Clarifying my position on "marriage."
If We Have To Take Tomorrow
(Edited by Frank Leon Roberts and Marvin K. White,
Institute for Gay Men's Health, 2006)
(Edited by Frank Leon Roberts and Marvin K. White,
Institute for Gay Men's Health, 2006)
Several years ago, while I was still a young-little lad, Bay Area poet Marvin K. White (a former member of the 1980s performance troupe PoMo Afro Homos) and I co-edited a small collection of essays entitled “If We Have To Take Tomorrow (HIV, Black Men, and Same Sex Desire).” The book was published by AIDS Project Los Angeles, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis and the Black AIDS Institute. It featured original essays by E. Patrick Johnson, Tim’m West, David Malebranche, Kenyon Farrow, Thomas Glave, Rev. Osagyfeo Uhuru Sekou and many others.
The book has since fallen out of print, but hopefully it will finally be available through amazon.com later this year. You can download a free copy in PDF format by visiting the following websites: AIDS Project Los Angeles or the Black AIDS Institute. Even though if I could do it again I would do a lot of things differently, I think the collection is still worth taking a look at.
In the book I contributed a brief essay entitled “Why I Hate Gay Marriage, or, Notes on Queering Black Gay and Lesbian Politics.” In light of some of the mail that I've been receiving in response my recent post on Duanna Johnson, I am encouraging folks to read If We Have To Take Tomorrow, so that you can get a fuller sense of my position on the same-sex marriage debate. Though my essay in that book is tinged in somewhat of a youthful naivety, most of my positions remain fundamentally unchanged.
Some folks have accused me of being insensitive to those queer people who actually want to get married. That was and is not my fundamental intention. Let me be clear about something. I have long said that I am not necessarily opposed to gay people getting married as much as I am opposed to the gay marriage movement. I should explain that distinction.
Though it may reek of a liberal humanism, I do believe that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want. Nonetheless, I believe in an obliteration of “marriage” as a legal institution. I believe that marriage should remain a religious or symbolic exercise for those that wish to engage in it (sort of like a Bar Mitzvah), but should never form the basis by which critical legal rights are distributed.
I continue to find myself longing for a more sophisticated and democratic queer agenda that would advocate for more widespread redistributions of the legal rights associated with marriage, rather than simply a reinscription of the legitimacy of this troubled institution. The problem with "gay marriage" is that it never critiques or challenges the assumption that "marriage" must be a state-sponsored legal institution rather than simply a religious or symbolic exercise.
Too often marriage allows for an unfair legal path to healthcare, insurance, or citizenship rights that single people (or couples that choose to remain unmarried) do not have equal access to. Most "gay marriage" discourses in no way challenge these fundamental legal inequities. They simply ask to "make more room at the table" rather than attempt to burn the table down.
But I'm getting ahead of myself here. Time does not allow me to get into a more substantive debate about the gay marriage movement. Luckily there are plenty of other, far more knowledgeable, queer scholars who have critically addressed this issue in recent years. I would encourage folks to review the important work of historian Lisa Duggan, among others.
The book has since fallen out of print, but hopefully it will finally be available through amazon.com later this year. You can download a free copy in PDF format by visiting the following websites: AIDS Project Los Angeles or the Black AIDS Institute. Even though if I could do it again I would do a lot of things differently, I think the collection is still worth taking a look at.
In the book I contributed a brief essay entitled “Why I Hate Gay Marriage, or, Notes on Queering Black Gay and Lesbian Politics.” In light of some of the mail that I've been receiving in response my recent post on Duanna Johnson, I am encouraging folks to read If We Have To Take Tomorrow, so that you can get a fuller sense of my position on the same-sex marriage debate. Though my essay in that book is tinged in somewhat of a youthful naivety, most of my positions remain fundamentally unchanged.
Some folks have accused me of being insensitive to those queer people who actually want to get married. That was and is not my fundamental intention. Let me be clear about something. I have long said that I am not necessarily opposed to gay people getting married as much as I am opposed to the gay marriage movement. I should explain that distinction.
Though it may reek of a liberal humanism, I do believe that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want. Nonetheless, I believe in an obliteration of “marriage” as a legal institution. I believe that marriage should remain a religious or symbolic exercise for those that wish to engage in it (sort of like a Bar Mitzvah), but should never form the basis by which critical legal rights are distributed.
I continue to find myself longing for a more sophisticated and democratic queer agenda that would advocate for more widespread redistributions of the legal rights associated with marriage, rather than simply a reinscription of the legitimacy of this troubled institution. The problem with "gay marriage" is that it never critiques or challenges the assumption that "marriage" must be a state-sponsored legal institution rather than simply a religious or symbolic exercise.
Too often marriage allows for an unfair legal path to healthcare, insurance, or citizenship rights that single people (or couples that choose to remain unmarried) do not have equal access to. Most "gay marriage" discourses in no way challenge these fundamental legal inequities. They simply ask to "make more room at the table" rather than attempt to burn the table down.
But I'm getting ahead of myself here. Time does not allow me to get into a more substantive debate about the gay marriage movement. Luckily there are plenty of other, far more knowledgeable, queer scholars who have critically addressed this issue in recent years. I would encourage folks to review the important work of historian Lisa Duggan, among others.
While I live in LA, I came to 8 late. I've never been a fan of marriage. As a sometimes lesbian, and always feminist, I want to struggle against taming norms. It's hard to maintain this critique, while loving and supporting my wedded friends, and fighting bigotry. I appreciate your words towards keeping our sites on many goals. I hope you'll find this helpful in this regard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh5EPPTRVDQ
Posted by
Anonymous |
11/13/2008
Hmmm - I'm thinking I should say something about gay marriage on my blog. I think I will.
Posted by
Darius T. Williams |
11/13/2008
This comment has been removed by the author.
Posted by
Gizmo |
11/13/2008
How you gonna repost your work? LMFAO! The gurls that went off don't really care about your point of view on gay marriage. If they did, rather than ranting, they would have 1) posed a question to get clarification, OR 2) Google the essay.
You're a kiki. But I live. LMFAO!
Giving very, "For you lazy bitches that didn't care enough to search my work WHICH I CITED IN MY RESPONSE TO ELG's COMMENT--HERE, I'LL POST IT AGAIN! BITCH!"
Posted by
Gizmo |
11/13/2008
If we have tomorrow is a great read and should be read by every black gay men
Posted by
Andresflava |
11/19/2008
One should take a look at who are the leaders of this “Gay Marriage” push and why there must be an all or nothing approach. A lot of gay people (and in saying gay I am of the era where it includes lesbian, transgender etc..) don’t want to stand behind a unified position on gay marriage when they don’t have the ability to effect the actual product. That is why I am saying that we should all step back and look at the big picture. In countless movements such as Tlatelolco and Tiananmen Square the push for a cause ended in disaster. And in hind sight those involved realized a total misunderstanding of the opposition’s willingness to defend what it considered sacred.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12/21/2008
My boyfriend and I were disucssing gay marriage today and I ended up talking about your position on the subject.
"Too often marriage allows for an unfair legal path to healthcare, insurance, or citizenship rights that single people (or couples that choose to remain unmarried) do not have equal access to. Unfortunately "Gay Marriage" discourses in no way challenge these fundamental legal inequities. It simply asks to "make more room at the table" rather than attempt to burn the table down."
In vocalizing your opinion and as someone who lives in Canada I wonder if your argument is more relevant to the American context. Having access to universal health care does not make having benefits a vital issue. And as a couple that is unmaried, Canadian law does recognize us as a commone law couple and we do have access to "perks" traditionally only available to married couples.
As I understand it Citizenship rights can be quite complicated in the United States. While I am not fully educated on the subject, I would hazzard that in Canada the process of becoming a citizen is more equitable. If my suspicion is correct then the challenge is not necessarily with rights and marriage, but rather the principles upon which society/government chooses to establish itself.
In the essay you linked to you talked about how people in non-traditional relationships (i.e. brother and sister who live together, House Mother and kids etc)are unable to benefit from rights available to married people. Again, I wonder how important these rights would be if the government provided more for social welfare.
Also, I am curious what would this redistribution of rights look like? (Reason I ask is, your essay is a great read and I borrow your perspective in my own discussions, but then am at a loss when trying to build on it by giving examples of solutions)
Posted by
Anonymous |
2/25/2009
Easily I assent to but I contemplate the brief should prepare more info then it has.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12/26/2009