"Gay Marriage: Why This Queer Isn't Celebrating."

[lightningandsnow]

I found this blog post at http://www.angrybrownbutch.com

That’s right, folks: no camp here. No gender non-conformity, either. And definitely no guys in gowns.

Why? Because the marriage equality movement is largely predicated on the notion that us queers are just like “everyone else,” meaning mostly white, mostly middle-class or up, gender conforming monogamists. You know, the non-threatening queers. The rest of us should apparently find a nice closet to go hide in for a while, lest we threaten the rights that are apparently meant for the more upstanding, respectable members of the LGsomeotherlessimportantletters community.

...

Because that’s the way to push for equality - by privileging individuals and couples and relationships that are the most tame, the most palatable, the most marketable while shunning those who stray a bit too much from Middle America’s ideas of propriety. Has it ever occurred to these so-called movement leaders to say, “You know what? It doesn’t matter what the people are wearing, or how they define their gender, or whether they’re picket fence aspirants or not. We all deserve the same rights by virtue of being human beings.” Nah, because that would be too hard. Not only would all the nice, normal gays and lesbians need to wait around until the government and the rest of American society decided that the freaks were human, too, but those same nice, normal gays and lesbians might have to confront their own prejudice and acknowledge their own privilege. Gasp!

Of course, this is all par for the course when dealing with marriage equality, which has never been and can never be about true equality and justice for all people who fall within the LGBT spectrum. That’s because legal marriage is about sanctioning and rewarding certain kinds of relationships while disqualifying and demeaning others. And while I don’t begrudge Lyon and Martin or any of the other couples who have found relief and joy in finally being able to marry legally, I do begrudge a movement that has devoted so much time and attention and resources to a cause that does not serve the most crucial needs of the vast majority of queers and that further marginalizes the most marginalized and vulnerable members of the LGBT community, if you can call it a community.

http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2008/06/16/why-this-queer-isnt-celebrating/

You know, flame me all you want, but I do kind of agree with this article.

I think marriage is a hugely important right, but there are other issues in the queer/trans community - for example, about a third of street kids are queer or trans, despite only being 5-10% of the population. And a lot of the push for gay marriage has, as the article says, been focused on throwing the less-conforming members of the community under the bus. It drives me crazy to know it's people like me and the person I'm currently dating that people are referring to when they talk about the "freaky" gays. And it also privileges a nuclear family model - for example, people should be able to choose who sees them if they're in the hospital, whether that person is married to them or not.

So, I think marriage is important, but we should give time to other issues as well, and try not to marginalize queer/trans people who are less conforming.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I think I understand where you are coming from

but in order to become tolerant of all variations of sexuality and sexual pairings, we would need to also look at heterosexual behavior. Those "other relationships" are also ones that fall outside the pale for heterosexuals. As far as I know, third partners for a couple of whatever gender are not allowed spousal rights. And the casual encounter partner, or the short term "friend" are also not afforded rights allowed to married spouses.

And then the question arises, what are the limits of tolerance? When does, say, S&M become abuse? Who decides?

[Chovexani]

2. I have mixed feelings on this.

I am elated for the couples who are finally enjoying some measure of equality with regards to their relationships. I expect to attend many weddings or at the very least spend a small fortune on gifts. :)

As one of those "freaks", though, it's definitely tempered by a bit of bitterness, because it's a privilege (yes, a privilege) I'll never enjoy, and one that even some of these smiling happy people would never want me to have. I firmly believe that I will never live to see any kind of legal recognition or protections for my relationship, despite the fact that its members are consenting adults who love each other very much. All because there is one more person in the picture than society and some people's religions think there should be.

I've had to bite my tongue knowing I'm fighting for equality for others but not for myself. I've sat by and listened to the slippery slope arguments reich wingers have trotted out against gay marriage. I've sat and listened to marriage equality advocates answer those arguments with cries of "of course THOSE people wouldn't be able to get married if we do! That's ridiculous, everyone knows they shouldn't. It'd be a legal headache and gawd we're not freaks like them anyway!" I listen to people, gay, straight and everything inbetween, lump all multi-partner relationships in with whatever skanky swingers they knew in the '70s, fundie nutcases in prairie garb. Or those geeks they knew in college who read too much Heinlein and just wanted an excuse to sleep with a lot of women. Or the one dysfunctional non-monogamous relationship they knew.

So, I will eventually get married in the eyes of my religion and faith community, and that's about it. Because I'm not choosing between my girlfriend and our boyfriend. They are both equally important to me, I cherish both of them with every fiber of my being and I love both of them beyond description. Choosing isn't an option, it's actually rather insulting (would you give up one of your children?). Except what happens when one of my girlfriend's many illnesses beats up on her, and she has no insurance, and our boyfriend can visit her but I can't, and neither of us can put her on our health plans?

I'm not saying the entire institution should conform to my little ideal family. Not even all (dare I say most) polys want marriage rights. I'm just saying it should be just a little bit easier to live a life with the people I love, is all. I agree with you on the nuclear family thing--gods, even most avowed monogamists aren't living in them anymore, why are all our laws based on something that basically doesn't exist anymore?

It's 5 am and I'm rambling. But I get where this article comes from. I hope no one feels like I'm pissing on their pride parade. I'm really not trying to. It just kind of feels like Moses watching the Israelites cross into the Promised Land without him, sometimes.

[readmoreoften]

18. hospital rights for polys will be worked on, but it can't be without same-sex first.

If you're in a poly relationship, one line of that triangle is a homo-line. Personally I think people should be able to have a list available to them and hospitals should have no say whatsoever. Of course, possession of the list and cost of legalizing the list then become issues.

[Chovexani]

21. Assuming it's a triangle.

But that's neither here nor there. I'm not arguing that same-sex marriage rights are not important. The OP is not. What we're saying is it shouldn't stop there, because it doesn't solve the problems of everyone in the community.

I feel like I'm beating my head into a brick wall.

[readmoreoften]

23. I didn't say one line in the square because technically that would be two lines.

And how many same-same lines in a dodecahedron? Of course. I just didn't want to do the math.

No same-sex marriage will not solve even 1/2 of our problems. Hell I have a problem with the term "same-sex". We have to keep progressing. This is most definitely a reformist track as opposed to a revolutionary leap. But NO ONE is doing what it takes to make a revolutionary leap and I'm not sure that anyone has even described what that might look like because it's so complicated.

Don't beat your head. I swear I'm on your side. I've been in poly relationships. I have mixed feelings myself about the issue, but I am overwhelmingly happy for Phyllis and Del and all those ol' homos who worked so hard for us to have even a little something, even a little glimmer of hope.

[bliss_eternal]

39. ........

:hug::pals:

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Fundamental civil rights are about as important as it gets

That is not to say there are not other important issues, but I do believe that marriage is one of the biggies.

[GodlessBiker]

4. Killjoy.

[closeupready]

26. Absolutely.

:mad:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. here is why i disagree with her

first of the idea that gay relationships encourage the most tame/palatable etc is untrue. if lisa and i get married, one of us is palatable to outsiders (by outsiders i mean those outside the gay community) and one of us isnt. Lisa will always be butch and butchness threatens gender binaries. A couple who are in love, can just as easily be composed of two people who are unacceptable or two people who are acceptable or one who is unacceptable in society.

Does marrying me remove lisa's unpalatability? no. Does it remove her obvious queering of gender? no.

However it gives her the same rights over her life that everybody else has.

Should she not have this right because somebody decided that in order for her to be truly queer she needs to give up all her happiness?

A lot about life to me is about happiness.

I dont think marriage rights should occur to the exclusion of other rights. I do think we should continue battling HIV/AIDS and trying to pass an inclusive ENDA.

However i dont think marriage is what is preventing ENDA and the battles against HIV/AIDS etc

[Zuiderelle]

7. Thanks for expressing that so well.

Marriage rights are a stepping stone to full equality. Saying that any gay person seeking marriage is conforming is a bit insulting to me. My rationale for wanting marriage is to protect my partner and my child. It's the same rationale for most people.

If gay people choose not to go this route when it does, as it will, become legal, that's their choice. But at least the choice is there.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. i dont want to get flamed but we also need to understand how aging affects us

in my teens and early 20's queerness, sexual freedom and not being tied down were a very big deal to me. however as i get older the idea of settling down becomes more and more appealing. to disallow an aging process for us is just as restrictive as not letting us be gender queer and non-normative.

in otherwords not letting me be 'heteronormative'in my 30's is just as restrictive to me as not allowing me to be queer in my early 20's

now i am not saying that all of us will age this way. lots of us dont. however a lot of us will age and start wanting stability and security.

[Zuiderelle]

9. And again it should be a choice. Sexual freedom and not being tied down is a choice.

I chose the same thing in my 20s. I never even considered marriage until I reached my late 30s. And I never was in a relationship where marriage meant so much to me until I was in my 40s.

We will never see full equality, between men and women, between young and old, between rich and poor. But we can at least fight for the things that are clearly violating our rights, marriage equality being the biggest one, at least to me.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. yes of course but i mean even as a community we should understand

that not all queers/gays will want the same thing through out their lives. we are a diverse community and i dont think we talk enough about aging and the effects of aging.

i think in a lot of people's minds we are perennially young group. which obviously we aren't.

[Zuiderelle]

12. Agreed.

I think we are both agreeing that we change, as we both have in our own experience. We need to accept those of us who still want freedom from marriage, and those that want security in marriage. Without marriage rights, the second group loses, and the first group is unaffected.

[readmoreoften]

16. Yes, it's hardly a zero sum game we're playing here.

Elderly gay people don't have to spend their lives in suffering so that the National Leather Association can fuck down at the dungeon on Friday nights. And making a class comparison of people based on how they have sex is thoroughly ridiculous.

[xchrom]

6. we have to fight for what we can get.

the author makes some interesting points -- makes me cringe the way the author goes about it -- still.

one thing lgbtiq marrige equality will bring over time are new and better ideas about child rearing -- i.e. the authors comments about lgbtiq youth -- what this really points out are peoples inability to rear lgbtiq children -- well you know that's going to get attention and change with marriage equality.

it's a new world that will be forged with marriage equality --

no we aren't a community in the traditional sense of community -- ethnic, racial, familial -- we build our own relationships when we come out and those relationships makes up what we call our community.
we are the minority that so far -- 'kills' -- our parents when we come out and join other lgbtiq folk.
we exist within all other communities with -- 'knowledge' -- about who they are and what we are.

and while we may seem to want to be hetero-normative with the things we want -- we will never be 'normative'.
we do want our families though -- and we do want the best for our families -- whatever those families are.

as maupin describes them -- our logical families rather than our biological families.

[ccharles000]

11. It reminds me of a quote.

From Queer as Folk.

Michael: It's an honor to stand here today, considering a few weeks ago the doctors weren't sure I was going to make it. But I was one of the lucky ones. I'm here. And as terrifying as it was, I'd be there again to defeat a bill that would deny rights to Americans just because they're gay. I have a loving partner, two wonderful kids, a home, a small business. The truth is, I'm just like you.

Actually, that's not the truth. Sure, in a lot of ways, I am just like you. I wanna be happy, I want some security, a little extra money in my pocket, but in many ways, my life is nothing like yours. Why should it be? Do we all have to have the same lives to have the same rights? I thought that diversity was what this country was all about. In the gay community, we have drag queens, leather daddies, trannies, and couples with children - every color of the rainbow. My mother's standing way in the back with some friends. My friends. She once told me that people are like snowflakes; every one special and unique... and in the morning you have to shovel 'em off the driveway. But being different is what makes us all the same. It's what makes us family.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

13. I think the argument is based on a false premise

The writer states: "Why? Because the marriage equality movement is largely predicated on the notion that us queers are just like “everyone else,” meaning mostly white, mostly middle-class or up, gender conforming monogamists."

Okay, first off, I TOTALLY disagree with this! Largely predicated? Actually the idea that 'everyone else' is cut from the very same dye and say and do things exactly the same is almost nonsensical!

Forgive me, people get married... Under water, skydiving, nude, with their born-out-of-wedlock kids serving as flower girl and ring bearers, large groups of two-somes married in the same ceremony, your best swinger couple acting as best man and maid of honor, and on an on and on... from EVERY color under the rainbow.
So I don't adhere to the basic assumption here.

If you want to get married on your harleys buck naked in the desert at Summer Solstice... do it.. gay or straight.... you can always divorce in a few months and then have the White Gown wedding if you'd like with that cutie taking your wedding photos! There are NO laws that say someone must conform to a NON-EXISTENT reality.

Trying to conform to something that doesn't exist except in the minds of Hollywood and Advertisors... forget it!
Everyone else does!

[mitchtv]

14. I spent years "activating"

Now we are near a break through. It is good. Too bad everyone can't get everything, that does not , however, invalidate the gains we have made for those who wish to pair off and protect their assets. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Are you going to take in a senior gay, when their partner dies and they become homeless?

[David Zephyr]

40. Well said.

I know that homosexuals celebrated when the Civil Rights Act was signed into law even though it did not include them.

Every time a single link in the chains of oppression is broken, it is reason to celebrate.

Is the job done? No. Are we happy for every victory. Absolutely.

[readmoreoften]

15. Unless it's a radical left economic critique of marriage, I'm unimpressed.

1) First of all, to say this won't benefit transpeople and intersexed folks is bullshit. People like Christie Lee Littleton who are considered female in one place and male in the another would be able to get married (and economic justice for her late husband) regardless.

2) Sorry, monogamous queers have rights too. I don't think that the non-monogamous contingent has really articulated specific goals of what it wants outside of the few who provide of socialist-communist critique of marriage. I actually agree with that critique. When the radical poly queers start joining up as a bloc in solidarity with other left movements, I'll start to consider them a "non-middle class" movement. I also honor all specific requests: individuals keeping lists of who can and cannot make decisions for them on their death beds, etc.

3) I really hate this "middle class gays" vs "working class polys" nonsense. Most of the--no, minimum 95% --of the radical polyamorous people I know come from middle-class college-educated backgrounds. The remaining 5% come from working-class backgrounds. How many people you fuck and how you fuck them is NOT a class issue. There are PLENTY of corporate transmen and transwomen and PLENTY of polyamorous kinky folks working at major corporations.

4) Yes, middle-class white people are at the front of everything in America. In fact they're also at the helm of the trans movement and the intersexed movement and the so-called radical queer movement. Who benefits from the advances all these groups make? Largely middle-class white transfolks, intersexed folks, and radical queer folks. The queer folks in Mexico and Indonesia and China making sex toys for all these radical parties might have a different take on it.

5) I wasn't terribly interested in the gay marriage until I heard the testimony of a 71 year old African-American woman from Harlem in a pill box hat struggle with tears over how her partner of 40 years was almost taken from her on her death bed by family who never cared for her partner during life. Marriage is also a generational/age issue. Those twenty-something radical poly genderqueers in college might want to think before telling that 71 year old women in Harlem that her wants are "bourgeois".

6) I will gladly stand beside poly queers (which I was for 32 years before I met my partner), monogamous couples, straight people, and even born-rich people if they're willing to LITERALLY fight some serious class warfare for our LGBT family in the global South. When we do that then we can start talking about who's bougie and who's radical and revolutionary.

The fact that my partner gets kicked out of bathrooms for cops because she's genderqueer only underscores why we might want as many options available to us when we pool the little we have together. Non-genderqueer same-sex marriage folks are fighting for a trans-inclusive ENDA. Polyamorous people might want to support same-sex marriage.

LGBT rights are not a zero sum game. Just because something benefits one group of people doesn't mean something is taken away from everyone else.

[lightningandsnow]

17. You bring up some great points.

Like I said, I agree with the sentiment of the article, but I do strongly support same-sex marriage, and I think it's hugely important.

(Translation: why are you so smart?)

[readmoreoften]

19. Glad you didn't take that the wrong way! :)

I actually have a personal mini-bitterness over the lack of many radical queers actual frickin' radicalness. My model for radicalness are the Zapatista queens and trannies in Mexico. There need to be real bridges made between the queer community and left movements beyond the college-y ISO. When we concede that economic exploitation is not a queer issue we agree that poor people are all "good family types" and all LGBT people are white and suburban. When we reinforce this concept by saying "gay marriage is middle-class" it's not doing anyone any favors. There are plenty of genderqueer and non-white people out their waiting to tie all sorts of knots.

I can't wait for the day that the LGBT community wins so many battles that we can start taking on broad equality issues. I think we'll help lead the future to positive change for everyone if we do. I find that a really exciting prospect. That's the idea that wakes me up in the morning.

Thanks for the compliment!

[Chovexani]

20. .

Marriage equality is dreadfully important, and no one's saying it isn't (except for a minority of radicals).

The vast majority of poly people do support it. Considering most of us are queer, or care deeply about people who are. The reason a lot of us don't speak out more about that fact is not because we don't give a shit about "heteronormative" queers, it's because we're well aware of the kryptonite we are to the marriage equality movement. There's a reason the reich wing likes to trot out that "marriage is between one man and one woman" slogan. It's because they see us as the monster lurking in the shadows. We realize that, and thus give support quietly.

The fact that you're happily monogamously partnered is wonderful. Just because I personally don't get the nuclear family model that's trotted out as the ideal and don't want it for myself, does not mean I begrudge anyone the right to form it, legally or otherwise. Are there people who want to bust open the model? Of course, and I agree with them. But that doesn't mean that every radical person is trying to rain on the "normal" people's parade, even if they think the parade is bullshit.

(Edited because I'm cranky and angry and probably was a lot meaner towards you than I intended to be, considering we're pretty much on the same side of things.)

[readmoreoften]

22. Me marrying my partner really would shatter the nuclear family model not reinforce it.

She's a tattooed very trans butch and I'm a tattooed femme and we don't want kids at all. Perhaps the argument of heteronormativity reminds me of what was lobbed at femmes until the 1990s: oh it's so easy for you... why are you "emulating straights". I'm sure you get the point.

I think that poly people are really asking that THEIR relationships be honored too--which I think is wholly valid. But I can't say I fully understand what non-monogamous people who have no relationships want in this situation. That's where I saw a lot of criticism in the 20-something scene. Not "I want my relationship validated" but rather "I think people should just fuck whoever they want all the time and that is the only liberation that exists, fuck those unradical unliberated neurotics who 'love' people! Whatever!" I can also admit that I was like this for a brief moment. :hangsheadinshame:

[readmoreoften]

24. Sorry some of these folks are not very picket fency.

Jesus Alejandro Martinez, left, and Blanca Estigarribia talk to reporters after being released by the police in Asuncion, Monday, June 16, 2008. The couple was jailed after a prosecutor accused Martinez of falsifying paperwork to appear as a man and get around Paraguay's ban on same-sex marriages. A doctor at the jail determined that Martinez is a hermaphrodite.





Is that extremely traditional or total fucking queer? Someone help. I'm lost.

[closeupready]

25. I'm sorry, Her diatribe makes me sick. If all she can do is gripe about

what is a big, important day in the lives of two people who love each other and have chosen to make their relationship official, then I really don't give a crap.

I don't necessarily disagree with her arguments, but I also don't understand why I should care about how she feels. I mean, it's not like I know her personally, and I haven't even heard of her before, and her arguments are not novel - I've heard others argue the same things many times, and frankly, I think this is a joyful day, and can't we just be happy for those who are doing something which, as a fringe benefit, is certain to improve the lives of gay and lesbian children growing up in areas of the country which are extremely homophobic, i.e., if people in BF, Kansas see that gay and lesbian people DO in fact get committed and love each other, then perhaps that means they needs to be more accepting of gays and lesbians in Kansas, too, rather than running them out of town. Anyway, that's my $0.02.

[papapi]

27. Ban ALL marriage in regards to the legalities. Get marriage out of our laws.

Marriage belongs in the rituals of religion, NOT in our Constitution. Relegate it to the congregations to play with as they will. Give us civil unions and make heterosexuals conform to the civil union laws. Geez, I just can't get anybody to understand that the way to get this thing done is to BAN ALL MENTION OF MARRIAGE IN OUR LAWS AND STATUTES.

Can I get any response on this???

[LostinVA]

28. Marriage is a civil construct in this country

Get over it.

[papapi]

29. Have you read the CA Supreme Court ruling? You might want to.

[Ms. Toad]

36. Not only in this country, but in most other countries, as well.

Legal recognition of a religious marriage is the exception, rather than the rule.

From the Ohio law: A minister upon producing to the secretary of state, credentials of his being a regularly ordained or licensed minister of any religious society or congregation, shall be entitled to receive from the secretary of state a license authorizing him to solemnize marriages in this state so long as he continues as a regular minister in such society or congregation. A minister shall produce for inspection his license to solemnize marriages upon demand of any party to a marriage at which he officiates or proposes to officiate or upon demand of any probate judge.

In other words, a minister licensed or ordained by a religious society or congregation is acting as an agent of the state for the purpose of solemnizing marriages - and must show proof of that agency if demanded by state authorities.

Recognition for religious marriages is an exception buried farther in the statute. In addition to registering marriages officiated by ministers who are designated state agents, a marriage may also be solemnized by "any religious society, in conformity with the rules and regulations of its church."

Although I am not ordained or licensed by a religious society or congregation (or registered as the state's agent for the purpose of solemnizing marriages), I have signed a half dozen or so marriage licenses on behalf of our local Friends meeting, which does not have ordained or licensed ministers. In each case, I have had to "deface" the license (in the state's words when they called me up to have a chat with me) because our faith community does not use designated state agents to perform marriages. As clerk of the meeting, I can only attest that the marriage occurred "in conformity with the rules and regulations of church," an exception to using an authorized state agent that the state has made so grudgingly that the state license does not even recognize the existence of the exception.

Most state marriage laws are similar.

(and to the earlier poster who wants to substitute civil unions) As to the substitution of civil unions for marriage - that is a legal headache that anyone who has spent any time reviewing how out of state marriages and out of country marriages have gained reciprocal recognition over time would not even suggest. A marriage is only recognized when you cross the state border because (1) marriages exist in the receiving state and (2) the U.S. Constitution requires recognition of the marriage across state and country boundaries - a recognition that was hard won through dozens of individual court cases. To gain the same treatment for civil unions, you would first have to get 50 states to legislate the status of civil union, then you would need to test the status of civil unions in the court - is it entitled to legal recognition across state boundaries in the same way that marriage is (probably - but it hasn't been tested yet), is it entitled to legal recognition across country borders, how does each state treat marriages from countries (or states) where no civil union exists, and how is your civil union entitled to be treated in states (or countries) where civil unions do not exist. The cost of all of this court testing would be borne by the first individuals who seek recognition - likely on a state/country by state/country basis for at least a few states/countries. The legal presumption would be that civil unions are different from marriages (otherwise why create an entirely new status). As a different status, there would be a presumption that the status should not be treated identically to that of marriage, and it would likely take conflicting decisions in different states in order to reach the Supreme Court for an ultimate decision.

Far better to use the marriage recognition principles that are well established, having been developed over decades of individuals court cases, than to reinvent the wheel - and risk a different outcome with respect to cross border recognition.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. civil unions for all will never fly in this country. it will make the debate

"those homosexual sinners are trying to take away our god given rights to marry"

[Book Lover]

31. This atheist is married, not civil unioned

Marriage is a social and cultural construct as well as a religious one. Pri's argument above is true, and it won't just be the bigots who hold that sentiment.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. can you just imagine the sound bites?

i dread to even think about it

[Book Lover]

33. I'm afraid I can, yes

On the other hand, I have heard straight people make this argument, too; that the government should get out of the marriage business. But you know the debate would never be framed that way.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. i think those are a very small minority of straights.

[canis_lupus]

35. While marriage equality is an important right ...

I can definitely understand the sentiments in the original post.

My view of marriage equality is much the same of my view of the efforts to overturn the military ban in the early days of the Clinton administration: Why are we putting all our energy into fighting for a right that will affect only a portion of our community?

My priorities are passage of an inclusive ENDA and hate crimes legislation because those two issues could conceivable affect all of us. We could all be the victim of a hate crime and the vast majority of us hold down jobs. (Yeah, I know ... some of us work for enlightened companies, but in the majority of the country we can be fired just for being gay.)

Don't get me wrong. I support marriage equality, but I believe our national organizations sold us a bill of goods in presenting marriage as THE issue for the community to get behind. Besides, selling the idea of workplace equality is less threatening to straight folks than selling the idea of picking out a set of his and his towels for the suddenly married gay couple down the block.

My greatest fear of the marriage issue is that it will end up being divisive to the LGBT community. I've seen some major fights in chatrooms and message boards between polys and monos. Once marriage equality is achieved, will the married couples still stand united with their poly or unmarried brothers and sisters? Or will there be a tendency to sit back and say 'I'm tired of fighting. You guys take up the banner'? Granted, I hope that won't happen, but look at some of the other struggles for rights in which one groups wins their rights and then declares the war over and refuses (or worse, works against) the struggle for rights by other groups.

If the gay community can stay united after winning the right to marry, then I hope that scenario won't happen. But given the cracks that have already appeared between LGBT sub-groups it remains a possibility.

I coudn't be happier that marriage laws are beginning to change. But at the same time we as a community need to stay focused on other battles we need to fight.

(Dang! sorry for the long post. I need to pack my soap box away now.)

[readmoreoften]

37. It's not a fight we picked actually. That's what makes it so funny to me.

I came out (or struggled with it) in the very early 90s--from 89 to 92 really. There was no great plan for gay marriage. Even then the issues were gays-in-the-military, hate crimes, HIV discrimination (act-up) and needle exchange, workplace protection, and lesbians not losing their kids for being gay. I never heard mention of gay marriage it seemed about as possible as Gay President.

But then the conservatives starting talking about how "the gays are getting married" and "gay marriage this and that" and--seriously--people were having commitment ceremonies but no one was pushing for gay marriage that I knew. But they kept at it: the demon gays wantin' marriage. That's when we had to say "well, okay, yeah, I mean, we DO want marriage. What the hell...sure. If we have to fight you anyway and you're going to keep launching the concept in the media, I guess we have to fight." And then some straight folks said, "well I don't see why you can't get married, I won't stop you." Then more of us said "Hey! Wait! 30 percent of straights are okay with it. Fuck all the rest of yall." Then 35% were okay with it. Then 38%.

They baited us into fighting for something that wasn't even a fight and now we're winning. Hilarious.

The good thing is that I think more straight people will learn that--well okay--we need a trans-inclusive ENDA not so that my straight brother in law can wear women's underwear to work and jack off in the women's bathroom, but so that girls like that Del Martin lady who always wore a suit when she was younger can not be discriminated against. Or like that lady in the office, who they say used to be a man. I hear that she wasn't allowed to marry her husband under the old law but now she can.

I think gay marriage is going to get us closer to ENDA, Hate Crimes, and DADT.

[Zuiderelle]

38. "cracks in LGBT sub-groups"... Is that like cracks in straight subgroups?

We aren't a monolithic group. Most of us do however want equality.

[Nikki Stone1]

41. I think the irony is that the fight for gay marriage actually validates marriage

Marriage has not always been the best arrangement, especially for straight women (who often get beaten or negated in other ways) or for bisexuals, who are forced to choose one side or the other. It also makes it so that state interference in a personal relationship is further enhanced and validated.

Don't get me wrong: I cried over the sweet couple who was the first to get married here in California. I guess my misgivings are that I don't trust the state very much.