By: Freewomyn
On Tuesday, members of the California State Assembly’s Judiciary Committee passed AB 43, legislation giving same-sex couples the choice to marry in California. Similar legislation passed both houses of the state assembly in 2006. But despite his promises to support marriage equality, Schwarzenegger vetoed the 2006 bill.
California already recognizes registered domestic partnerships, both for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Legally, domestic partners have the same protections, benefits, and responsibilities as married couples, albeit only on the state level. “Our march toward marriage equality continues with another victory today,” said Assemblymember Mark Leno. “We will not stop until all citizens are afforded their constitutional right to marry the person they love and raise their families with the respect, dignity and validation which are their birthright.”
Forgive if I don’t run right out and get me a wife. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: marriage is an oppressive, patriarchal institution that serves to prop up capitalism. In fact, there are approximately 2.5 million weddings each year in the United States, which makes marriage a $40 billion industry.
In her book White Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in Popular Culture, author Chrys Ingraham argues that the image of the “traditional wedding” is laden with cultural baggage. Popular culture perpetuates “heterosexual imagery,” which is "a belief system that relies on romantic and sacred notions of heterosexuality in order to create and maintain the illusion of well being." Ingraham examines the historical roots of certain traditions, such as having bridesmaids. (In medieval times, the bride and the bridesmaids would dress identically so that if the bride was abducted on the way to the wedding, a bridesmaid could be passed off instead and the contractual transfer of property would still be honored.) The lesbian separatists of the women’s liberation movement launched several scathing critiques of this patriarchal institution. Why, then, are we rushing to tie the knot?
The focus on marriage has, in my opinion, distracted the LGBTQ community from other pressing issues. While we have spent our very limited time and money lobbying state assemblies to pass marriage legislation, funding for HIV/AIDS services has been slashed at the federal level. In 2006 alone, government funding for HIV/AIDS services was reduced by 50% at the same time that fundraising from individual donors continued to dry up. In fact, according to federal Medicare guidelines, an HIV patient must have a T-cell count below 200 before they qualify for federal health care benefits. So what the government is saying is that they want you to be knocking on death’s door before they’ll give you a dime. How fucked up is that?
So I’m sorry if I’m repeating myself, but I think that it’s time to fix our priorities. Yes it’s unfair that same-sex partners are denied over 1300 federal benefits that heterosexual couples currently enjoy. But to me, that just means we should abolish all federal marriage protections. If churches want to continue performing marriage ceremonies, that’s their business.
Additionally, we need to expand (or queer) our definition of what "family" means. It may well be a truism to say that there is no 'traditional family'. Indeed, the very concept of 'family' means different things to different people, since it is always inflected by factors such as class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender and sexuality. What strikes me as interesting is that most writers continue to act as if the traditional American family does exist, and use it as a reference point for discussions of lesbian and gay families. Thus, while the family is not an institution but a constantly changing social and cultural construct, it nevertheless continues to function as an institution with very real power relations.
Whatever happened to fighting the power? I offer this clip from Margaret Cho as an alternative.
On Tuesday, members of the California State Assembly’s Judiciary Committee passed AB 43, legislation giving same-sex couples the choice to marry in California. Similar legislation passed both houses of the state assembly in 2006. But despite his promises to support marriage equality, Schwarzenegger vetoed the 2006 bill.
California already recognizes registered domestic partnerships, both for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Legally, domestic partners have the same protections, benefits, and responsibilities as married couples, albeit only on the state level. “Our march toward marriage equality continues with another victory today,” said Assemblymember Mark Leno. “We will not stop until all citizens are afforded their constitutional right to marry the person they love and raise their families with the respect, dignity and validation which are their birthright.”
Forgive if I don’t run right out and get me a wife. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: marriage is an oppressive, patriarchal institution that serves to prop up capitalism. In fact, there are approximately 2.5 million weddings each year in the United States, which makes marriage a $40 billion industry.
In her book White Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in Popular Culture, author Chrys Ingraham argues that the image of the “traditional wedding” is laden with cultural baggage. Popular culture perpetuates “heterosexual imagery,” which is "a belief system that relies on romantic and sacred notions of heterosexuality in order to create and maintain the illusion of well being." Ingraham examines the historical roots of certain traditions, such as having bridesmaids. (In medieval times, the bride and the bridesmaids would dress identically so that if the bride was abducted on the way to the wedding, a bridesmaid could be passed off instead and the contractual transfer of property would still be honored.) The lesbian separatists of the women’s liberation movement launched several scathing critiques of this patriarchal institution. Why, then, are we rushing to tie the knot?
The focus on marriage has, in my opinion, distracted the LGBTQ community from other pressing issues. While we have spent our very limited time and money lobbying state assemblies to pass marriage legislation, funding for HIV/AIDS services has been slashed at the federal level. In 2006 alone, government funding for HIV/AIDS services was reduced by 50% at the same time that fundraising from individual donors continued to dry up. In fact, according to federal Medicare guidelines, an HIV patient must have a T-cell count below 200 before they qualify for federal health care benefits. So what the government is saying is that they want you to be knocking on death’s door before they’ll give you a dime. How fucked up is that?
So I’m sorry if I’m repeating myself, but I think that it’s time to fix our priorities. Yes it’s unfair that same-sex partners are denied over 1300 federal benefits that heterosexual couples currently enjoy. But to me, that just means we should abolish all federal marriage protections. If churches want to continue performing marriage ceremonies, that’s their business.
Additionally, we need to expand (or queer) our definition of what "family" means. It may well be a truism to say that there is no 'traditional family'. Indeed, the very concept of 'family' means different things to different people, since it is always inflected by factors such as class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender and sexuality. What strikes me as interesting is that most writers continue to act as if the traditional American family does exist, and use it as a reference point for discussions of lesbian and gay families. Thus, while the family is not an institution but a constantly changing social and cultural construct, it nevertheless continues to function as an institution with very real power relations.
Whatever happened to fighting the power? I offer this clip from Margaret Cho as an alternative.
0 comments:
Post a Comment