I Don’t
Spring Is A Time For… Politicking?
I love this time of year.
Don’t get me wrong. I love winter. I love the cold, the dreariness, the rain. I love the occasional snow here in Seattle. I love the blustery days and curling up under a fuzzy blanket to read a book (or curl up with someone else, for that matter). I am a good Pacific
Spring! It gets you sprung!
Northwesterner and I have no problems going for months without sun.
Still, when spring hits and the world wakes up again it’s a little exciting, right? The sun comes out, the trees start blooming, you get your first sunburn of the year (ouch), and maybe you start thinking cutesie little romance feelings for your fellow man. Or woman. Or genderqueer. As the days get longer and the weather warmer, hearts tend to go pitter-patter and I’m not exempt from the excitement.
Everyday folks aren’t the only ones who think about romance. As we head into spring and a new election cycle, legislators and advocates are getting excited themselves. Get ready for your rights to be in the spotlight again. Marriage equality may just be around the corner.
Except I don’t care.
Marriage Mania Makes Me Manic
Here in Washington, marriage equality was approved by the legislature and a pushback to collect signatures to repeal the measure has started. In Maine, NOM has pledged large sums of money to combat the current push to allow queer weddings. Millions of dollars are being used to fight these political battles all over the country… and I’m stuck wondering “What’s the big deal?”
"Marriage is the most significant thing you can ever do, homies. Trust ol' Solmonese on this one."
You see, even though I’ve been engaged and might lose my mind later on in life and decide that I want to try having a fiance again, I honestly don’t think marriage affects my life in large ways. Getting married isn’t important to me and having my relationship validated by the state seems ludicrous. Why does it matter so much to other people?
I ask these questions frequently among my cohorts. I have the privilege to be on speaking terms with a lot of awesome people in LGBT activism and advocacy, and frequently my questions have the ability to rankle those that like other ideas I spew. “What?!” they gasp. “Marriage equality is the most important battle facing LGBTs today!” This confuses me. Utterly.
You see, I don’t care if you want to achieve marriage equality. Please! Fight for that. But why, why, WHY is that the most important LGBT dialogue of our generation?
EVERYTHING Sucks. Not Just Marriage Inequality.
The benefits of getting married in the US are legion. If you’re married you can put your spouse on your health insurance. Is your lover a foreign national? No problem! Marry them and they can stay. Inheritance rights are wrapped up in the issue of marriage- afraid your family will steal the estate that should go to your partner? Get hitched! These reasons, and many more, are the ones that get thrown against my disdain for spending resources on marriage equality.
And they’re great reasons! I hope that people who love each other have the ability to live in the same country together. I don’t think someone’s asshole family should be able to intervene in someone’s will. And health care, obviously, is very important to me and the way ADAP defunding is going I might someday have to consider a marriage of convenience just to get my HIV meds.
But is marriage really the way to accomplish those goals? Think about it. Should we really be telling people that the only way they can be with their loved ones is to enter into a binding, state-validated contract?
Isn’t the real problem there that we need immigration reform?
Health care is an obvious one. I had a prominent blogger actually say to me that she was working for marriage equality so that she could get health care through her wife’s plan. Ok. It’s legit to need health care. However, I can’t help but think that in of itself is silly. The only way for us to get medical care is to… romantically commit to someone for life? What?
Isn’t the real problem that we need universal health care?
I could go on and on. Homeless queer youth! Suicide! The scalping of AIDS patients by big pharmaceuticals! And yet the conversation is centered around how soon I could potentially throw a bachelor’s party.
That’s not right.
No! No Benefits For You Until You Get Yourself A Man!
See, the problem with marriage is its exclusionary nature, as the queer community has clearly taken note of. We’ve been excluded from it for so long perhaps the majority of us have not realized that we’re not the only people who go without these benefits bestowed upon those who choose to marry.
How equal does marriage equality really make us?
I, for instance, don’t particularly care to marry. I can just as easily be with a man in perpetuity (if he can stand me) without having a county clerk rubber-stamp my relationship. Also, I may just be unlucky or bad at relationships (probably the second) and I may never find the One.
I find it disturbing that our society is willing to deny me health care, immigration rights, and hospital visitations just because I choose to not marry.
Pay No Attention To The Fat Cat Behind The Curtain
Why are we, then, so focused on marriage? It’s not immediately clear… until you look at LGBT leadership. Or rather, gay white male leadership. In our vast, diverse group of individuals that touches every single culture on this planet there seems to be a dearth of “commoners” who rise to positions of power and authority in the organizations who are supposed to be advocating for our interests. Instead we have white collar gay men calling the shots, and why? Because they had money. Or because they made money representing our interests (how much does the Executive Director of the HRC get paid?).
If you look at the leadership of most major organizations, it’s pretty homogeneous. Rich white gay men are calling the shots. What do they care about universal health care? They have their own. Income inequality helps them stay ahead and they are no more likely to assist the common queer in being successful, healthy, and happy than Mitt Romney. All they will give us will be marriage.
Marriage isn’t enough. There are people dying on waiting lists to get funding for their pills and the Joe Solmoneses of the world would rather that you think about striking it lucky with Missus Right.
Do you think this gal can pay your doctor's bills? Yeah. Me neither.
In fact, you might even say that these rich gay white men and the corporations that fund their organizations don’t want true income equality and universal health care. After all, that might require they pay more taxes.
Shhh. Just think about getting married instead. Isn’t that nice?
Another World Is Possible! I Think I’ll Live In It Without Marriage.
So we’ve established I don’t care about marriage. I also don’t mind that someone else does. But the idea that we must pursue this one goal to the exclusion of other things is outrageous. Why is this much money going into marriage? Millions that could be spent in restoring proper ADAP funding and re-establishing the tax rates on corporate America that will make that funding possible is getting burned up in a race revolving around who gets to have a wedding photographer.
In the end, ask yourself, dear reader, which matters to you more? The fact that you can’t pay your bills?
Or the fact you don’t have a wedding ring on?
I will go into this with you, Ian.
“Who ordered that?” was my typical response to gay marriage, but then I started researching how the initial 1971 Minnesota Baker v Nelson case got spun up to the Supreme Court, only to receive a precedent-setting affirmation of dismissal. The language of the original trial transcripts is heartbreaking - it’s shockingly homophobic, even on the plaintiff side.
Minnesota State Supremes responded: “dismissed for lack of Federal question.” SCOTUS reiterated with a one-upped “dismissed for lack of substantial Federal question,” highlighting substantial boldface included.
Decorum is mandated for judicial proceedings. Translated from that, this statement reads as a bald-faced FUCK YOU from the Supreme Court, and it ticks me off to no end. This precedent has locked SS marriage out of federal legal process, for what, 41 years now. That duration is more than half the history of the State of Hawaii or Alaska. What are courts for, if not for all? To simply point-blank refuse argument denies authority for anyone, or anything. It makes liberty a lie. Due process does not come with an ‘if we feel like it’ clause.
Imagine going to argue a traffic ticket and being told by the judge “our legal process is off-limits to your kind,” who then doesn’t even have the balls to explain why.
Throughout the entire AIDS pandemic, the Supreme Court presided over the gay community with utmost contempt. We turned the tide, we fought the good fight, and some of us - me - survived. I like to think for a reason. Not marriage - but full civil equality, which happens to include marriage, is a worthy reason. I’ve seen death up close, and loss beyond any imagined, and my heart remains convinced that a purpose beyond my own selfishness alone can redeem my existence. I am here for you. I am here for this. I will not be deterred until civil equality can be… taken for granted, while kids sleep peacefully never knowing the hated that would have separated them. (Blessings.)
The Lawrence v Texas dissenting opinion contained a remark from Antonin Scalia about how it could ‘…even lead to gay marriage.’ Well, he said it first. The fringe picked up on it. Andrew Sullivan took it mainstream and here we are.
Baker v is no longer a precedent in practice, though - when Congress passed DOMA, no legal team could possibly fail to see the federal significance of a congressional act implicating all states, thus a HUGE federal question, but very few seemed aware (lawyers all, go figure) they shredded the Baker precedent. The good people of California furthered SS marriage recognition as a federal issue when they voted to revoke it. Now DOMA repeal is well underway with rulings re. Witt, Golinsky, and more seemingly every day.
So it’s not just the animus and the hatred that gets to me - it’s also the extraordinary waste of such spectacular and persistent judicial incompetence. Our political system requires prejudice and outrage. No one gets to play the good guy unless it’s at the expense of some target opposition group. It is systemic. This cannot be sustained. But this was true four decades ago - tear the veil away. Neither victim nor bully be. One does NOT necessitate the other.
The Obama administration has been slow on details and discrete, specific actions, but in the background I sense a gigantic change coming into shape for LGBT citizens in the from of heightened scrutiny (reversing the burden of judicial proof) and suspect class, which would allow legal recourse under Title Vll. That would open the door to any number of legal redresses - say, for wage and benefit loss for those kicked out under DADT. Insurance benefits denied. Right of survival ignored. Etc. Suspect class is a very big deal. Marriage may well be the vehicle to deliver it.
In the meantime Washington State may have to endure the specter of civil rights put up to a majority vote; precisely what the founders crafted the Constitution and the branches of government to avoid. NOM is promising to create campaign discord (their competence is questionable, though) with all of the media hysteria that implies. SIgh.
I feel very differently about Washington State. Seattle managed to thwart the Anita Bryant-era Initiative 13, which would have terminated gay teachers. It was a very early, nationally visible big win for the gay community. I know that our particular brand of progressive politics has, in Western Washington, proven resistant to bigotry and manufactured outrage. We may even deter SS marriage repeal at the ballot (which would really be something to crow about, save for that whole ‘unconstitutional’ thing). I am very optimistic.
I am, of course, out to my entire family, both as gay and PWA. They know I can defend my political position in conversation only too well. They are, for the most part, supportive. And beside, a ballot is only as far away as the mailbox, so there’s no excuse not to vote down repeal, and vote for not-Romney. (No one wants to love Obama more than me, but Tim Geitner complicates that. I mean, who IS your friend.)
Prop 8 may one day end up at the Supreme Court. David Bois himself stated he considered Walker’s opinion strong enough for a unanimous affirmative ruling. I concur.
I want to live to see that day. History is unfolding before us - join in and be a part of it, Ian. We did not define the terms, here - they were imposed on us. We choose to respond from moral obligation because to do otherwise permits evil to thrive. Marriage binds you and your chosen family to empowerment. Be a daddy. It’s going to happen, surely as all grow up and assume the obligations and rewards of life in this land of our very best (and worst) dreams. Life means participation.
But I think you already realize that.
fondness, - GML
People who are against marriage equality must be among the lucky few who, on having their spouse die, did not have the family of their spouse swoop in and take everything the couple worked together for. This did happen to me and it is the only reason I am for marriage equality, otherwise I have no desire or need to mimic anything the hetero world does.