Lesbian & Gay review re: marriage article John D'Emilio

[Jaroslaw99]

There are many great thinkers on this website - I'm interested in everyone's thoughts. John D'Emilio posited that we are losing ground due to backlash.

A couple more issues - I think the article also mentioned that LGBT activists used to argue against marrriage in the past because it was part of societal oppression of women for the vast majority of its existence.

While this is not to say anyone I have read, even marriage opponents, think that Gay people should be treated anything less than equally before the law, this is an interesting point to ponder. Why should social security, health insurance etc. be tied to being married? If we were truly a just society, this would not be a question.

Actually, the following question usually makes people squirm, it is so obvious and simple and yet few have really thought about it. I am not against millionaires, and certainly recognize in any system, if a person is going to risk their capital for an idea, they should be reasonably rewarded if they succeed.

The Ultimate question? (in my view) Does society exist for business or does society exist for people?

I digress from the article - another thing Mr. D'Emilio ignores and this was not addressed in any posts - yes we have lost many court battles. But every one that I have read about would seem to be flawed, hopefully fatally, because the reasoning behind the decision is heterosexual privilege, not equality. In other words, if the decisions were truly rational, then it follows that single parenthood be outlawed, divorce should be outlawed, adultery should be a criminal offense and persons who are sterile or elderly or otherwise incapable of reproduction should be banned from marriage as well.

[BenL]

A couple more issues - I think the article also mentioned that LGBT activists used to argue against marrriage in the past because it was part of societal oppression of women for the vast majority of its existence.

Here in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal for now, I have heard grumbling from some gay men that people are pressuring them to find someone and get married. The gay world was the one place where it was honorable to be single and not considered eccentric. Now some people are suggesting that being single somehow is defective.

I know a committed couple of 35 years who do not want to get married. They say marriage is aping heterosexuality, and if they weren't good enough to get married when they fell in love, they don't want it now. The relationship is more important for them than the legality. They are astute enough to have made sure all their legal affairs are in order.

I think the problem in the gay male community is promiscuity. It doesn't particularly offend me if people are intentionally polyamorous, as long as all parties to the arrangement agree. I do find promiscuity and anonymous sex in (semi)public places like bathrooms, parks and theaters to be offensive. But those are my mores, and I try not to judge others. It's not my job.

Even in hetero culture, marrriage is not for everyone. But I sure do agree that those who want to marry should be able to so.

By the way, I am married and consider myself blessed to have such a wonderful spouse.

BenL

[Vanessa White]

I would like to read this article- is a link to it on a thread here? If so let me know, otherwise I will do a search. I agree with you BenL, that marriage should be available if gay couples wish to participate. However, I do agree that some are swinging in the extreme direction of being of the belief that we "should" get married when it is legal to do so. Not sure what the thinking is behind that. I want the marriage part, always have wanted it with a woman, or even a civil union for that matter. I want the ceremony of it all, because I know that the legal stuff can be done outside of the realm of marriage if need be. As a matter of fact, my ex and I actually applied for a marriage license in Provincetown two years ago. I was overwhelmed with emotion to have someone congratulate us, a lesbian couple, when I never would have imagined that it was possible. She got cold feet though, and we never followed through. She basically felt like "what is the point?". It is not for everyone. I do see that the institution of marriage has oppressed women in its own right over the years, but I don't think that is as likely in 2006. Women are displaying more confidence and assertiveness in going after what they want even as married women. It seems that way, anyway.

[novaseeker]

The article can be found here (http://glreview.com/13.6-demilio.php).

The quintessential quote, which I almost completely disagree with, is the following:

Had we tried to devise a strategy that took advantage of the force of historical trends, we would, as a movement, have been pushing to further de-center and de-institutionalize marriage.

No, no, and no.

D'Emilio's analysis largely boils down to this: since the last several decades have seen incredible stress on heterosexual marriages, with the result being that many people either have numerous marriages, or relationships outside of marriage, for gay people to be pursuing marital equality is anachronistic. Marriage as an institutiuon, per D'Emilio, is dying under its own weight, and gay people should help put in the dying blow to the institutution by aggressively supporting the creation of alternative structures, and encouraging the replacement of marriage for gay and straight people, by these structures. In other words: gay people should align with heterosexual radicals and help them deconstruct marriage and kill it off, once and for all.

Frankly, in my view D'Emilio is wrong on many levels, but perhaps most glaringly because he substantially overstates his case relating to the "failure" of marriage. Yes, it's true that marriage is under stress, and that many marriages "fail", but nevertheless it remains the key, central institutional model for the overwhelming majority of straight relationships. Straight people opt for marriage overwhelmingly, and when they get divorced they still substantially opt for remarriage in future relationships. The institution is under stress, but it remains the favoured institution for the vast majority of couples. It isn't going away. It isn't on its deathbed. It's very much alive, and very much desired by most straight people.

D'Emilio's review of our failures and successes in legal battles is thoroughly unconvincing. Apart from a really half-hearted side-swipe at precedents like Roe and Brown (which actually *do* demonstrate that sometimes social change has to come from above, contrary to what D'Emiliio writes), one gets the impression that D'Emilio wants to emphasize the failures precisely because he wants to change the subject. He wants to say "Look, we're losing cases, and we're getting bad laws passed, so let's drop the marriage issue, and work with straight radicals to de-emphasize marriage", because the latter is really his agenda. He forgets the great advances that we have made as well in many states, and simply sweeps these successes under the rug, focusing on the setbacks. It's a rather disingenuous form of discourse to say the least.

In my own personal opinion, aligning with the radicals of the straight world is death for the GLBT community, even if it were possible or achievable (it isn't either, because the majority, I think, of GLBT people do not identify with radicals and won't support them). By aligning with radicals, we marginalize ourselves even more than we are already, and in a way that rings completely false ... we are not a community chock full of radicals, and having a radicalized agenda not only misrepresents who we are, it completely undermines the work done by the last few generations of GLBT people to try to change minds simply by being themselves, and living in a mainstream way which comes as naturally to them as it does to someone who is straight.

Perhaps most fundamentally, the pessimism I sense in D'Emilio's article is uncalled for. In my view, we're 2-3 generations away from a vast change of mind about GLBT people. Many people in the younger generation have a much more open-minded view of things, and this change, over time, more than anything else, is what will allow GLBT people to achieve the equality before the law that they deserve as much as everyone else. Aligning with radicals will do nothing to further that along and will do grave damage to the image of all GLBT people, the vast majority of whom do *not* have radical views.

A poor diagnosis of the current situation, and a poor proposal for the future, honestly.

[andrewlittle]

Without so much of a mention of studies or scholarship to back up his opinion, D'Emilio seems to have strong feelings based more on his own self-interest than anything else.

He seems to follow the same logic as other extremes - conservative or not - when he discusses cause and effect:
The battle to win marriage equality through the courts has done something that no other campaign or issue in our movement has done: it has created a vast body of new antigay law.

This mirrors a similar war of ideology that exists in feminist circles. The argument is, from some, that equality is now closer than ever, so the feminazis should not keep pushing for true equality. Translated, "some of us are now better off - bugger the rest, we're happy."

His thoughts seem to take a "tail wagging the dog approach" when he asserts that continued efforts to realize equal rights for LGBT folks has started to erode those comforts already acquired. He doesn't seem to realize that strong anti-LGBT movements came about because of an increase in social conservatism. This preceded the main push for marriage equality, which occurred because of increased public denigration and oppression. It seems he was comfortable where it was, and that should be all that is important.

For one thing, the federal courts and many state courts have grown steadily more conservative for a generation. Did any one really believe that the courts in this era would lead the way on marriage equality? Then, too, our ever more right-of-center Supreme Court, to which this issue must finally come, has not generally led in struggles for social justice.

Exactly. He seems to contradict his earlier statement here. The pattern of courts becoming more conservative began before the big push for marriage equality. This began in the late 70's and is has provided the continuing momentum for more anti-LGBT laws. If anything, "marriage equality" has been the LGBT community backlash against this pattern, not visa-versa.

But putting aside the tactical stupidity of the marriage activist, if there’s a single overarching reason why their determined focus on same-sex marriage has disturbed me, it is this: in the deepest, most profound sense, the campaign for marriage equality runs against history.

The biggest problem with activism is the backlash that occurs within the population it seeks to liberate. Women are some of the most critical of the feminist movement, despite having made gains on the backs of activists. The same has been true in the past with race relations, and is currently seem in the immigration debate. Some immigrants don't want activism because it makes them more visible - their own comfort is threatened. This, I believe, translates to, "I've got mine. Shut up so what I have is not threatened."

It is self-interest that D'Emilio is exhibiting here, and the result is he is providing the very backlash that he accuses activists of causing.

He also begins a very questionable forey into history where he states there is a relationship between capitalism and the dismantling of traditional values like marriage.
These changes are not aberrational, not temporary, and not reversible. Neither a decline in morality nor the cultural turbulence of the 1960’s explains them. They were not caused by a media culture that exploits sex. Instead, these changes are joined at the hip with the revolutionary growth in economic productivity and technological innovation to which capitalism has given rise and that now have their own momentum. These new “lifestyles” (a word woefully inadequate for grasping the deep structural foundations that sustain these changes) have appeared wherever capitalism has long historical roots. The decline in reproductive rates and the de-centering of marriage follow the spread of capitalism as surely as night follows day. They surface even in the face of religious traditions and national histories that have emphasized marriage, high fertility, and strong kinship ties.

What cultures is he pointing to as evidence of this pattern? The European countries in which this has occurred have naver been as capitalistic as the U.S. and, in fact, moved towards socialized central services long before this social pattern became evident. There is no historical evidence to support this assertion. Capitalism, to the extent we see in our own culture, tends towards more social conservatism - not less. This is not a historical pattern, since no history of capitalism run amuk exists before the present day, but one easily observed in U.S. culture.

I rather think his logic is more hysterical than historical.

Lastly, his assertion that LGBT folks should "return" to dismantling the institution of marriage is, I think, totally misguided. The argument from social conservatives has been that the LGBT movement threatens "traditional values" even while LGBT's seek to garner the benefits of traditional family legitimacy themselves. If a strong effort to de-structure marriage were to occur, then the backlash from the majority of hetero's would likely be enormous.