anti-colonial social movements have contested this, identifying marriage as a system that violently enforces sexual and familial norms. From these social movements, we understand marriage as a technology of social control, exploitation, and dispossession wrapped in a satin ribbon of sexist and hetero-patriarchal romance mythology."
-> I believe that categorizing "marriage as a system that violently enforces sexual (...) norms" is a bit of a stretch and an insensitive phrase to people who have experienced sexual violence. Sexuality within a marriage is something that should be undertaken willingly and the fact that you are choosing a single individual to share that with should speak volumes to how much you trust them with your body and emotions.
"Under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, “Health Marriage Promotion” initiatives have been used to encourage low-income women to marry, including at times through cash incentives. Demonizing, managing and controlling Black people by applying racist and sexist marital family norms to justify both brutal interventions and “benign neglect” has a long history in the US and remains standard fare."
-> I think I will start with some basics: since President Obama has received extensive support from the black community, managed to turn out an exceptionally high number of African American voters (particularly for his first election) suggesting that he had a strong African American base, and most obviously is a black man I doubt that he would attempt to "demonize" them. Additionally, his own mother was a single woman living with a low-income who has been portrayed as making the best of her circumstances. President Obama has always appeared very gracious, grateful, and admiring towards his late mother. While I'm sure he can understand based on first hand experience how challenging building a life was for his mother this may suggest that he would support "encourag[ing] low-income women to marry" as the author of the article claims but we also cannot presume to know this to be the case (either that the "Health Marriage Promotion" actually is meant to encourage marriage or President Obama's views on it unless explicitly stated).
"The Page Act of 1875, for example, sought to keep out Asian women, hoping to prevent Asian laborers in the US from reproducing, but allowed the immigration of Asian merchants’ wives. Marriage continues to be a deeply unjust tool of immigration control in the US, with marital family ties being one of the few pathways to immigration. One impact of this system is that it keeps people stuck in violent and harmful sexual and family relationships because their immigration status depends on it."
-> This Act was 140 years ago. There are numerous things that were once legal/illegal that are now illegal/legal. For instance slavery and same-sex marriage. But as we evolve and time goes by our views also expand and change. #progress
-> The most legitimate pathway to immigration: legal channels. It is a long process, it is arduous and complicated but there is a legal method.
"Today’s same-sex marriage advocates argue in courts and in the media that marriage is the bedrock of our society, that children need and deserve married parents, and that marriage is the most important relationship people can have. These arguments are the exact opposite of what feminist, anti-racist and anti-colonial movements have been saying for hundreds of years as they sought to dismantle state marriage because of its role in maldistributing life chances and controlling marginalized populations."
-> This quotation makes good arguments in that it questions why the gay community would want to become part of a system of "maldistributing life chances and controlling marginalized populations." Why would they want to enter an institution that marginalizes one partner or has unequal expectations based on gender or status? But we also need to hope that the United States as a whole is moving further away from stereotypes that lock individuals in an unequal position. As a 22 yr old female I don't believe that I will enter a union that pigeonholes me into domestic duties and forces me to raise children based on my gender. I expect it to be a joint effort in all aspects and decisions made will be done with the interests of both parties at heart. I'm not saying I won't do laundry or dishes because those are just realities of life but I'm also not saying he won't either. However, I recognize that I am someone who had grown up comfortably, attended a prestigious university and am white. Maybe this makes me unqualified to think about it in such an idealized way but conversely why should I not want everyone to have a reasonable expectation for equality in their marriage?
"Don’t we know how to hear a critique of a system that we’re implicated in and realize that we should not silence it to dispel our discomfort, or pretend to be victimized by the critique because it is hard to recognize our own privilege? "
-> I guess in the above comment I did recognize my own privilege so I'm following the authors suggestion but as an unmarried individual I also would say that I'm not directly victimized by this critique. I have in fact heard many of the arguments made against marriage before. This is not in any way a new article but rather one that incorporates recent developments into its argument.
" It is unethical for movements to prioritize those with the most access. We should prioritize those vulnerable to the most severe manifestations of homophobia and transphobia."
-> Why is anyone getting priority over anyone else? Isn't a main argument within this article about equalization for all regardless of gender, economic or marital status, race, sexual orientation, etc?
" A real approach to changing these systems includes asking why marital status is tied to immigration and health care access, how queer and trans people are impacted by immigration imprisonment and deportation, and how homophobia and transphobia create negative health outcomes and block health care access. There are big fights going on to stop immigration enforcement expansion, end border militarization, detention and deportation and stop health care profiteers from bleeding us all dry. Unfortunately, the biggest, richest gay organizations have not put those fights at the center--even though they are the real pathways to addressing queer and trans immigration and health care problems--because they’ve poured almost everything into marriage (the rest to military service and expanding criminal punishment). Meanwhile, straight people on the Left have gotten convinced that they have to be in favor of same-sex marriage or else they are homophobic, because they have been told it will solve important problems facing queer people."
-> I think the article does a nice job wrapping up but does a disservice to these key issues by trying to cram it all in the same article without providing hard evidence in support of each claim. Additionally, I think that the gay organizations have accomplished something commendable and perhaps most importantly, something tangible. They weren't going to fight for the right to not get married because as it was many places had it illegal anyways so that wish was already fulfilled. People generally don't fight for less rights.
At the end of the day I think people simply wanted to feel as if their relationships and lifestyles were viewed as legitimate, that whoever they chose to be their partner was just as much a part of their life and that they each wanted their commitment to one another to be accepted. There are hundreds of stories about gay couples who have been together for decades. They managed to do that without being married but the bigger part of it was that there was something standing in their way preventing them from publicly committing everything of themselves to the person they love most in the world.
To provide a little comic relief to all this lets consider a historic example about prevention: when there were separate bathrooms for white and "colored" people. It wasn't the toilet the richest and biggest desegregation organizations were fighting for. It was the fact that there was something standing in their way claiming that their crap wasn't the same as someone else when we all know that crap is crap. Here substitute crap for love. Crap is crap and love is love.
At the end of the day I think people simply wanted to feel as if their relationships and lifestyles were viewed as legitimate, that whoever they chose to be their partner was just as much a part of their life and that they each wanted their commitment to one another to be accepted. There are hundreds of stories about gay couples who have been together for decades. They managed to do that without being married but the bigger part of it was that there was something standing in their way preventing them from publicly committing everything of themselves to the person they love most in the world.
To provide a little comic relief to all this lets consider a historic example about prevention: when there were separate bathrooms for white and "colored" people. It wasn't the toilet the richest and biggest desegregation organizations were fighting for. It was the fact that there was something standing in their way claiming that their crap wasn't the same as someone else when we all know that crap is crap. Here substitute crap for love. Crap is crap and love is love.
"The problem with the limited newfound acceptance won by this advocacy is that it hinges on portraying queer people as members of normative couples, reifying the stigmatization of everyone who is not. Queer politics should be about dismantling the sexual and gender hierarchies; same-sex marriage efforts are about getting those who can conform into the charmed circle."
-> This point is very legitimate because there is a significant difference between couples. However...
"Inventing a new inaccurate stereotype—one that portrays queer people as just a bunch of domesticated normative couples—is a terrible strategy if our goal is to reduce the harms wrought by systems of sexual and gender coercion and violence."
-> I think that the authors need to consider what the point the organizations were trying to make as oppose to try to intertwine their point with the movements'.
"Inclusion arguments also require their advocates to divide their constituencies by producing narratives about how “we deserve to be included.” This has meant producing a world of representations of gay and lesbian couples who are monogamous, upper class, tax-paying, obedient consumers. The stories have to focus on those who have something to lose from not being able to marry--the white European immigrants America should want, the couples who want to boost our economy with expensive weddings, the people with wealth to pass on when they die. The promotion of this image of queer life and queer people as “rights deserving” couples who meet America’s racial, class and moral norms participates in the relentless demonizing of all those cast out of the charmed circle--especially all the queer and trans people facing criminalization for poverty, participation in the sex trade, homelessness, and all those who will not reap the rewards of legal marriage."
-> "RENT" anyone?? I think that this paragraph directly relates to that musical/ movie and shows the tender undertones of what is frequently "demonized" (further done by the inclusion and fear of AIDS). There are certainly gay couples who fit into the rich and privileged category (Ellen and Portia are a quick example) but I think that does something important for representation and awareness and they can play a crucial role because of their public exposure. It shows that sexuality isn't limited or "unnatural" sexuality isn't something that is purged from the upper class. Every level of society is effected and I think this does something important for diversifying and equalizing the issue we are dealing with.
Finally I will say that I think two very important definitions are missing from this article: "marriage" and "family." The author talks about family numerous times and yet the definition of family has evolved greatly from that of hundreds of years ago. As for marriage it too has greatly evolved.
MARRIAGE:
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
3
: an intimate or close union
FAMILY:
: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : household
2
3
a : a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : fellowship
b : the staff of a high official (as the President)
4
: a group of things related by common characteristics: as
a : a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds
b : a group of soils with similar chemical and physical properties (as texture, pH, and mineral content) that comprise a category ranking above the series and below the subgroup in soilclassification
c : a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
5
a : the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family <a single-parent family>
b : spouse and children <want to spend more time with my family>
6
a : a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera
b in livestock breeding (1) : the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2) : an identifiable strain within a breed
7
: a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters
8
: a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographical area
As you can clearly see there are numerous definitions for
both. Over time both definitions have expanded to be more inclusive
because the dynamics surrounding both institutions have changed.
And finally, a comment that I particularly enjoyed was
this:
Marriage is also
a social contract between 2 people that expresses permanence and exclusivity -
people are perfectly entitled to seek that level of commitment and it is
not a sign of internalised oppression, but a long-evolved desire for
stability in your personal life. Your critique confuses the uses that the
institutions of marriage has been put to by the state (to pass moral
judgement on those who are not married, dictate who is allowed sex etc)
with its core purpose - the contract between 2 individuals. I agree there
should be no societal pressure on people to get married, and that the
legal and financial incentives are the product of right wing ideology;
however I don't see how this invalidates the institution on a personal
level. Ultimately, your objection to marriage is based upon your anger
at the oppression you have faced. You see marriage purely as a tool for
reinforcing that oppression, but have failed to look beyond it at the
winder value of the institution, stripped of its implied moral judgement
of those who are not married. Marriage is so much more than the legal and
financial incentives offered by the US government.
Mostly, I found this article to be very compelling to read and it definitely was challenging to the status quo. While I personally do think that there are a lot of positives to be found in both the normal family and marriage settings (love, stability, honor, commitment, care, etc) you don't have to follow the status quo to find these qualities in life. At the end of the day I still believe that whether you're gay, straight, transsexual, bi-sexual, a lesbian, unsure, or anything in between the choice of how you choose to live your life, the principles you choose to follow and what qualities you find most important and essential to your happiness are something that you will choose for yourself and find a way to incorporate in your life. At the end of the day your decisions are your own and the choices you make reflect your values, whether they conform with societies or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment