Thanks!

Sometimes I wish we still hear those lesbian separatist voices (the people are still around, but their voices have been muffled by the din of normalcy raised by the contemporary gay movement). I agree, as you know, about dumping marriage altogether.

And kudos to your mom! I’m always amazed by the sheer callousness of people who go on about “fatherless” homes and completely ignore the achievements of women like her. Attending every band practice and such is overrated, in my opinion, and is part of the discourse that dictates that one parent, the mother, natch, should always be around to wipe bums and snotty noses while the other, the father, of course, “brings home the bacon.”

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

As for single moms, I think my mom did a great job of raising us herself. She busted her ass to make sure there was food on the table and the mortgage got paid. She wasn’t always around for band concerts and the like, but it’s hard to show up for extracurriculars when you work 18 hours shifts at the hospital. I think all single moms deserve a big round of applause, and not because they’re fulfilling their biological determining roles as caregivers, but because they are bucking a system that tells them that they need to chain themselves as a man in order to be fulfilled.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Now, I know from my experience on Bilerico and Queercents that you and others like you will retort with something like, “Oh, yeah, well, show me the proof!” That, of course, is a classic liberal/conservative strategy of distraction. So, in anticipation of what I know some will be writing, let me just cut and paste my earlier response to such queries:

“The other issue that has come up here has to do with the whole “show me proof/solutions[/your qualifications] before you dare to disagree with me.” As the estimable Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore has said in her blog, and I’m going to paraphrase quite clumsily here, asking for alternatives when confronted with a challenge to one’s belief in a system is a classic liberal strategy. This kind of demand allows you to evade the responsibility of defending your position by putting the onus on the questioner to provide facts/alternatives. But the questioners here are the ones still raising unanswered questions.”

I also suggest you look at the discourse around homophobia towards queer/queer-defined youth for starters, if you want more evidence that gay marriage is considered a panacea. I’ve even known friends and colleagues who posted the story of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover’s suicide from anti-gay harassment because they saw it as proof that gay marriage, which, according to them was necessary to combat such bigotry, was sorely needed. Again, I don’t need to depend on anecdotal evidence alone – there’s plenty of such material out there, of which you’re no doubt aware.

Of course the state is involved in most parts of our lives. But here are some key differences: the state owes us utilities and fair taxes. It has no business regulating what kinds of essential benefits should come to us just because we enter into one kind of marital relationship. GM (gay marriage) is constructed in such a way that we’re losing the ability to choose different forms of relationships and are compelled to opt into marriage to gain the most basic benefits.

Your own words contradict what you think you’re saying and prove my point: “What it does give is social legitimacy to a committed monogamous relationship” – who needs that and why? Why is a “committed monogamous relationship” worthy of so much validation? And then, “besides a marriage being far more beneficial from a financial standpoint.” Um, exactly. Why should marriage be the way to gain health care or other essential benefits?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

In the past few centuries, it has been religious and/or governmental institutions who consecrate marriages in social and legal terms, respectively. While this may be a “mechanism of the state”, so are your utilities, taxes, and every other blinking moment of your life unless you live in a desert somewhere. I fail to see how a state-recognized civil union is any less a “mechanism of the state” than a marriage, besides a marriage being far more beneficial from a financial standpoint.

I mean, if you are an queer anarchist and think that marriage is a big play to the establishment, by all means just say that up front. It would be a lot simpler for people to understand the meat of your argument. Of course, it’s a lot easier to argue with such a statement than one including every buzzword and push-button issue besides abortion.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)