|
|

Advertisement
February 8, 2012 | 10:02 pm
Posted by Kalil Cohen
| Tweet |

Amidst all the news coverage of yesterday’s ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that California’s November 2008 Proposition 8 is unconstitutional as well as Washington State’s passage of a marriage equality bill, I wish to nuance the excitement of these events with a critique of the narrow focus of the LGBTQ movement in recent years. I have personally participated in marriage equality activism through organizing voter phone banking against Prop 8 as well as the 13LoveStories project. In addition, as someone who works with queer youth, I think that this is an important decision that will impact LGBTQ youth self-esteem and self-acceptance. However, there are many other civil rights issues affecting LGBTQ folks that have been completely usurped by the marriage debate. By focusing so narrowly on this one issues, activists have created a mainstream agenda for queer rights that does not address the root issues of inequality.
The institution of marriage as maintained by the state is a means of enforcing private property, wealth inheritance, and individual, rather than societal, safety nets. The money and energy that has been dedicated to this narrow civil rights fight has compromised LGBTQ activism as whole by channeling the bulk of community resources towards an issue that will largely benefit affluent, mostly white, gay and lesbian folks. For queer folks who are poor, immigrants, gender variant, and/or people of color, civil rights issues around educational access, housing, criminal justice reform, and health care are much more pressing than the right to marry. All of these issues also lend themselves to coalition building with many other diverse groups, while marriage equality does not.
In addition to channeling community resources away from more basic survival issues that affect queer folks, the focus on marriage equality has served to only further enshrine the notion of the nuclear family, which in today’s society is largely a myth rather than a reality. With 50% of marriages ending in divorce, and a clear breakdown in our society of the nuclear family, why do we as queer folks wish to partake in a broken institution? While I am married and feel blessed to have had my ceremony during the months that all marriages were legal in California, I do not believe that the state should play a role in marriage, or that there should be rights and privileges for married folks. Queer communities have pioneered alternative family formations through our history of caring for one another in times of need outside of traditional, state sanctioned familial relationships. For example, the queer community’s response to the AIDS crisis is a demonstration of our ability to form alternative family structures that function effectively to support and care for each other. If the amount of funding, focus, and political will that has been dedicated to marriage equality were funneled into redefining the state’s notion of what makes a family and who is considered a caretaker, we would see a much larger coalition of groups involved including immigrant rights activists and health care activists. No one should have her or his immigration or healthcare status depend on being married, for example. Continuing to use narrowly defined identity politics as a basis for organizing leaves us more vulnerable to backlash, to being defeated by the majority, and to overlooking the root causes of our oppression.
I do believe, however, that this ruling and the marriage debate in general has created a much larger space to discuss LGBTQ issues in the mainstream media, in the classroom, and in families. This has had a significant and noticeable impact on the comfort level of many people when discussing queer rights, because being seen as loving family members humanizes us. I am grateful for the significant change that has occurred in peoples’ attitudes towards LGBTQ individuals in recent years, and I think that this ruling will continue moving us forward in the right direction. At the same time, it is important to temper our elation with an analysis of the pieces that are currently missing from the puzzle. If we do not address the root causes of LGBTQ oppression, the issue of marriage equality is likely to suffer the same fate as that of legalized abortion – a right that is continuously being challenged and restricted through legal action.

5.17.12 at 4:10 pm | the harmful messages may be affecting them. . .

5.15.12 at 12:12 pm | "Forks Over Knives" 5/20/12 at the Workmen's. . .

5.10.12 at 2:25 pm | his tremendously bold act, of choosing love over. . .

5.9.12 at 11:37 pm | Obama thinks LGBTQ people should have marriage. . .

5.8.12 at 3:01 pm | Let's not forget - Maurice Sendak was a gay man.. . .

5.6.12 at 11:58 pm | Footage from the 2nd 10’¢ Cinema Slam, held in. . .

6.11.11 at 4:21 pm | Young Global Leaders Converge at ROI Summit,. . . (41)

5.17.12 at 4:10 pm | the harmful messages may be affecting them. . . (25)

12.22.11 at 7:55 pm | It is important to not forget our sacred animals. . . (25)






We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.
glbt lgbt oy gay lgbt rights gay bloghome lgbtq gay rights oygay gay jews gay and lesbian community marriages gay activist marriage storyblog gay marriage homeless sendak gay glbt sendak gay wedding gay los angeles gay jew gay and lesbian marriage equality glbt families skid row sendak lgbt sendak queer gay la gay clergy gay activists marriage ban glbt ally los angeles sendak glbt maurice sendak lgbt families keshet
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
| |||||||||
Thank you for this thoughtful and important post, Kalil.
As someone working for equality in the LGBT movement, I think that your comments are both helpful and grounding. I think that some advocates for marriage equality have not done enough to integrate elements of racial and economic justice into their work. Too often the spokespeople for marriage equality are white, affluent gay men and lesbians.
This does not, however, mean that marriage equality does not provide concrete, tangible benefits for many members of the LGBT community – not just white, affluent gay and lesbian couples. In a report released last week, the organization for which I work, released a report entitled “Strengthening Economic Security for Children Living in LGBT Families.” http://lgbtmap.org/file/strengthening-economic-security.pdf
This report examines the ways in which children, particularly those in low-income families, are unable to access important protections because of who their parents are. Many of the recommendations in the report are not about marriage equality.
However, there are many important protections that marriage equality would provide for LGBT couples AND for the children they are raising, which are particularly salient for low-income families and families of color. For example, in states with marriage equality, a child born to a married lesbian couple through donor insemination is presumed to be the legal child of both those parents. This means that a low-income family doesn’t need to spend thousands of dollars on a second-parent adoption just so that a child can access social security benefits when a parent dies or becomes disabled (legal advocates would still suggest a family obtain such an adoption, particularly for out-of-state travel). Children of color are disproportionately reliant on social security benefits because of the death or disablement of a parent. Marriage equality would mean that children in LGBT families would be able to access those important benefits. Marriage equality also means that if a person is able to obtain a job with health benefits, both their spouse and children, can receive health insurance. This is true even if the spouse with the job isn’t the legal parent of the child.
I think that we need to do more to extend the conversation about marriage equality to conversations about diverse families and the need for protections for diverse families. LGBT families aren’t alone in not fitting into the narrow boxes that society assumes children are raised. And, as noted in this great blog post (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/09/hey-gays-dont-pull-up-the-ladder), marriage equality is only one step in the long journey toward equality for all Americans regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion, immigration status, the list goes on.