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
I don't have a strong opinion on whether I support or don't support the institute of marriage yet, and this reading was definitely helpful in continuing to learn about the different implications of marriage. While certain parts didn't seem quite as important to me (example: marrying someone so you can chat with coworkers about it) there were definitely interesting parts of the reading that justified marriage. I was also very surprised at the subjects' views on monogamy.
ReplyDeleteI did notice that the study was focused on white cisgendered people, and I'm not sure how marriage would affect other groups, especially trans* people, but I am eager to learn and see what others think. I feel that I still tend to agree that having the option for marriage and deciding on a couple's own terms what exactly that means seems to work out. However, I also like the idea of queer deviating from the norm and challenging problems in the system instead of conforming to them.
I think the question of who was left out of this article is very interesting. Many people that are pro gay marriage argue that marriage will confer healthcare benefits to a couple that did not previously have access to shared healthcare. But the counter-argument is that this view of healthcare centers only upper class, largely white, cisgendered persons. People outside these priviledged groups often do not have healthcare and a marriage license would not be able to magically create this access. Obviously this does not apply to Canada, and thus those interviewed for the article, but is still a real question in the U.S. I wonder how issues such as this play out amongst the couples interviewed. How these issues impacted their choices. Are the reasons they thought gay marriage was important still important years down the line?
ReplyDeleteWow, this is a cool perspective, Moira. I hadn't thought extensively about how the other social infrastructure would affect who is affected by marriage equality laws. I am familiar with the argument that there are a lot of other battles that face queer individuals more profoundly, such as the argument you make about healthcare, that would be better places for the movement to spend its time and energy. I also wonder about laws affected trans individuals in the US. Can a MtF trans person marry a man in a state that doesn't allow same sex marriage? Are any states structuring their new marriage laws to be devoid of gendered language?
DeleteA nuance that wasn't really addressed by the piece that was somewhat addressed above is the cultural implications of marriage. As stated above, the insurance/healthcare benefits of marriage may only apply to middle- to upper-class Americans, but even beyond that, marriage is not only a Christian, white, upper-middle-class phenomenon, although you wouldn't know it from the Green piece. I think the desire for marriage equality stems from the cultural/social/familial significance of marriage. I know that at least in Chinese culture, marriage is a big, if not the biggest, milestone in a person's life. It's odd to find a person in their middle age who has never been married. That is, even though the only thing that separates marriage from long-term romantic companionship is a name, a paper, and maybe a ceremony, these separations are dramatic. Even though we might say we're queer and outside of the system, marriage is a lousy, heterosexist institution, etc., etc., at the root of it, before the healthcare and before the insurance benefits, what makes marriage so appealing is that it is a marriage---it is a socially accepted, valued, and -valid- way for two people to be together. This is reflected when your marriage is more accepted at work than simply your partnership. To be able to call your life together marriage is valuable. (sorry idk where I was going with that)
ReplyDeleteIn regards to question 3 and how gender non-conforming people play into this discussion, I think there are so really interesting points. The first that comes to mind is gay/lesbian couples that get around marriage bans because one of the partners is transgender, but their gender is not legally recognized (e.g. a lesbian couple in which one partner is legally documented as male). I kinda feel that this is kind of a "screw you" to the legal system for not recognizing either gay marriage or legal gender changes; that being said, clearly this is not AT ALL an ideal situation and no one should be forced to play the system this way. Another point I thought about during this piece is how does marriage apply to gender non-conforming people. If marriage is not defined as either between a man and woman, or woman and woman, or man and man but you (or your partner or both) don't identify as man or woman, how can this label work for you? Obviously again you can play the system, since legally everyone has an assigned ""gender"" so regardless of your actual gender you can still get married (e.g. a genderqueer person and an agender person can still get married), but again this would be such an invalidating process. I'm not sure where I'm going with these examples, except that clearly our systematic "need" to gender all bodies in binary way creates a lot of hardships in basically every facet of life. I wonder what the laws are like in countries (I think Canada is actually one of them) where a third gender is legally recognized and how that person is allowed to marry...
ReplyDeleteI love how you brought up capitalism and its links with marriage and the nuclear family. One interesting point is how married same-sex couples are defying the norms of marriage that support capitalism. One way is the how same-sex couples reported that they manage their finances. This goes against the capitalist tradition of the husband earning the money in a marriage and wife spending that money. Another way is how many same-sex couples reject the idea of the nuclear family. While some queer couples have children, others don't. Those who do raise children don't follow the "traditional" family with one mother and one father. Same-sex couples defy the idea of a nuclear family in every way, and in doing so reject the ways capitalism influences our society.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on question 1, you make a good point that marriage, while a huge cultural and societal factor, is often reserved for those who have the means and time to go about obtaining a marriage license and legally recognizing their union. I feel like this plays into the gay marriage being the public face of the gay rights movement problem- because upper middle class, cisgendered white queer people are the most "unoffensive" to the general public, issues like gay marriage get put front and center in the national debate about "gay rights" when there are much larger issues at hand that affect people with intersecting oppressions of class and race
ReplyDelete