6-06-08, 10:44 am
Because I have been in “same-sex” relationships in the past (as well as a same-gender, opposite-sex romance) and may well enter into one in the future, I have been paying close attention to the recent developments in California. As the reader is probably aware, California’s Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage on May 15 of this year, joining Massachusetts as the only other state in the union to offer full marriage rights to same-sex couples. The decision is set to take effect on June 16, and should have consequences for same-sex couples across the country, in part because California does not require that marriage applicants be residents. Couples from other states are expected to travel to California to enter into wedlock, though most states will still not recognize their married status. Regardless, California’s Supreme Court has set a precedent which should encourage LGBTQ activists from all walks of life.
Before the first vows are taken, however, the backlash has begun. Opponents of the decision asked the court to postpone the start of these marriages until November, in hopes that the decision would be defeated at the ballot box. As we’ve come to expect, right-wing groups of many varieties have voiced strong condemnation.
The rhetoric of the Christian Right and others with “pro-family” agendas (ironically so-called) is welcomed by ultra-right politicians, who represent the thoroughly reactionary interests of capital. Divisive rhetoric allows them to maintain what Antonio Gramsci called cultural hegemony, because their economic, environmental, military and other policies are not in the interests of the vast majority of people in this country. UK-based activist Nicola Field observed that:
Right-wing governments in Europe and the US have attempted to off-load the blame for, and the costs of, their mistakes onto vulnerable groups in society: the unemployed, people on disability benefits, single mothers, immigrants, travelers and lesbians and gay men. The sexist, racist and homophobic arguments they put forward to justify their attacks are intended to alienate support for those groups and prevent them from being able to organize any kind of fightback.
George W. Bush cynically used this tactic to his political advantage during 2003-2004, when thousands of same-sex couples were getting married in San Francisco. He proposed a constitutional amendment that would make same-sex marriage a federal offense, while asserting that heterosexual marriage is “the most fundamental institution of civilization,” a rather lofty claim. I imagine that the Republicans will exploit the developments in California in the lead-up to the November election, and we must be thoroughly prepared for such tactics. For that reason, I actually find myself wishing that the California Supreme Court had waited a few months.
All that being said, I feel that it is time for us to reevaluate the broader context of which same-sex marriage is merely a facet. In 2006, nearly twenty activists got together and drafted a statement called “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships.” This statement, with famous signatories such as Gloria Steinem, Judith Butler and Anne Fausto-Sterling, is intended to broaden the frame of the debate concerning same-sex marriage, to be inclusive of a wide variety of family and household forms. The statement argues that access to benefits like social security pensions should be disentangled from married status. Relying on US Census findings, the authors maintain that household diversity is the norm, because a majority of people do not, in fact, live in nuclear households.
Examples given in the statement of households discriminated against by current marriage laws include “senior citizens living together, serving as each other’s caregivers, partners, and/or constructed families…single parent households…committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner and adult children living with and caring for their parents,” among others. If heterosexual married households are not the majority, why do our laws privilege them to such a degree? Shouldn’t all families have access to what married couples take for granted?
Also, the authors make the point that “Winning marriage equality in order to access our partners’ benefits makes little sense if the benefits that we seek are being shredded,” because “the Right has mounted a long-term strategic battle to dismantle all public service and benefit programs and civic values that were established beginning in the 1930s, initially as a response to widening poverty and the Great Depression.”
The struggle for same-sex marriage, then, is not only part of the wider struggle to overcome the historical horror that is patriarchy, but it is connected to the class struggle, as well as the struggle for the various types of families and households that comprise the majority in our society to receive recognition and access to vital resources.
