Adam Isiah Green interviews 30 interviews with same-sex couples in the Toronto, Canada area. Through these interviews Green seeks to challenge both critical queer/feminist theorists and social conservatives who fear same-sex marriage for different reasons. Conservatives feel that same-sex couples marrying will challenging the institution of heterosexual marriage, resulting in "further eroded mental monogamy and the traditional gendered division of labour, increase out-of-wedlock childbirth among heterosexuals, undermine dyadic stability and the nuclear family, and return humankind to an earlier state of precivilization" (405). Contrarily, some queer theorists fear that same-sex marriage inclusion will affirm heteronormative standards and "disciplining of a new, assimilated queer subject" (405). Furthermore, the heterosexual marriage "is an institution profoundly implicated in the historical disempowerment of women" (406), leading some lesbian feminists to question why women want to perpetuate a system of sexist control, that especially reinforces gender binary roles. Gay and lesbians who seek to same-sex marriage work of hegemonic ideals of monogamy and fidelity being "normative". Green sets out to challenge these ideas from these three groups.
In addition to privileges, Green finds through interviews that the label of married confers a certain psychological legitimacy that long-term relationship simply does not. Marriage also confers legitimacy on these couples in the eyes of others, especially family members who were hesitant to accept homosexuality. Green discovers that many of these couples break the normative assumption of marital monogamy, with more being open to out of marriage sex than in heterosexual relationships. Just as monogamy is decided on democratically, division of labour and money are also more fairly divided based on wants instead of prescribed gender expectations. These findings challenge queer fear of heteronormative assimilation, but fulfill conservative fear of gender role deterioration. In short, Green asserts that "gays and lesbians will transform the institution , rather than the institution transform gas and lesbians" (429).
1. While Green analyzes the fear by queer theorists that same-sex marriage will reaffirm heteronormative standards and force queer couples to work in a historic matrix of gender oppression, he is largely silent on how marriage is a largely classist institution. Given that most of the participants were white, educated, and well off, what role does intersecting privilege play in the institution of (same-sex) marriage, especially in this research? Who has the ability to marry?
2. While he alludes to male heterosexuality in normative marriage being linked to the need for reproduction, he does not comment on how this is inextricably connected to capitalism. The continuation of the "nuclear family" and reproduction is vital to American consumer culture and the continued production of mass goods. How is late capitalism linked with marriage and how is it ironic for queer bodies to assimilate into this overarching capitalist system largely dependent on the exploitation of the Global South? How does this tie in with privilege in question 1?
3. This is study is focused around cisgendered couples, but how would assimilation into the gender imposing institution of marriage effect trans* people? How can trans* bodies be accounted for in this nuanced discussion of "homonormativity" and why is their voice largely left out? Who is left out of the conversation?
*sorry about it being late* (॓_॔)
Paul Collins
