marriage, intersecting interests, and the woman perspective

[iverglas]

1. long ago and far away ...

This "quote" of mine has been flung around in the past:

I have always harboured some resentment about same-sex marriage activism. (We're talking about a couple of decades ago, when it first became an issue to give serious thought to.) Why did the activists not want to join us feminists in smashing the thing altogether? Why did they want to sign on to an institution that had been the instrument for the oppression of women for millennia, and still was (and is)?

This is the actual post it comes from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4522316&mesg_id=4536530

I can't really reproduce someone else's antique post (despite the notion that call-outs are permitted in protected groups), but the OP in the thread at least should also be read. It's also essential to read the entire column from the Toronto Star -- by a gay man who resented being called on to suppport same-sex marriage. I am emphasizing the passages in my own text that I want to highlight here.

iverglas
Tue Nov-25-08 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
36. You may be interested in this column in the Toronto Star

Forgive me for being late, but I am underwhelmed by the responses in this thread and thought I'd say something. A whole lot of people have just managed to live their entire lives without hearing about that whole patriarchy thing, haven't they?

I have always harboured some resentment about same-sex marriage activism. (We're talking about a couple of decades ago, when it first became an issue to give serious thought to.) Why did the activists not want to join us feminists in smashing the thing altogether? Why did they want to sign on to an institution that had been the instrument for the oppression of women for millennia, and still was (and is)?

The concern has always gone in both directions, too. Many in the GLBT community have not wanted to buy into marriage, for reasons specific to their culture.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/539218

I find myself falling into the same trap. I never got the idea of gay marriage. (Heck, I don't even get straight marriage, with its $50,000 parties and other fripperies – give me that kind of dough and I'd be on the next plane to Australia. But that's another story.)

One of the great advantages of gay life has always been its social freedom. Unfettered by institutional restraints, gay relationships were free to seek their own balance.

... But like everyone else, I find myself getting on the pro-marriage bandwagon just because to do otherwise would be un-gay. And this annoys me, because it stifles nuance, innovation and discussion. ...

The Canadian courts based their various decisions on same-sex marriage (striking down refusals to permit it) on the fundamental values underlying the Canadian constitution and Canadian society: respect for the equal dignity and worth of all individuals. To deny two people's relationship the social recognition that marriage obviously still does confer is a violation of those values, and of the equality guarantees in our Constitution.

I don't want that social recognition, as a feminist -- I don't want anyone's recognition that I have hitched myself to someone else, and I don't want any advantages or disadvantages that come with that. I don't want to be involved. I don't want anything to do with the institution.

But in a society that respects individuals and guarantees equal treatment and opportunity, it is not for me to object to someone wanting to do what it is perfectly legal for me to do.

So the theory goes that same-sex partners will change marriage itself by joining in, that the institution will not be the same again. Well, I don't really care. I just want it to go away. But since it's not going to, this year, it's just as well if it gets a new image, I guess.

Will it go farther? --

"Same gender marriage upsets the traditional gender roles of males and females in society."
"Same gender marriage upsets the traditional male authoritarian power structure in society."

I'm not so sure. I don't disagree at all that opposition to same-sex marriage arises out of all that patriarchal stuff. I don't know that permitting it will go far to ending that stuff.

Canada is vastly less patriarchal in terms of public attitudes than the US.

(I have to take the opportunity to recommend this study of attitudes in the two countries again:
http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=45... )
< link no longer functions; this one does and I highly recommend it:
http://www.michaeladams.ca/articles/pdf/here_father.pdf >

If we agree that same-sex marriage and patriarchy are inherently inimical, then we would have to say that the weaker adherence to patriarchal values in Canada is one reason why same-sex marriage has been so easily implemented here.

The old chicken and egg.

So it would seem to be kind of in the GLBT community's interests to get on board with women's struggles for equality. Looks like women's hard work at tearing down the patriarchal walls did the GLBT community some good up here when it came to getting same-sex marriage.

(My saying "it is not for me to object" understated my position significantly, one would hope it was understood. In my political activities and personal life, I have always rejected any prohibition on same-sex marriage, e.g. as a member of the political party that championed the cause in Canada, the party for which I was candidate several times in the past, and a supporter of Canada's first openly gay MP for leadership of the party.)

I just think this is interesting, in terms of perspectives.

I have posted in the past, not that I could find anything now if I tried, about the cultures of various disadvantaged groups, and how achieving equality should not necessarily mean abandoning historical elements of those cultures that at least some members of the groups may want to maintain. Some African Americans may not to be white people with different skin colour. Some GLBT people may not want to be straight people with a different sexual orientation.

As the Star columnist asks, do all GLBT people want to model their lives on straight culture? For those who don't, does the demand for same-sex marriage marginalize their perspective?

Does GLBT activism for same-sex marriage marginalize the woman perspective?

Can the various interests of one group all be recognized and furthered without marginalizing any other's?

Recognizing the possibly disparate interests of different disadvantaged groups is a start -- and that includes disparate interests within any group itself, apart from any dual-identity/allegiance issues within any group.

And it isn't a one-way street.