WHY I HATE GAY MARRIAGE, or, NOTES ON QUEERING BLACK GAY AND LESBIAN POLITICS
*This past Friday at the Black Gay Research Summit sponsored by People of Color in Crisis, Dr. David Malebranche, activist Kenyon Farrow, scholar-critic Khary Polk and I were all on a panel reading our contributions to my forthcoming co-edited anthology of black gay men’s political writings.
*
The book will be published in the fall by the New York State Black Gay Network, AIDS Project Los Angeles, Gay Men’s Health Crisis, National Black Justice Coalition, and Black AIDS Institute.
*
The following is a brief excerpt from my talk on Friday, portions from which will appear in an essay form in the anthology.
Enjoy!
Why I Hate Gay Marriage, or, Notes on Queering Black Gay and Lesbian Politics
By Frank Leon Roberts
The time has come to talk about queering black gay and lesbian politics. And indeed, I even use the term “queer” without fear of "loosing" my blackness. As a 22 year old black man who is invested in efforts to dismantle racist and patriarchal institutions rather than simply incorporating himself into them, lately I’ve found myself slightly disgusted by the current brand of gay and lesbian activist rhetoric that is more focused on proving that “gay people are normal too” rather than challenging “normalcy” itself as a socially, politically and historically specific construction.
In a moment when black gay and lesbian activist efforts have increasingly been organized around a uncritical push for inclusion into the institution of “marriage” it seems as though such politics have failed to provide a radical political critique of the very apparatuses and institutions which have historically been used in the service of patriarchy, U.S. capitalism and imperialism, and white heteronormativity. “Marriage” as a political and legal institution has always been grounded on the assumption that heterosexual monogamy and a “long term commitment” between two individuals are “natural” goals toward which all people should aspire. This of course comes in spite of the well publicized fact that marriage is statistically on the decline and nearly half of all current marriages end in divorce!
As Kenyon Farrow’s essay “Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black?” suggests, as activists mobilizing black people who practice same-sex desire, we need to seriously re-think and re-shift our investment away from the institution of marriage per se to instead an expansion of the rights and benefits traditionally associated with this institution. At present, sectors of the black gay and lesbian political gamut have been so invested in obtaining the “right” to marriage, they have completely missed the opportunity to actually challenge some of the problematic fundamental principles underlying this institution.
In other words, given our current political, social, and economic climate, isnt time for us to re-think some of our most basic assumptions about the effectiveness of marriage as a legal institution? Indeed, why are we not asking questions such as: why should “married people” (regardless of whether or not we are talking about gay marriage or traditional marriage) be the only types of couple arrangements that the State recognizes as legitimate and worthy of certain benefits? What if I want or need my health care benefits to go to my HIV positive mother rather than my gay spouse? Moreover, why is universal health care, regardless of ones’ marital status, not a viable option at this political moment? Why should the State use “marriage” to decide where my social security benefits will go, or who is allowed to visit me in the hospital or plan my funeral? Why cant "marriage" become a religious or symbolic exercise for those that are interested without it being the only means through which certain legal benefits are distributed?
*
The following is a brief excerpt from my talk on Friday, portions from which will appear in an essay form in the anthology.
Enjoy!
Why I Hate Gay Marriage, or, Notes on Queering Black Gay and Lesbian Politics
By Frank Leon Roberts
The time has come to talk about queering black gay and lesbian politics. And indeed, I even use the term “queer” without fear of "loosing" my blackness. As a 22 year old black man who is invested in efforts to dismantle racist and patriarchal institutions rather than simply incorporating himself into them, lately I’ve found myself slightly disgusted by the current brand of gay and lesbian activist rhetoric that is more focused on proving that “gay people are normal too” rather than challenging “normalcy” itself as a socially, politically and historically specific construction.
In a moment when black gay and lesbian activist efforts have increasingly been organized around a uncritical push for inclusion into the institution of “marriage” it seems as though such politics have failed to provide a radical political critique of the very apparatuses and institutions which have historically been used in the service of patriarchy, U.S. capitalism and imperialism, and white heteronormativity. “Marriage” as a political and legal institution has always been grounded on the assumption that heterosexual monogamy and a “long term commitment” between two individuals are “natural” goals toward which all people should aspire. This of course comes in spite of the well publicized fact that marriage is statistically on the decline and nearly half of all current marriages end in divorce!
As Kenyon Farrow’s essay “Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black?” suggests, as activists mobilizing black people who practice same-sex desire, we need to seriously re-think and re-shift our investment away from the institution of marriage per se to instead an expansion of the rights and benefits traditionally associated with this institution. At present, sectors of the black gay and lesbian political gamut have been so invested in obtaining the “right” to marriage, they have completely missed the opportunity to actually challenge some of the problematic fundamental principles underlying this institution.
In other words, given our current political, social, and economic climate, isnt time for us to re-think some of our most basic assumptions about the effectiveness of marriage as a legal institution? Indeed, why are we not asking questions such as: why should “married people” (regardless of whether or not we are talking about gay marriage or traditional marriage) be the only types of couple arrangements that the State recognizes as legitimate and worthy of certain benefits? What if I want or need my health care benefits to go to my HIV positive mother rather than my gay spouse? Moreover, why is universal health care, regardless of ones’ marital status, not a viable option at this political moment? Why should the State use “marriage” to decide where my social security benefits will go, or who is allowed to visit me in the hospital or plan my funeral? Why cant "marriage" become a religious or symbolic exercise for those that are interested without it being the only means through which certain legal benefits are distributed?
The current push for “gay” marriage puts no pressure whatsoever on these fundamental principles.
And indeed it is these issues—the material benefits traditionally granted from marriage---rather than the institution itself that our activist efforts need to be organized around.
And indeed it is these issues—the material benefits traditionally granted from marriage---rather than the institution itself that our activist efforts need to be organized around.
*
What does "gay marriage" do for the homeless gay black man with HIV/AIDS who wants his benefits to go to his Aunt whom he's temporarily staying with rather than his spouse? What does “gay marriage” do for the illegally immigrated Haitian lesbian and her illegal immigrant spouse—neither of whom will ever qualify for substantive insurance of any kind or federal assistance? How would the State or “gay marriage” recognize the social status of the 19 year old house-ballroom kid that is living with his gay “house mother” who is also his boyfriend? How would “gay marriage” address the social reality of the many black “gay” identified men who are in relationships with men on the ‘down low’ that do not identify with any of these terms? Or should the social and political circumstances of “DL brothers” be once again systematically vilified, demonized, and/or ignored altogether in this discussion?
The true political challenge would be fighting for some of the “perks” currently associated with marriage without the obligation of buying into the actual institution. And no, simply jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon would not be a natural “first step.” How can we eighty-six the institution while still keeping the "goods" (i.e. health care, adoption privileges, etc.)? Our political challenge as black queer activists is to fight with and for all of those kinship arrangements that do not adhere to the mom/dad; woman/man; and now “(white) gay boy/gay boy” model.
The true political challenge would be fighting for some of the “perks” currently associated with marriage without the obligation of buying into the actual institution. And no, simply jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon would not be a natural “first step.” How can we eighty-six the institution while still keeping the "goods" (i.e. health care, adoption privileges, etc.)? Our political challenge as black queer activists is to fight with and for all of those kinship arrangements that do not adhere to the mom/dad; woman/man; and now “(white) gay boy/gay boy” model.
-
How can we engage in a meaningful critical conversation on how we might re-think what this means for all of us, especially those like me, that won’t be getting “married” anytime soon.
You know i can go on and on about the pro and cons of debating the merits of the Marriage battles...but i will add this to the discussion......
I would argue that the battles being waged on the issues of marriage equality do not seek to "Create Change" but actually to maintain the status quo, which at this point still remains ambiguious in the majorjity of states dealing with the issue with the exception of Massachusetts.
The question at hand is why are we fighting these battles. The urgency of the situation is that there are black same-sex couples who are suffering now due to the lack of the rights and protections that are associated with the instition of marriage. And many more will end up worse off than before because they will be loosing rights that they have. The problem with the Amendments is that they are being structured in a way that would ban both civil and religious marriage, but would also prevent, eliminate, and invalidate any thing that "RESEMBLES" a marriage which has been interpreted to include civil unions, domestic partnerships, and any other way of distribuiting those benefits traditionally granted from marriage.
I think it's a mischaracterization to imply that this issue does not have major implications in the black LGBT community because the reality is that there are thousands of documented black-same sex couples, and even more undocumented that are buying homes, raising children, and choosing to retire.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8/08/2005
Frank, thanks for the Angela Y. Davis style analysis of the current debate. We've always been indifferent to the issue ... my personal daily concerns are more practical, like racism, police action, crime, the glass ceiling ... but there are some pros and cons. On the con side, it is very disturbing how the 2004 election was hijacked by gay marriage--which probably was a GOP scheme--and white gay activists often force us to choose between them and our community. On the pro side ... hmmm, a gay wedding means a good opportunity to wear a suit and lots of presents? lol
Obviously back to a more serious tip, a most cogent analysis, sorry we missed it at the BGRS, but we have mentioned and linked your essay on Rod2.0.
BTW, your blog nominations are quite flattering. Many thanks.
Posted by
Rod |
8/09/2005
I am not certain that stating that any Same-Gender Loving (SGL) person that wishes to "marry" does not seek to challenge the status quo. There are two ways to look at any issue and this one is not excluded. While it can be asserted that SGL folks seeking to marry (using the traditional definition) are simply trying to show "hey, we're just like you." But it can also be stated that SGL folks that seek to marry are challenging the status quo by virtue of seeking inclusivity. Turning the masculine/feminine, male/female dualism on its head with male/male and female/female relationships. Gay folks challenge normalcy simply by displaying that love doesn't come in only the male/female variety.
I do believe there is room for critique of current conceptualizations of marriage and i DO opt for EVERYONE (hetero, homo, bi, etc) arranging civil union secularly and limiting marriage to the religious sect of which the couple is apart...
I'm a bit confused as to why you include men in "DL" relationships; doesn't the choice to be DL mean that they do not want their relationship publicized in any form?
There are some SGL folks that buy into "marriage" not because of insurance or benefits...but because they seek to honor the sacred...the divine as they see it/him/her to be...I think this is honorable given that most folks can't/won't conceive of SGL folks as divine-inspired, moved by the sacred and even worthy of worship...
Posted by
AC |
8/09/2005
Refreshing post. The thing that struck me the most about it is how the black sgl community does, at times, focus too much energy on joining a fight that is non-specific to us, as we are constantly being left behind by the 'others'.
Posted by
nOva |
8/09/2005
i have to agree with Rod and a few others. This has been a very controversial and problematic topic...one that has been literally shoved down our throats since Bush won another term in 2004.
And, I do agree that gay marriage is something that a lot of folk want. But, I'm not one of them. And, your essay very eloquently and honestly acknowledges the fact that many of us don't feel that gay marriage, as it is being defined right now, is valid for the lives of many SGL folk of african descent.
I do think that taking the "benefits" of gay marriage might be an alternative. But, I think that people shoul dunderstand that not everyone wants to get married.
Not everyone wants to have that ceremony to prove they are committed to someone. I know that I will end up with someone (hopefully) for the rest of my life, and I don't need a ceremony to prove my love for him.
However, I know a lot of gay men and lesbians who are fighting for gay marriage and I respect them for doing that. I just don't feel it's something I need.
Check your email today, F.
Posted by
Ryan Canty |
8/09/2005
My argument here is much more complicated than "gay marriage is not black" or "gay marriage is a white thing." Instead, I'm suggesting that it might be possible and politically regenerative for us to re-think some of our investment in marriage per se and instead shift it to a broader discussion about the material benefits of the institution.
My argument is not simply some utopian, naive, or stagnant ideal---quite the opposite. It's actually quite practical and far-reaching.
If activists were to shift their rhetoric from talk of "gay marriage" (as well as "marriage equality") to instead a dismantling and redistribution of the privileges of marriage to groups whose kinship relations stand outside of the "marriage norm"-- politically we would have many more allies for this cause.
For instance, the type of politics that I am calling for could be extremely appealing to single (straight) black women--- a group that has historically been demonized, punished, and denied valuable resources because of their "unmarried" status. The same is true for elderly people that live in kinship arrangements that are not linked to marriage. If our focus is on a redistribution of the privileges traditionally associated with marriage then indeed gay people would not necessarily be the single (or even greatest) benefactors of such a redistribution. Again---the masses and majority of "non-normative" (i.e. non-nuclear) people of color households in the U.S. could benefit tremendously from such a redistribution of wealth.
This really isnt a question of being against the activists who have called for "gay marriage" so much as it is a critique of the long-term political efficacy of this cause. The real question for contemporary activists is how to oppose and critique the homophobic impulse behind many on the Right that are not supportive or marriage without reinscribing the marriage norm as the only legitimate, state sanctioned or viable arrangement for queer people.
Posted by
the young people's professor |
8/09/2005
Well put man, I for one agree with you 100%
KD
Posted by
KneeDeep |
8/09/2005
If I wasn't at work, I would go so much more deeper into this... I just wanted to say I appreciate you bringing the topic up, and opened my eyes to a few points you talked about, and fully agree. We need to focus not on gay marriage, but WHY MARRIAGE?
Something more for me to think about, as if my brain can't get enough, lol, thanks man!
Posted by
ShawnQt |
8/10/2005
Leon, I completely agree with you on this subject. I think advocating for equality of benefits or "perks" of marriage to be redistrubuted is much better than fighting for marriage equality.
The idea that Marriage makes strong families and families make the nation is a myth and has been since the begining of time.
I think many people especially people of color in the USA that decend from slave owners and slave owners would be interested in deconstructing normative marriage.
The fact that the perks of marriage had been limited to white/white people resulted in many people of color being denied the wealth that is normally inherited by right of birth based on the marital status of their fore-parents. I think people of color regardless of sexual identity would be interested in getting rid of this institution by the state.
Posted by
T. Zac. R. d V. |
8/12/2005
of how can u oppose gay marriage?? why is it so wrong to you?? are they bothering u by getting married?
fuk u!
Posted by
Anonymous |
3/02/2006
I appreciate the time you have taken to start your blog, thank you for the nice read.
Regards,
diagnosis health pet
Posted by
Anonymous |
4/09/2006
Wandering aimlessly thru the blogs has lead me to yours, thank you for the interesting read.
Fellow blogger,
answer health pet question
Posted by
Anonymous |
4/11/2006