Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/content/54/7719554/html/wp-content/plugins/facebook-import-comments/classes/FacebookCommentImporter.php on line 185
May 23, 2010

Why We Should Get Married

  tcwaters   6 Comments

Yesterday, two of my closest friends, Brenda and Harriet got married. After being together for 15 years, they were legally married on the beach in Provincetown with over 100 of their friends and family there to bear witness and participate in the validation of this couple’s love for one another.  Isn’t that odd? A marriage generally marks the beginning of a family as two people commit to being a “one” instead of being two separate individuals, and yet these two have a long history of being a “one.” There are grown children, and many things that demonstrate how they have been a couple and a family for a very long time.

If you have read my blog for even a short length of time, you probably have gathered that while I fully support Marriage Equality, it is not the highest priority on my list for LGBT rights. Partly because of living in Pennsylvania, where a person can be legally fired or refused housing, simply because they are perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered,  I see non-discrimination as the biggest and most important priority. But if I’m honest, I am one of those queers who also questions why we, in the most general sense of being a GLBTQ community, seek to validate an institution stepped in religiosity, that has traditionally been used to subsume womens’ rights to a male dominated culture. As intellectual arguments go, both of these ideas have real merit. But today, I want to write about why we should get married, as if neither of these intellectual positions were applicable. We should get married. We should be getting married. We should be getting married where it is legal, and where it isn’t legal. We should be getting married.

Yesterday’s wedding was the third same-sex marriage I’ve attended in the last 22 years or so.  The first was Jane and Paula’s wedding, a ceremony in North Carolina. Unlike Brenda and Harriet who chose to wed in a state where marriage is legal, Jane and Paula chose to wed in their home church congregation. Granted, same-sex marriage wasn’t legal anywhere, back when they got married. My, things change in 20 or so years! But I was struck by one aspect that was the same in both weddings. The degree to which the community, represented by all the friends and family gathered were essential elements of the wedding. Sure the wedding is about two individuals who through a public commitment become a single family unit, and cease being two separate individuals. But that is only one aspect of it.

By the way, Jane and Paula- still going strong!

There is plenty of writing out there, which details why gay and lesbians couples deserve to be treated as equal members of our society, and that includes the right to validate our relationships. It is almost a matter-of-fact kind of thing. Just common sense. But today, I want to say that we should be getting married, because it is a radical, outrageous, and activist thing to do.

Probably one of the oddest things about Brenda and Harriet’s wedding, was just how straight the assembled friends were. Granted, we didn’t have name badges that specified sexual orientation, but I’m pretty sure that Brad and I were the only two gay guys there, and we met only one lesbian couple! For me, this was a testament to the way real life works, and the way our sense of family and friends are blind to little details like orientation. The people we come to love, care for, support and depend upon, are those people, not because of their sex, sexual orientation, familial status or any of a number of other things. Rather love, mutual respect and the things that seem to be a part of who we are underneath all the labels is what draws and keeps us all together.

The gathered mix of friends and family say a few things. It says much about the community and families of both choice and origin for these two women. But it also represents something much larger than that. It isn’t only gay and lesbian couples who believe in same-sex marriage. We are not alone, and have many supporters.

There is probably someone gasping right now, because it appears I just called sexual orientation a “little detail.” But I hope you understand my point. The “straightness” of the wedding however, simply demonstrates how normal it seems to many straight people, that when two people love each other, and want to be in a committed relationship, they should get married.

We should be getting married. Our (meaning gay and lesbian) relationships are not new or novel. Same-sex partners get together for all of the same reasons, opposite-sex partners do. And they go through the same ups and downs as any other couple. They face hurdles and struggles and find great rewards and good stuff too. But even though same-sex civil marriage is relatively new, men and women have been forming and maintaining relationships for a long, long time. We should be getting married to make visible these relationships- as one more way of being out of the closet and visible, not just as individuals but as couples and families.

We should also be getting married because through the very act of having the wedding, we invite our friends and family to stand in solidarity with us through the good and the rough times. Part of those rough times are combatting the homophobia and hatred at work that seeks to keep gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people hidden and in the closet. We should get married, because the wedding itself is an act of recruitment. Not the recruit-you-to-be-gay type, nor even the Harvey Milk i-want-to-recruit-you type, but rather the how-can-someone-who-has-laughed-and-danced-and-helped-celebrate-the-joining-of-two-persons,-not-go-out-and-be-more-of-a-spokesperson-for-equality kind of recruiting? In other words, through celebrating our unions, not only do we make our primary relationships more visible and meaningful, but we also name our friends, family and community as real, visible, meaningful, and, dare I say it, sacred.

Brad, does not agree with all of these ideas, and you may not too. On the flip side, looking to marriage to validate our relationships can be seen as a way to dismiss other non-marriage/non-union relationships as less important. This would be a real shame. all relationships where hard work and love come together to make a family are special and important. The other point that can be made that it isn’t the act of getting married that doers the trick. Any way in which we mark as significant our relationships  accomplishes the same thing, and thrusts into the spot light the reality of our lives and the realness of the ways we couple and make lives together.

What do you think? Are you ready to come out through making your relationship visible, or by accepting your responsibility as a part of a person’s community to support equality? Do you see this more like me? Or Brad? or do you have other viewpoints? Add a comment and share your ideas.

If you appreciate reading my posts, would you like to thank me with a coffee?

Posted in: Activism, general, Marriage Equality   Tags:

  • Pingback: Evan Wolfson and Freedom to Marry | thomascwaters.com

  • tcwaters

    Eric, I've been mulling over your reply since you posted it and wanted to go back through my blog and read everything I've written on Marriage Equality. Now that I've done that, I'm ready to respond.

    It is a false and untrue statement to say “marriage is a patriarchal, archaic system which discriminates against single people and doesn’t allow for other forms of relationships.” I never said such a thing, so please do not put words in my mouth. I said that trying to use Marriage Equality as a tool to prompt other forms of non-discrimination invalidates and dismisses other forms of relationships. It isn't the institution of marriage, rather it is those who seek to use marriage in this way. That is a really huge difference.

    For the record, if I could be legally married tomorrow in Pennsylvania, I'd do it in a heartbeat! It sure would make protecting my family and the house we just bought and all the things that make up our life. Now, my partner isn't on the same page as me. He falls more into the category of folks who views marriage as an archaic institution. But I think if push came to shove, he would marry me.

    It is utterly fallacious to think that Marriage Equality will lead to greater acceptance and non-discrimination for al members of the LGBTQ community. Look at Canada, and most of the US states where we can get married, and you will see than trans persons can still be fired simply for being themselves.

    I also didn't say that “the government doesn't lead.” I said that we live in a time when the government is seen by almost half the voting adults as being the problem and not the solution. I think that yes, most definitely the government must take the lead. I am merely saying that simply because the government does, doesn't mean the general culture will follow.

    My real opinion (which is different than what you attribute to me) is that we must rigorously work for Marriage Equality, but we must also just as rigorously work for an end to discrimination in house, employment, and public accommodations, and too often Marriage Equality enthusiasts don't work for Trans issues or Bi issues at all. And, I feel like I'm beating this into the ground, we as a whole community need to be talking about and looking at how these shifting ideas of priorities affect one another. Maybe that is too vague for you. You strike me as someone who might like to draw a line and see things land on one side of it or the other. I see it all as much more interconnected than that.

    I thoroughly disagree that Marriage Equality humanizes LGBTQ communities. It humanizes gay male and lesbian female families and perpetuates the invisibility bisexuals and Trans persons. That doesn't make it bad, but we just have to realize this and make sure we aren't leaving these parts of our communities behind.

    The freaking title of this post was “Why We Should Get Married.” I have no clue how you can turn that around and claim that I am not in favor of Marriage Equality.

    I wish however, you would have responded to my questions. You use the phrase “LGBTQ couple.” What is that? Is it one type of category, or are there L couples and G couples and B couples and T couples? It sounds so inclusive, but what does it really mean?

    Again, thanks for taking the time to share your ideas and thoughts.

  • Eric

    I understand that you think marriage is a patriarchal, archaic system which discriminates against single people and doesn’t allow for other forms of relationships. However, I’m not sure why that is germane to the argument as to why marriage equality should be fought for just as much as other legislative actions. For those who marriage is not for them, fine, don’t get married. I’m not the one saying everyone should get married which might out them to employers. On the contrary, the reason I and many folks are supporting marriage equality so strongly is simple. “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere (Dr. King). Whether there is work place discrimination, threats and intimidation through hate crimes, or oppression of a group by denying them thousands of marital rights and responsibilities, it’s all part of a the systemic oppression of a minority.

    If the government doesn’t lead on equality (as you assert) why was the civil rights act so important, why are federal and state hate crimes and ENDA legislation important? Marriage equality humanizes LGBTQ communities and would changes oppressive discourses and ideologies. Oppression of a minority is supported and maintained by systemic laws and government sanctioned discrimination. Marriage (as a fundamental right afforded by the constitution according to Loving v. Virginia) is at the core of human existence in America. With out that right, LGBT communities will be second class citizens. It is this “less than status” that contributes to hate crimes and job discrimination.

  • tcwaters

    Eric,
    I don't think the issue is the “straightness of the institution” at all! But rather that marriage as more conventionally defined was a male-favored institution where women were merely property. Even your example of “kitchen table” issues, like Heath Care coverage, highlights this. Our current method of providing coverage through the workplace to a MAN'S spouse came into existence because men worked and women stayed at home and had babies. The real solution here is universal health care/ single payer health care.

    But I want to be clear, I don't buy into the idea that marriage is just a “symbolic commitment,” and so when you try and draw a distinction that “for many [...] represents more than just a symbolic commitment,” that sends up red flags for me. No, for me, our relationships are quite real, and have been real, no matter what they are called or what level of government sanction that hold.

    I also don't really buy into the notion that passage of marriage equality will impact non-discrimination as you think it will for two reasons:
    1) The government is not really seen as the example. If we look at any major issue of the last few years, it is generally placed into a context of the government acting against the people or against Wall Street, or against Main St. We don't really have a system where culture takes cues from government. This is not to say that legislation doesn't significantly impact the way people are treated, because it does. Government regulates behavior, and by doing that, there become less places where discrimination is acceptable.

    In fact, I think that expecting “Marriage Equality” to pave the way for non-discrimination is counter reality. Why will people want to get married, if the very act of being married will “out” you in a place where an employer can legally fire you or refuse to hire you for being GLB or T? Isn't the act of getting a marriage certificate public record?

    2) And this is the more important one for me. To want to use Marriage Equality as a tool to promote non-discrimination treats all single gay, lesbian, or bisexual people as “less than” and suggests that being partnered/married is the “acceptable” or expected (if not normal) relational status.

    I want you to think about your label “LGBTQ couples.” What is a Q couple? What is a B couple? or is an “LGBTQ couple” any couple that isn't a straight couple? In other words, for you, are our relationships defined, not by what they are, and what they mean and how they function, but by what they are not?

    I guess I wanted to make the point that it doesn't matter if there is legally sanctioned same-sex marriage or not, that same-sex couples who are couples and want to be couples need to make those relationships visible, and bear witness to them as valid and meaningful and real.

    Now, I'll add that yes, I agree that marriage equality is important, and I don't believe there should be any laws that prevent it. And, I agree that any progress on a single LGBT issue can always have a favorable impact on other LGBT issues, but it isn't always that way. Look back a week or so in my blog for a post about a marriage equality activist, who every year holds up a sign about Marriage Equality, and is not recognizing how “incomplete” that equality is, given the fact that transgender women and men have no rights at all in that state.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Why We Should Get Married | thomascwaters.com -- Topsy.com

  • Eric Rhodes

    Thank you Thomas for this post. I agree with many of your arguements as why many in the LGBTQ community choose not to get married. I think the point for me is that it SHOULD be a choice. If you don't want to get married and buy into the “straitness” of the instituation, then don't. But for many LGBTQ couples, getting married represents more than just the symbolic committment. It provides many legal, financial, and socially supportive benefits. Many lower income and middle income couples struggle living pay check to pay check. In some cases, health is denied because the partners are not “leagally” married. For all of these kitchen table issues, marriage and all of the legal ramifications there in, MUST be an option to EVERY LGBTQ couple. Secondly, regarding your point that in the past you have deprioritized marriage equality because PA faces more pressing issues of work place discrimination and hate crimes, I believe that repeal of DOMA and federal and state recogniztion of Marriage Equality would significantly impact the passing of workplace and hate crime legislation. Through Marriage Equality, the government is recognizing the value and humanness of LGBTQ citizens. The aboloshment of governement sanctioned discrimination with regard to marriage inequalty would send a clear message the LGBTQ citizens are EQUAL in the eyes of the governement and would impact how employers and straight citizens view their gay neighbors, coworkers, friends. As more couples get married (as you pointed out) the closet doors will come down (as Harvey demanded) and that would have the effect of dimistifying and “normalizing” the LGBTQ community to the straight majority. So, thank you for highlighting the importance of Marriage Equality in your blog today. I hope many others read it and see how critical it is for this issue to be more prominent in the eyes of activists and supportors.