Opinions

[The_Lady_Snow]

Posted at 10:59 AM ET, 05/10/2012
No celebration for this lesbian
By Lauren Taylor







I’m a progressive, out lesbian, but I’m not doing a happy dance aboutPresident Obama’s support for gay marriage.

Here’s the thing: I don’t think we (the country, the society) should be giving rights, privileges and protections to anyone — gay, straight, bisexual or other — based on their sexual or romantic relationships. I think most of the rights and privileges gay men and lesbians are seeking by pursuing marriage rights should be granted to human beings because they are human beings, whether or not they find one person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

A few examples:

● Everyone should be able to designate who they want to be able to visit them in the hospital. Everyone should be able to take leave to care for a sick loved one.

● Everyone should have access to health insurance. If you’re self-employed, unemployed or work for a place that doesn’t provide health insurance, you shouldn’t need to have a romantic partner who has a job that provides health benefits to get coverage.

● If a couple with a child splits, married or not, all parents should be eligible for visitation and responsible for child support.

● Everyone who pays into Social Security should be able to list who is financially dependent on them and who should get benefits when they die. Our current system shortchanges any dependent who isn’t married to a wage earner.

What about single people? Are they less deserving of the legal protections couples get? Why should rights, privileges and protections be based on anyone’s ability to find “Mr. /Ms. Right” and maintain a sexual/romantic relationship? Do other kinds of relationships (like parent-child, or adult siblings, or single best friends who live together and rely on each other financially and emotionally) not deserve protection?

I don’t think we have to aspire to some narrow ideal of family/couplehood to deserve rights. We deserve rights because we’re human beings, not because we’re achieving some level of similarity to the heterosexual ideal.

So you might be surprised to hear that I also love the idea of marriage. I love the idea of commitment, of getting community and family support for a relationship, and of the accountability to that community and family. I think anyone who wants to should have a ceremony and make a commitment and throw a big party. But that shouldn’t affect whether they then get health insurance, or get to take time off to take a sick person to the doctor, or are able to sign a permission form for a field trip.

I’m not fighting for access to marriage, and I wish that wasn’t where the gay rights movement was putting most of its effort and resources. (Violence, housing, employment, education, anyone?) But (with apologies to Groucho Marx), if someone is trying to keep me out of this club, I want in. How dare anyone say that I don’t deserve access to marriage and all it brings? How dare they say I, and my relationships, aren’t good enough?

I’d just prefer that LGBTQ people be recognized and accepted for being human beings, period. And that all human beings, regardless of relationship status, are assured their rights. That’s why I’m not celebrating the president’s “evolution.”

[Soon]

Her wish to be recognized as a human being is great; however, there are thousands of LEGAL rights (that one cannot get w/personal contracts etc.)--that are enshrined at both the state and federal level--that are denied based on the inability to marry one's chosen partner.


They are not going to remove those legal and civil protections/rights for opposite sex couples, so marriage equality for all couples is the only answer.

[Luv]

lets just hope that B.O. is sincere ,and not just looking for votes with the election so near. I dont trust any politician..like I always say..time tell's all truth's

[aishah]

i agree wholeheartedly. i'm frustrated for a lot of reasons.

* obama's statement doesn't actually mean anything concrete for queer folks. it's just a statement.
* the only reason he came out and said this now is because it's an election year.
* he's still allowing a civil rights issue to be treated as a states' rights issue, and as we saw in the civil rights movement, that does not work.
* so much of the money and work in our community goes towards this single issue, while we are experiencing violence, bullying, unemployment, incarceration, police brutality, etc. etc. etc.
* the people who will benefit most from passing gay marriage ( for example, upper-class white gays and lesbians who are seeking to be accepted as part of a heteronormative society) are not the most vulnerable people in our community who need our protection (for example, homeless youth, incarcerated trans* women of color, queer sex workers, etc.). and the people who DO need obama to speak out for them will never matter to him - or to any political candidate - because we will never be "normative" enough to be assimilated into mainstream heteronormative society. we can't donate enough money to win them a campaign with the gay voting bloc. we don't make for good poster children.

i love the idea of marriage, too, but i agree with the author that it's frustrating that we've put so much emphasis on gay marriage to the exclusion of getting rights for everyone that should not have to be distributed according to what the church and the state think of our relationships and families and how those institutions define us. and to the exclusion of caring about the other issues, many of them life or death, that are deeply affecting folks in our community.

edited to add: and allowing same-sex couples to marry does not equate to marriage equality for all people. it just equates to marriage equality for most monogamous heterosexual and homosexual people.

[Kobi]

Author raises some interesting points, even tho she seems all over the place.

"Rights" have never been simple things in the USA. Many groups have had to fight for them - native people, POC, women, immigrants etc. Difficult battles all challenging the status quo. Even when you "win" the battles, the wars never seem to end. Take the current GOP war on women as an example. Shouldnt have to be fighting that history all over again but we are.

Societies are weird human creations. Would be nice if all peoples (persons) were celebrated for merely being a people (person) and equal rights afforded to all on this basis. But, it doesnt work this way for a multitude of reasons.

Hopefully, we are evolving into something better. Process is kind of sucky tho because it depends on politicians whose motives are seldom pure and clear cut.

[Ebon]

lets just hope that B.O. is sincere ,and not just looking for votes with the election so near. I dont trust any politician..like I always say..time tell's all truth's

He's looking for votes. He's had 3 and a half years to say what he said.

[Luv]

well he was under pressure after Biden said something,,took him 3 1/2 yrs too

[EnderD_503]

I’m not fighting for access to marriage, and I wish that wasn’t where the gay rights movement was putting most of its effort and resources. (Violence, housing, employment, education, anyone?) But (with apologies to Groucho Marx), if someone is trying to keep me out of this club, I want in. How dare anyone say that I don’t deserve access to marriage and all it brings? How dare they say I, and my relationships, aren’t good enough?

I’d just prefer that LGBTQ people be recognized and accepted for being human beings, period. And that all human beings, regardless of relationship status, are assured their rights. That’s why I’m not celebrating the president’s “evolution.”

I agree mostly with the author. I don't think the drive for marriage equality in the US is particularly healthy or productive as far as gaining equality for all queer people and the diversity of struggles we continue to face globally. In Canada and other nations around the world, same-sex marriage has been legal for some years now. The consequence is that all those who were all "ra-ra gay rights" when marriage equality was by and large the only issue anyone put on the table, all went away once marriage equality had been achieved. These are mostly white, able-bodied, normative well off gays and lesbians who fit/want the picket fence ideal. And so discrimination and violence against queer people of colour, working class or homeless queer people, queer people with disabilities etc. get completely ignored. The movement really has learned very little from the mistakes of second wave feminism and its white middle class-centrism.

So in the context of the US president's support for gay marriage...I think it's a non-issue. If he supports equality for all American citizens, then it should have been assumed that he supports gay marriage. But at the same time, I wouldn't say its out of the blue either. Even before he was elected he had expressed support for same-sex marriage, and throughout his time as the American president he's repealed DADT...so I don't think he's necessarily changing his opinions for election purposes. He seems to be expressing something he's always been fairly open about. So as I said above...seems like a non-issue only made an issue by normative gays who have a very simple perspective of what queer rights mean and who it encompasses, and by religious fundies who freak out and cry Armageddon every time a politician speaks out against homophobia, anti-woman attitudes or racism.

[Apocalipstic]

I am glad President Obama said it before the election. I think it will hurt him with religious POC voters in the South especially, so it means more to me that he said it before the election.

Should more be happening for our people? yes!!!

But I never imagined that a sitting President would actually say that during my lifetime!

Cheers President Obama and thank you!

[Quintease]

I hate these people as guess what, WE DON'T LIVE IN THAT WORLD THAT YOU WANT!

I really think gay people stamping their feet and insisting that gays don't need marriage are hurting the cause, sorry but I do. It's very carriage-before-the-horse.

Yes it would be ideal to live in that world where gender and wedded bliss don't matter, but until we get there can we focus on something that the mainstream world/ Governments/ Religions/ Allies will understand? Can we just have a chance to be equal to everyone else first, before we start trying to change the society we live in. Surely equality is more important than fantasy right now?
People are dying out there, families are being split up , lovers are losing the right to see their loved ones, but these tossers have so much privilege that they can't be bothered to care about any of that? Fcuk them.

[Quintease]

Things that happen when gays are denied marriage

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57432285/lesbian-seeking-marriage-license-arrested-in-nc/
https://www.facebook.com/chirp01

[CherylNYC]

My late partner's family told me I was their family. That is, I was their family right up until the accident in 2003 that took her life. Sharon's family, led by her mother, (the Matriarch of the clan), turned on me so quickly that my head spun. If you've never had to deal with the family of your suddenly dead partner, (not a legal spouse), you should consider yourself lucky.

While their instant hostility, attempts to shut me out of the funeral, as well as their efforts to erase me from Sharon's history were a series of devestating betrayals, the whole mess was also an extremely edifying experience. I asked Sharon's mother point blank why she was doing this. She didn't answer me directly, but she did turn to the rest of the assembled family and said, "Well, they weren't really married. Not really... Well, they weren't!!"

Oh.

Fast forward to 2008 when I had to plan the funeral of my next girlfriend. Caren's family had never valued or respected her. They didn't choose to pay for any of the expenses related to her death, but they were happy to hear about her forgotten insurance policy. No, they didn't offer to pay for any of Caren's expenses out of the policy to which I was not entitled.

Marraige equality would do more in one single pen stroke to combat poverty amongst gay seniors, (surviving partners are currently denied social security benefits of the deceased), gain immigration equality for bi-national couples, secure the rights of children in adoptive and foster care situations, and to reduce violence against lgbt youth as well as adults, than a 100% increase in funding for all the peace and social justice programs put together. And it would do it instantly.

Marraige has meant many things to many cultures over the years, but there is no culture for which recognition of same hasn't been the basis of a great deal of social structure. There's a certain amount of cultural myopia and an annoying level of privilege at play when anyone suggests that this particular battle isn't really important.

[~ocean]

(((( cheryl ))))))) grl i'm soo sooo sry ..

[Hollylane]

My late partner's family told me I was their family. That is, I was their family right up until the accident in 2003 that took her life. Sharon's family, led by her mother, (the Matriarch of the clan), turned on me so quickly that my head spun. If you've never had to deal with the family of your suddenly dead partner, (not a legal spouse), you should consider yourself lucky.

While their instant hostility, attempts to shut me out of the funeral, as well as their efforts to erase me from Sharon's history were a series of devestating betrayals, the whole mess was also an extremely edifying experience. I asked Sharon's mother point blank why she was doing this. She didn't answer me directly, but she did turn to the rest of the assembled family and said, "Well, they weren't really married. Not really... Well, they weren't!!"

Oh.

Fast forward to 2008 when I had to plan the funeral of my next girlfriend. Caren's family had never valued or respected her. They didn't choose to pay for any of the expenses related to her death, but they were happy to hear about her forgotten insurance policy. No, they didn't offer to pay for any of Caren's expenses out of the policy to which I was not entitled.

Marraige equality would do more in one single pen stroke to combat poverty amongst gay seniors, (surviving partners are currently denied social security benefits of the deceased), gain immigration equality for bi-national couples, secure the rights of children in adoptive and foster care situations, and to reduce violence against lgbt youth as well as adults, than a 100% increase in funding for all the peace and social justice programs put together. And it would do it instantly.

Marraige has meant many things to many cultures over the years, but there is no culture for which recognition of same hasn't been the basis of a great deal of social structure. There's a certain amount of cultural myopia and an annoying level of privilege at play when anyone suggests that this particular battle isn't really important.

Your stories are exactly why this issue is so damn important. I am so sorry that you were put through these experiences. Thank you for sharing Cheryl.

[BullDog]

Cheers to President Obama. I don't think there is any clear cut political advantage, and it could in fact hurt him.

I am on the Democratic Party's email list and I got an email from President Obama where he not only says he supports same sex marriage but talks about having friends, members of staff and his daughters having friends who have same sex parents. He sounds like a real person who has same sex parents as part of his and his children's lives. That means a lot to me.

I don't think this is political spin and I don't think I am being naive about it. He placed his support in context of people he has around him. Yeah it would have been nice to have had this happen earlier but people do evolve and change. He may have had to get up the guts to take the political risk but the fact that he did it is huge.

It would be great to be treated as a human. We have to fight for equal rights to be treated as such.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Your last sentence strikes a chord in me Bulldog, all I want are my civil rights, the same rights that heterinormative couples get when coupled. I may never marry Grant but that doesn't mean my commitment is less valid or that I shouldn't be able to claim him on my taxes.


I'm happy that Obama did what he did because it's a good example for his daughters I bet they are very proud of him.:)

[Strappie]

I praise The President....

He stood up to let people know that he supports when no other President has ever done so. (The times are a changing)

He said himself that this will more than likely HURT his campaign NOT help it.

Ask yourself this... Name 10 people that did not vote for him last time that will Vote for him because he "supports" I highly doubt you can come up with 1 let alone 10.

Now ask yourself ... Who had his vote but now lost it. The names keep coming.

He did the "RIGHT" thing. I commend him for standing up for something he believes in! Sad thing is he may lose the election for this very thing.

[aishah]

I hate these people as guess what, WE DON'T LIVE IN THAT WORLD THAT YOU WANT!

I really think gay people stamping their feet and insisting that gays don't need marriage are hurting the cause, sorry but I do. It's very carriage-before-the-horse.

Yes it would be ideal to live in that world where gender and wedded bliss don't matter, but until we get there can we focus on something that the mainstream world/ Governments/ Religions/ Allies will understand? Can we just have a chance to be equal to everyone else first, before we start trying to change the society we live in. Surely equality is more important than fantasy right now?
People are dying out there, families are being split up , lovers are losing the right to see their loved ones, but these tossers have so much privilege that they can't be bothered to care about any of that? Fcuk them.

it's not that i don't think that gay marriage IS an issue, it's just that i don't think it should be the ONLY issue. maybe that makes me a privileged tosser.

i've been treated horribly and screwed over when my parents died, which scares the shit out of me when it comes to anything happening to myself or my partner, and it would make both of our lives a lot easier (with health insurance, for starters) if we could get married. it would make me feel safer in the event that something happens to us, given that neither of us are close to our families.

but at the same time...the people i am closest to in my community are dealing with issues like violence, police brutality, being unable to work or go to the bathroom, and homelessness, and i can't ignore the fact that those things have had a bigger and more immediate impact on our lives than whether we are allowed to marry. yet those issues will never get the kind of support that gay marriage does. i respect that those may not be the biggest or most immediate issues for everyone in the lgbtq community, but they are immediate and life-threatening issues for some of us.

and regardless of how anyone feels about gay marriage, obama's statement is a nice gesture but it doesn't have any concrete meaning.

[aishah]

also...we live in a society that is fundamentally unequal.

i respect that gay marriage will help a lot of people in the immediate future, but it does not mean that all people will have marriage equality, and it won't make our fundamentally unequal society that much less unequal. it will make a lot of people's lives easier in the interim, so yeah, i'd be really happy if it were equally applied throughout the u.s. (i.e. not treated as a "separate but unequal" states' rights issue). but imho it should not be treated as the only issue or the endgame if we are really talking about wanting equality.

i am troubled because i frequently am in a position of educating straight people about lgbtq issues, and many of them are completely unaware of other immediate and life-threatening issues besides gay marriage (and maybe bullying of queer youth). i'm worried about the perception in some circles that if gay marriage is passed, we'll be living in a "post-homophobic" society. and i'm worried about how many people we're leaving behind.

[Quintease]

also...we live in a society that is fundamentally unequal.

i respect that gay marriage will help a lot of people in the immediate future, but it does not mean that all people will have marriage equality, and it won't make our fundamentally unequal society that much less unequal. it will make a lot of people's lives easier in the interim, so yeah, i'd be really happy if it were equally applied throughout the u.s. (i.e. not treated as a "separate but unequal" states' rights issue). but imho it should not be treated as the only issue or the endgame if we are really talking about wanting equality.

i am troubled because i frequently am in a position of educating straight people about lgbtq issues, and many of them are completely unaware of other immediate and life-threatening issues besides gay marriage (and maybe bullying of queer youth). i'm worried about the perception in some circles that if gay marriage is passed, we'll be living in a "post-homophobic" society. and i'm worried about how many people we're leaving behind.

I don't see how denying gays equal rights to straights is helping the equality cause?

Surely we want to make being gay as legally safe and as normalised as possible so gays won't be discriminated against simply for being gay (or trans)?

[aishah]

I don't see how denying gays equal rights to straights is helping the equality cause?

Surely we want to make being gay as legally safe and as normalised as possible so gays won't be discriminated against simply for being gay (or trans)?

i don't see how it's helping the equality cause either, lol :) that's why i said i'd be very happy for gay marriage to be passed. but i'm not under any illusions that that will make everyone equal.

the problem with being "normalized" is that many of us will never be able to conform to the standards of normalization according to mainstream society. some of us might be able to gain a little bit of acceptance and that's really great. but it's conditional and it can be taken away as easily as it can be given.

i'd love to live in a society where people aren't discriminated against for being gay and trans*, but passing gay marriage laws won't make that happen. it will help some lgbtq folks who want to get married, but as long as we live in a society that holds up a certain idea of normalcy and only confers a little bit of acceptance on those who conform to it, we're going to be second class citizens. the history of every minority in this country bears that out.

that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek for policy changes. policy changes can help a lot of people. but people are confusing changing laws with equality, with actually gaining widespread acceptance and ending discrimination, which are not the same thing. no matter how many laws we change, many of us are still going to face discrimination, hatred, abuse, and violence for decades if not longer. because we still live in a society that privileges the "normal" and many of us will never be "normal," no matter how hard we try. and what little bit of protection we ARE able to get can be taken away from us or denied anytime.

[aishah]

and i'm not saying that because of some place of privilege, i'm saying that because i and people i love belong to groups who will still experience discrimination no matter how many laws are passed. and the rhetoric around gay marriage has created the idea of "good queers" who conform with mainstream heteronormative society and "bad queers" who don't, and honestly, policy changes tend to mainly benefit "good queers" and leave the rest of us behind.

that's why personally, while i'll vote and encourage others to vote for laws, i prefer to put my time into other kinds of activism because those laws really aren't doing much to protect me or folks i love right now.

[julieisafemme]

I totally agree with you Aishah. Marriage equality does not include transpeople either. Not every state allows it. Not every state will let you even change your birth certificate. Even if a state will allow it, the marriage can be challenged. Until it is clear that all human beings have the right to marry each other same sex marriage is not going to cure everything. All human beings should have autonomy over their own bodies., the right to marry whom they choose and the right to procreate or adopt in any way they see fit.

[EnderD_503]

I don't see how denying gays equal rights to straights is helping the equality cause?

Surely we want to make being gay as legally safe and as normalised as possible so gays won't be discriminated against simply for being gay (or trans)?

I hate these people as guess what, WE DON'T LIVE IN THAT WORLD THAT YOU WANT!

I really think gay people stamping their feet and insisting that gays don't need marriage are hurting the cause, sorry but I do. It's very carriage-before-the-horse.

Yes it would be ideal to live in that world where gender and wedded bliss don't matter, but until we get there can we focus on something that the mainstream world/ Governments/ Religions/ Allies will understand? Can we just have a chance to be equal to everyone else first, before we start trying to change the society we live in. Surely equality is more important than fantasy right now?
People are dying out there, families are being split up , lovers are losing the right to see their loved ones, but these tossers have so much privilege that they can't be bothered to care about any of that? Fcuk them.


The bolded statement you've written is precisely why many of us do not see same sex marriage as the most important issue that should be at the forefront of queer/trans rights. Over and over again I've spoken as person who currently lives in a country where same sex marriage has been legal for years. Here in Canada "the policy" is there...what does it mean? Little to nothing for anyone who isn't a white middle class or upper class able-bodied cis sexed and wanna be normative gay. You want equality? Marriage rights isn't the most important drive towards equality. There are thousands of queer and trans people who are denied refugee status from nations where they truly are under threat of death or physical violence. Just as many or more who are imprisoned for being trans or queer, who are assaulted at the hands of governing bodies. Just as many who are homeless or live in subsidised housing, who are denied employment. Marriage for these people...it doesn't mean shit as far as being seen as human beings in the eyes of the government or society. Just like in Canada, same sex marriage will be passed in the US...and the white middle and upper classes will rejoice and forget about all other struggles...just like in Canada. Just like with the second wave feminist movement, those with the least social privilege will again be left behind, while the most privileged normative gays will be left to their white picket fence dreams.

That isn't the queer/trans community that is my community or the community I will fight for. I'm not going to sit here and fight for a time where only married couples are able to be united through immigration, or who can visit each other in the hospital or have benefits. You want to fight for the normative normalised dream, go ahead. But don't be surprised when there are so many of us who don't want that and who recognise that as much as certain classes of people will get the benefits, we aren't going to ignore the shit that continues to exist in marginalised communities.

[blush]

it's not that i don't think that gay marriage IS an issue, it's just that i don't think it should be the ONLY issue. maybe that makes me a privileged tosser.

i've been treated horribly and screwed over when my parents died, which scares the shit out of me when it comes to anything happening to myself or my partner, and it would make both of our lives a lot easier (with health insurance, for starters) if we could get married. it would make me feel safer in the event that something happens to us, given that neither of us are close to our families.

but at the same time...the people i am closest to in my community are dealing with issues like violence, police brutality, being unable to work or go to the bathroom, and homelessness, and i can't ignore the fact that those things have had a bigger and more immediate impact on our lives than whether we are allowed to marry. yet those issues will never get the kind of support that gay marriage does. i respect that those may not be the biggest or most immediate issues for everyone in the lgbtq community, but they are immediate and life-threatening issues for some of us.

and regardless of how anyone feels about gay marriage, obama's statement is a nice gesture but it doesn't have any concrete meaning.
There are always "more urgent issues" to fight for. A 5 minute speech stating his stance on a controversial civil rights issue takes nothing away from other issues. He's the fucking president. I hope he can multitask.

[aishah]

There are always "more urgent issues" to fight for. A 5 minute speech stating his stance on a controversial civil rights issue takes nothing away from other issues. He's the fucking president. I hope he can multitask.

my comments were on the attention given to the gay marriage issue as a whole, not just the president's speech, because i was addressing other issues brought up in the article snow posted. these were my comments specifically about the president's speech, in case you missed them:

* obama's statement doesn't actually mean anything concrete for queer folks. it's just a statement.
* the only reason he came out and said this now is because it's an election year.
* he's still allowing a civil rights issue to be treated as a states' rights issue, and as we saw in the civil rights movement, that does not work.

and regardless of how anyone feels about gay marriage, obama's statement is a nice gesture but it doesn't have any concrete meaning.

if i'm wrong, i wish someone would explain to me how this statement actually makes any meaningful difference in terms of getting gay marriage laws passed. obama still doesn't believe it's a federal issue; he still believes it's a states' rights issue. as we've seen in the civil rights movement, that basically means fuck all for equality. i'm touched that he gives a damn but...his 5 minute statement doesn't make much concrete difference in the current state of gay marriage in this country.

it's sweet but people are seriously acting like he passed gay marriage for everybody himself, based on the responses to it. he didn't actually DO anything. and my point was not that he can't multitask, it's that this is the ONLY relevant issue he's voiced ANY opinion on. fuck cece mcdonald being in jail. fuck trans women of color being murdered. obama will never speak about that because gay marriage is the only relevant political issue for him.

[CherylNYC]

my comments were on the attention given to the gay marriage issue as a whole, not just the president's speech, because i was addressing other issues brought up in the article snow posted. these were my comments specifically about the president's speech, in case you missed them:



if i'm wrong, i wish someone would explain to me how this statement actually makes any meaningful difference in terms of getting gay marriage laws passed. obama still doesn't believe it's a federal issue; he still believes it's a states' rights issue. as we've seen in the civil rights movement, that basically means fuck all for equality. i'm touched that he gives a damn but...his 5 minute statement doesn't make much concrete difference in the current state of gay marriage in this country.

it's sweet but people are seriously acting like he passed gay marriage for everybody himself, based on the responses to it. he didn't actually DO anything. and my point was not that he can't multitask, it's that this is the ONLY relevant issue he's voiced ANY opinion on. fuck cece mcdonald being in jail. fuck trans women of color being murdered. obama will never speak about that because gay marriage is the only relevant political issue for him.

Deep breath. I'm guessing you're much, much younger than I am, and that you have no memories of just how oppressively anti-gay the entire U.S. was just 30 years ago. I'm guessing that you weren't even born yet, so how would you know what it felt like to live in a world where young lesbian and gay people killed themselves, or were killed, with depressing regularity and impunity? When a gay person was sexually assaulted and/or killed, it didn't even make the news. Ever. It happened FAR, far more often than it happens now, but there were no news personalities publicly lamenting the end of a promising young life due to bullying, because NO ONE believed that a gay man or lesbian could have a promising life. No one wore special purple clothes in solidarity, and NO ONE ever even admitted publicly that the reason why a kid might have killed themselves was because they were, (gasp), homosexual. That was because most people, including and especially the families of lgbt kids and adults, were relieved to have lost the shame of having someone who was 'like that' in their families. There were a few unpleasant whispers, and then everyone went about their business. If we were ever portrayed in any movie we were venal, sinister stereotypes. Lesbians in particular either turned to men, or they committed suicide. Every fucking time. There were NO lgbt people on TV. EVER. No one even said the word 'lesbian'. It sounded... dirty.

I remember the huge leap forward when it was no longer an invitation to be fined, boycotted, and/or censored to say the word, and news orgs actually agreed to report that a person was a h-h-homosexual. Except it wasn't much of a leap because a person who came out of the closet was either an 'admitted homosexual', or an 'avowed homosexual'. I remember when the owner of the New York Times declared that the paper of record would NEVER replace 'homosexual' with 'gay or lesbian'. My cousin and his partner have miraculously been together for nearly 40 years. For the first DECADE AND A HALF of their relationship, Bill had to invent an imaginary female partner so that he didn't lose his job. For the first decade of their relationship they both could have been institutionalised had a malicious person said something to the wrong authority. And that was in New York fucking City. It was far, far worse in the rest of the country.

I'm not talking about ancient history. I'm talking about the 19 freaking 80s. Perhaps that seems like ancient history to you, but it's pretty flipping recent to those of us who lived through that shit. I'm about to turn 50, and my friends who are a decade older tell stories that turn my lesbian blood to ice. If you had said 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, that I might see marraige equality in my lifetime I would have hurt myself laughing.

Why am I ranting now? Because the President of the United fucking States just said out loud that he supports marraige equality. Perhaps the office of President isn't very impressive to you, either. Perhaps you haven't noticed that we in the U.S. have ALL the money and ALL the power. For better or worse, we're the 2000 pound gorrilla in the room full of puny little lemurs. Like it or not, the President of the US has at least twice as much real power, (financial, military, diplomatic), than the leaders of all the countries in the E.U., plus all the countries in the Middle East put together. And then some. That person just made a monumental statement about those of us who lived through institutional shit so bad that many still can't talk about it. That statement says, "You are equal, and your relationships are equal". That carries a huge emotional weight as well as real political weight.

In case you never studied civics, the President of the U.S. is in charge of a lot more than just signing bills into law. Among other things, she or he can push legislation through Congress, and can signal Congress about the bills she or he won't sign. That means real power over real legislation. In other words, Obama's word carries more real weight than the word of any other person on earth right now.

Am I pissed off? Obviously. That's partly because the myopia of saying that marraige equality is an issue that only affects middle class and wealthy people is infuriating. How many elder lesbians have to live in extreme poverty before anyone notices that they're poor because they're not entitiled to their late partner's Social Security benefits? WTF? And, by the way, is there something wrong with benefitting middle class people? Are we not supposed to care about the welfare of middle class people as well as people of all other income levels?

I'm going to take another deep breath and stop ranting now, because I feel tempted to say something rude. I will say, if you can't figure out why this was an historic moment, perhaps you should read more history.

[julieisafemme]

Wow Cheryl. I do understand your feelings. I am 46 and I don't consider myself very young. I am aware of history. I am aware of the many times in my own life when I thought I could not go on because of how I thought about my sexual identity. I am aware of all of things i gave up when I came out 4 years ago.

I agree with Aishah. As Ender has mentioned about what has happened in Canada, marriage equality in the US is not going to bring ALL queers forward. There is nothing stupid or ignorant of history in pointing that out. My partner is a Transman. Here in California he can change his birth certificate and marry legally. Some states, while not expressly prohibiting transpeople marrying, rely on court decisions to nullify marriages. Just take a look at Nicki Arraguz and her "legal" marriage that was challenged and nullified in Texas.

Lastly please don't think that marriage gives people inviolable rights in medical or financial decisions. I work in financial services and I can tell you many stories about heterosexual married couples who did not plan properly and families came in and changed things after a spouse died. It happens. Certainly not in the degree that it hapens in gay couples but it does happen.

What is wrong with wanting the president to say that all human beings, regardless of sexual orientation or sex or gender identity have the right to marry? I am not discounting his statement in any way. I am thrilled tha same sex marriage will be legalized. I won't though sit here and woo hoo aren't we all taken care of now. Does not mean I am negative, young, ignorant of history.

[~ocean]

^ 5 cheryl .. very WELL said ~~

[Quintease]

I'm only 37 and I remember (I was in a different country but we had similar laws) not allowing my gf a motorbike because if she died, I knew her family would lock me out of the hospital room and the funeral. They hated the fact she was gay.

I had friends who got kicked out of rented premises for being gay and others lost their job. I currently know people who are fighting American immigration. In my own country gay marriage is still not allowed and until recently, transpeople had to be 'biologically infertile' in order to change their birth certificate.

People can turn this into a class issue all they want, but it's not. Gay people are second class regardless of class and we need to change that. This means that gay people of all classes and privilege are getting involved. I know closeted lawyers who are sticking their neck out to fight for LGBT asylum seekers. Being privileged does not necessarily mean you don't care, if fact it can mean you can achieve more. Just like Obama has done in the hearts and minds of the American people. He told the people who voted him in that he feels that gay marriage is OK. These people may even listen to Obama, they wanted him to rule the country after all.

[aishah]

i feel like my words are being twisted here. it was a mistake to post in this thread in the first place; this is why i've stayed out of almost all of the marriage threads period. i thought that since it was relevant to the article, maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea to post in here, and i was wrong. being called a privileged tosser who's completely ignorant of history and is setting the movement back has made me feel like shit, so thanks for that.

i understand, cheryl, that it carries emotional weight. what i am saying is that it doesn't seem to carry all that much legal or even political weight. we're still in the same spot we were before he said it - except now my facebook feed is blowing up because people think he's the second coming.

and yes, quintease, we all help out however we can - however, since the mainstream lgbtq rights movement in the united states has turned itself into almost a single-issue movement (gay marriage), those of us who work on other issues don't get heard that often (let alone funded). and the president is not going to make any grand, sweeping statements about issues other than gay marriage. and many straight people think that gay marriage is the only issue.

i still think that's a problem. and i still think that saying that's a problem is relevant to the article that snow posted. but i'm going to shut up now.

[The_Lady_Snow]

If you're not into "marriage" like some of us aren't it's going to feel unequal and people who are and have been coupled minus a piece of paper should still be able to get the same rights as their straight counter parts.

Lots of laws keep the LGBTQI peoples from having the same rights as heterinormative folks do from adoptions to estate taxes...

Until it's Federal and not just in the hands of the States we have a long fight, this time with some acknowledgement from The POTUS.

It's up to us to be visible, vote and not give up.

[Medusa]

I wrote a rant on Facebook a while back that really speaks loudly to how I feel about all of the chatter happening around Obama's "Gay is Ok" statements.

My facebook rant came on the heels of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell thing going away where Gays can now openly serve in the military. My first inclination when that was announced was to rejoice.
My Facebook friends feed so began filling up with other Queers posting about how they "could not celebrate because Gay soldiers were still agents of genocide" and other such statements that felt really discrediting to all of the celebratory posts that they were couched between.

Something very similar happened with this news story.

Here's the thing for me, I am going to celebrate the fact that our President said out loud that he thinks it's ok for us to marry.

I get that there are huge issues surrounding the WHY's and the timing of how he did it. I get that some of us Queers don't want to get Gay Married. I get that there are other people out there who want things and that this feels like a shitty alternative to their idea of a "true Utopian Society" where straight folks are buying the Gay spectrum a Coke and teaching them how to sing.

My irritation around the "but, but, but..." is probably highly privileged.
I'll own that fully before I go any further.

Nonetheless, here is my irritation: When are we as GLBTQ people going to stop "but, but, but-ing" and throwing ourselves on the equality sword every time we get a little something-something?

What I mean by this is, it is a HUGE deal to me that DADT was repealed. Sure, Gay soldiers are still agents of genocide but at least they aren't agents of their own erasure anymore. Can't we fucking celebrate that? Can't we stop stomping down our own joy over Gay marriage just for a split second and take in fully what it means for the POTUS to acknowledge us?

I want my Trans brothers and sisters to be acknowledged as well.
I want racism to end.
I want classism to end.
I want the world to be perfect and accepting and balanced for all of us.

I believe in my heart that the steps to get there are sometimes small and quiet and I am going to celebrate every one of them for just a moment before I start finger-waggling about how it "ain't good enough".

I believe that we sometimes have to look at ANY progress for one of us as SOME progress for all of us.

I realize that some small part of this for me is coming from that place of having been marginalized so long that I'll take any friggin' crumb that I'm thrown but I also come from a place of having been an activist for a long, LONG time. That means that my rage at the end of the day is no less there, just more measured.

In short, I am glad that Obama said what he said. I'll probably be pissed later when it boils down to a political ploy but he is the first sitting President to ever acknowledge us this way. I'll take that with gratitude.

What he said did not come without cost. To him or to us.

He will be fighting an uphill battle with some of his more conservative voters. We are going to be plunged into the spotlight in ways that we never have been before and will probably feel the heat of 1000 conservative tongues telling us to "get back in our closet".

Either way, President Obama made me proud. Even if only for a little bit.

[julieisafemme]

Do not shut up or bow out of this conversation! It is so important for our community for all voices to be heard!!! Lady Snow is exactly right that until this is a Federal law it really is meaningless. I do not see this as a state's right issue nor will I be satisfied by the President saying it is. Immigration is controlled on the federal level. State approval of gay marriage does not change that.

[aishah]

in my experience in other movements (especially feminism and disability rights), "trickle-down" equality very rarely actually trickles down. that's made me somewhat jaded and bitter. for that i apologize.

[Medusa]

in my experience in other movements (especially feminism and disability rights), "trickle-down" equality very rarely actually trickles down. that's made me somewhat jaded and bitter. for that i apologize.

Don't apologize! You speak the truth.

It's fucking HARD to find that balance internally between being thankful for the acknowledgment and still raging about all the ways we have to do better. I struggle.

[CherylNYC]

i feel like my words are being twisted here. it was a mistake to post in this thread in the first place; this is why i've stayed out of almost all of the marriage threads period. i thought that since it was relevant to the article, maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea to post in here, and i was wrong. being called a privileged tosser who's completely ignorant of history and is setting the movement back has made me feel like shit, so thanks for that.

i understand, cheryl, that it carries emotional weight. what i am saying is that it doesn't seem to carry all that much legal or even political weight. we're still in the same spot we were before he said it - except now my facebook feed is blowing up because people think he's the second coming.

and yes, quintease, we all help out however we can - however, since the mainstream lgbtq rights movement in the united states has turned itself into almost a single-issue movement (gay marriage), those of us who work on other issues don't get heard that often (let alone funded). and the president is not going to make any grand, sweeping statements about issues other than gay marriage. and many straight people think that gay marriage is the only issue.

i still think that's a problem. and i still think that saying that's a problem is relevant to the article that snow posted. but i'm going to shut up now.

Aisha, I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings with my strong language. When I get wound up, I speak my mind without couching my ideas in the usual niceties. I have no exposure to facebook, but the places where I do look for information have been full of people saying things similar to you. Some don't understand why this is important any more than you do, and I find that shocking. Your primary objection seems to be that it won't affect you because your relationships aren't structured that way. And because marraige equality supposedly doesn't help trans people.

Many trans people who are able to change their ID, (majority of U.S. states), still want to get married, often to people of the gender to which they've changed their ID. That means they want access to marraige equality. Period. Just like other lgb people. I'm having a problem figuring out why something that greatly benefits many, but not all, lgbt people can't still be thought of as a great benefit, even by those who may have been left out in the first round. All civil rights struggles follow this path. We take the best deal we can manage in the moment, and then we go back and keep working for what we didn't get the first time. It is, indeed, destructive to take the short view when we're working on major civil rights issues.

As for dismissing the signifigance of marraige equality because it doesn't pertain to your personal relationship models, the travails of lgbt soldiers pre-DADT, and then during that miserable time, are well documented. I am now, and in the past was, about as likely to join any branch of the military as I am to shave my armpits and win Miss America. I'm horrified by many things that go on in in the military, in particular how much money we spend on weapons and weapons systems. I have very mixed feelings about all things military in general. That didn't stop me from working to end DADT, and feeling a huge sense of euphoria about its demise.

Why is that? Because every time an lgbt person is told that they're less-than, or that our relationships are less-than, something within the precious spirit of a young queer person gets more bruised, and more twisted. (It doesn't do calloused, old spirits any good, either.) And those who look for victims to assault are given the green light to do so. Because we're less-than. Every time a person of authority maligns us, or even just promotes seperate but allegedly equal treatment, those wounds fester, and those who mean us harm are encouraged to harm us. Every time a person of authority speaks up for us, it salves the wound, and gives the bad guys pause. The person with the greatest authority on earth just applied a huge soothing balm.

I frankly don't care at all whether or not your personal relationships will benefit from marrige equality any more than a lesbian soldier cares whether or not I've ever been a member of the military when I contacted my lawmaker on her behalf. The end of DADT had no immediate effect on my life, but the immediate effect it had on the lives of perhaps hundreds of thousands of lgbt soldiers, past and present, is so huge that the ripple effect has already rocked our society. The U.S. military is our biggest expenditure, and the sheer numbers of Americans who serve or have served is stupefying. I have NO DOUBT that the fact that the military apparatus continued to operate smoothly, and that other soldiers mostly don't give a crap about whether they're in the shower or a trench with a gay person, had a critical effect on the rapidly changing outlook that many Americans have about marraige equality.

Social movements to win civil rights are waged on many fronts. There are those in advocacy orgs who do this for a living, and those for whom this is their primary extra-curricular activity. There are those who write an occasional letter and sign petitions, and those who show up to march and demonstrate. People work on projects that are personally meaningful to us. All your facebook friends are happy about marraige equality because it's meaningful to them. Why do you think that is? And those who worked on this issue up until this point do so because why? The last reason why this is taking up so much room in the lgbt activist world is because we're winning. We're really, actually on the verge of winning this one, and it's going to be a huge win. How do we know we're winning? Because the President of the United States just spoke up about it.

As for real, concrete change- the statement of support Obama made changes no laws. You're right about that. I take issue with the woefully short-sighted assertion that it's not meaningful because the affect isn't immediately felt with a Federal law that grants marraige equality. Going back to Civics 101- if the POTUS were to unilaterally make and sign a new law today, he wouldn't be the POTUS. He would be the dictator of a country where the leader can rule by fiat. This is the first step in a long process. We all know that. I'll wait and see how long full equality takes, but the first step has been taken. That's why your facebook feed lit up. That's why New Yorkers danced in the street when Coumo signed the NY State marraige equality law. Full marraige equality will change the lives of a huge number of our people. I don't care whether or not you're personally interested in getting married. I doubt that I'll ever avail myself of the benefits of marraige. If you believe in equality, you support marraige equality. Period.

[Sachita]

I am glad President Obama said it before the election. I think it will hurt him with religious POC voters in the South especially, so it means more to me that he said it before the election.

Should more be happening for our people? yes!!!

But I never imagined that a sitting President would actually say that during my lifetime!

Cheers President Obama and thank you!


This is how I felt. I could honestly give a rats ass about any of them. All government is corrupt in my opinion. I no long support them and try like hell to stay clear of their half ass agendas.

[aishah]

nowhere did i dismiss the significance of marriage equality (though gay marriage does not equal marriage equality) or say that i didn't support gay marriage because my relationship isn't structured that way. in fact in my second post i very distinctly said that i DID support gay marriage. there are some trans people definitely who might benefit from it. my partner could be one of them. you're twisting my words yet again.

i am just tired of gay marriage and don't ask don't tell being the ONLY issues that get mainstream play. i wish obama...or the new york times...or anyone except a few small communities and independent news outlets cared about other issues that deeply affect a lot of us. i am tired of bringing that up and being told i just need to sit down and shut up and wait for the gay marriage equality before any other issues get any mainstream attention. it's exhausting. it fucking hurts. three human beings were killed in the past few weeks for being transgender people of color and the new york times could give a flying fuck about it. obama could care less. the mainstream lgbtq community could care less. because obama endorsed gay marriage so now we're all saved. yay.

[EnderD_503]

I'm only 37 and I remember (I was in a different country but we had similar laws) not allowing my gf a motorbike because if she died, I knew her family would lock me out of the hospital room and the funeral. They hated the fact she was gay.

I had friends who got kicked out of rented premises for being gay and others lost their job. I currently know people who are fighting American immigration. In my own country gay marriage is still not allowed and until recently, transpeople had to be 'biologically infertile' in order to change their birth certificate.

People can turn this into a class issue all they want, but it's not. Gay people are second class regardless of class and we need to change that. This means that gay people of all classes and privilege are getting involved. I know closeted lawyers who are sticking their neck out to fight for LGBT asylum seekers. Being privileged does not necessarily mean you don't care, if fact it can mean you can achieve more. Just like Obama has done in the hearts and minds of the American people. He told the people who voted him in that he feels that gay marriage is OK. These people may even listen to Obama, they wanted him to rule the country after all.

You think all queer people are treated just as horribly as each other? If a white middle or upper class gay/lesbian is treated as a second class citizen, then everyone else in the community is third or fourth class citizen. You think that a queer person from the south east Asian community who has to deal with the myriad of racist stereotypes about their community both within their community and outside of it is treated the same way as a white middle class gay men? How about other queer people of colour? I certainly don't think a working class gay black man and a middle class gay white man are getting the same shit end of the stick. A queer person living with a physical disability? There is a huge prejudicial gap, and marriage isn't going to mean shit with regards to basic human rights for many of these people.

You write that "This means that gay people of all classes and privilege are getting involved." That's not a very accurate statement. In fact, it's a pretty visible reality that those arguing for many mainstream gay/lesbian issues are not members of the most marginalised groups. They are by and large not people of colour, people with disabilities, people living below the poverty line or sex workers. Nor are they overwhelmingly poly folks. It's the same as with most popular "rights" movements today, from Occupy to the It Gets Better campaign. And the minute these people get their token law past or their five minutes of fame, they aren't going to give a shit about anything else. Exactly as its happened in Canada.

As far as turning it into an immigration issue, barely means shit for immigration...the system here continues to screw queer immigrants and refugees no matter what the nation's stance is on same-sex marriage. Until those seen as the "bottom of the barrel" are seen as legitimate human beings by society and governing bodies, there are always going to be horror stories about queer and trans people being locked away for months, denied immigration or refugee status, abused horribly. And as aishah said so well, "trick-down equality" is bullshit. As I said before, you want to espouse marriage equality as your primary rights fight, fine, but don't make it out to be a fight for all queer and trans people, because a fuck ton of us haven't (and won't) gained shit from that struggle, and it will be a cold day in hell before we do.

Edit: At this point, at least from the perspective of a Canadian, it becomes clear to me that a lot of policies are superficial and mean very little as far as how a person is going to be treated in day to day life. It means little in actually protecting people with these policies. Policies often act as a means of reinforcing the current liberal "feel good" view point that X policy is in place, everyone is equal. Personally, I think it's about time queer rights movements and feminist movements learn from the past...that this "trickle down" approach that sees certain privileged people as the target population for these policies as simply "opening the door" for others, is just an illusion. Most of the time that isn't what these policies mean at all. It's time to learn that truth and start fighting for rights for those who need them most urgently...and by urgently I mean those whose lives are most immediately in danger. People who are still actively being denied housing and employment. People who are still actively being verbally and physically assaulted on a regular basis and who have no advocates to stand up for them. I mean sex workers, I mean the homeless, I mean prisoners and others who whether because of additional racism, sexist, homophobic or transphobic challenges, or due to the fact that they live with mental illness or were diagnosed with mental illness, or live with physical disabilities, are believed to have no one to stand up for them when authoritative bodies lock them away as incapable of ruling over their own lives. Lock them away simply because they are visible. Lock them away because they believe they're nothing but trash.

[BullDog]

Can't we fucking celebrate that? Can't we stop stomping down our own joy over Gay marriage just for a split second and take in fully what it means for the POTUS to acknowledge us?

Yes this and everything else Medusa said. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and priorities on things, but to see President Obama get picked apart by queers everywhere (not just this site) really just makes me wonder when is anything every going to be good enough? I think more progress is made from rallying behind something than picking things apart.

I know the conservatives always vote and are a hell of a lot better at showing a united front. We can pick apart President Obama and usher in another conservative Republican president. Yeah that will really help our cause.

[julieisafemme]

Yes this and everything else Medusa said. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and priorities on things, but to see President Obama get picked apart by queers everywhere (not just this site) really just makes me wonder when is anything every going to be good enough? I think more progress is made from rallying behind something than picking things apart.

I know the conservatives always vote and are a hell of a lot better at showing a united front. We can pick apart President Obama and usher in another conservative Republican president. Yeah that will really help our cause.

Maybe nothing will ever be good enough. I sure hope not! What is wrong with striving and continuing to work? Hey the civil rights act was passed and everything is good now! Hey the first wave of feminism fixed it all up and everything is good now! Woo hoo a post racism, post sexism and very soon post homophobic world!

I fail to see how discussing things makes me some big party pooper.

I voted for Obama last time and I will this time and would have even if he had not said publicly his view on gay marriage. He said it before he was President. I get that it is more meaningful now. I still am bummed though that he left it to the states. Maybe he will change that view.

[BullDog]

I prefer to build on victories. Momentum in a positive direction has the ability to change things.

[julieisafemme]

I prefer to build on victories. Momentum in a positive direction has the ability to change things.

So how is talking about what needs to be done in the future not building on victories? What does that mean to you? I am not being snarky with the question. Are you upset because there is not a longer period of celebration? To me Obama speaking out publicly is not a victory. Signed legislation is a victory. Court cases that set precedents are victories. I am very pleased to hear the President say clearly that he supports the right of same sex couples to marry.

[blush]

i feel like my words are being twisted here. it was a mistake to post in this thread in the first place; this is why i've stayed out of almost all of the marriage threads period. i thought that since it was relevant to the article, maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea to post in here, and i was wrong. being called a privileged tosser who's completely ignorant of history and is setting the movement back has made me feel like shit, so thanks for that.

i understand, cheryl, that it carries emotional weight. what i am saying is that it doesn't seem to carry all that much legal or even political weight. we're still in the same spot we were before he said it - except now my facebook feed is blowing up because people think he's the second coming.

and yes, quintease, we all help out however we can - however, since the mainstream lgbtq rights movement in the united states has turned itself into almost a single-issue movement (gay marriage), those of us who work on other issues don't get heard that often (let alone funded). and the president is not going to make any grand, sweeping statements about issues other than gay marriage. and many straight people think that gay marriage is the only issue.

i still think that's a problem. and i still think that saying that's a problem is relevant to the article that snow posted. but i'm going to shut up now.

I think perhaps you're not considering the cultural weight and ramifications of his statement and how it might positively affect ALL situations. Much remains to be seen. Much needs to be done. But it's one of the few times we've moved forward instead of backwards. At this point, there is no legal weight, but there is a ton of political weight. Sometimes a seemingly single issues such as gay marriage is a "gateway drug" to bring more change and awareness.

[aishah]

maybe so, blush. i really, honestly, truly hope you're right. that's not been my experience. my experience has been people say "wait and let us get our little bit of whatever rights we want, and it'll trickle down to you" and it never does. people get their rights and they suddenly forget about all the people they're leaving behind.

[blush]

I have been hearing many folks toss around terms like "normalized" and "mainstream" as though these are dirty words and "real" equality warriors don't want families. I find this especially laughable given that many of these so-called "mainstream" queer folk have endured the same hatred and discrimination. Do we really think Phelps is going to distinguish his hatred between mainstream and non-mainstream queer folk?

[blush]

maybe so, blush. i really, honestly, truly hope you're right. that's not been my experience. my experience has been people say "wait and let us get our little bit of whatever rights we want, and it'll trickle down to you" and it never does. people get their rights and they suddenly forget about all the people they're leaving behind.

cheryl, thank you for your apology. i wish it were possible to have heated debates that attack what people say instead of attacking people on the basis of age, or on the basis of being a "privileged tosser," as quintease said. i don't understand why any of these arguments couldn't have taken apart what i said without attacking me (or anyone here) as a person (or setting up a straw man argument claiming that i don't support gay marriage, when i clearly stated i do).
It's like Reaganomics for the queer world, isn't it? :blink:

It gets heated because it is so important (all of it)and we shouldn't have to fight it.

[aishah]

I have been hearing many folks toss around terms like "normalized" and "mainstream" as though these are dirty words and "real" equality warriors don't want families. I find this especially laughable given that many of these so-called "mainstream" queer folk have endured the same hatred and discrimination. Do we really think Phelps is going to distinguish his hatred between mainstream and non-mainstream queer folk?

phelps isn't, but a lot of other people do.

we live in a society where we have a certain conception of what normal looks like (usually male, white, middle/upper-class, able-bodied, cisgender, monogamous, for starters). everyone else tends to be judged by how well they conform to that idea of normalcy. we police people's identities based on that conception of normalcy. some people who don't fit into those categories have some amount of acceptance, but that acceptance is always conditional and can be easily taken away.

so, for example, being a woman - if you are a woman who's monogamous, white, and middle class, and you have the right job and you dress well and you stay inside certain lines, you have a certain amount of safety because you are trying to conform to the best of your abilities. if you are poor or a woman of color or a sex worker or fat or otherwise not a "good" woman, you are policed. and sometimes even if you try as hard as you can to be a "good" woman according to the standards of our society, that one time you get raped they'll try to find ANY indication that you weren't "good" and you'll get smacked upside the head so fast.

i don't think there's anything wrong with being a monogamous, white, middle-class lesbian couple who just wants to get married and live in suburbia. i do think that that vision of what "queerness" is is what gets privileged. i do think there is a problem with saying "all queer people want to be just like you normal straight people! we're all mainstream!" because those of us who don't fit heteronormative society's ideas of what mainstream looks like then end up getting labeled as "bad queers." we're setting the movement back. recently a friend of mine who's a bisexual middle class 20-something white cisman with a nice professional job, living in suburbia, said, "god, those crazy queers at pride parades and you poly people are making us look bad." if i had a nickel for every time someone told me that...i'd be a wealthy woman.

i don't have anything wrong with mainstream people. i think mainstream people deserve rights as much as the rest of us. i'm not saying every middle class lesbian who just wants to get married and live in suburbia needs to go live on the streets and be homeless. the problem is mainstream people tend to get rights and the rest of us tend to get left behind, in my experience (at least with the mainstream feminist and disability movements). i know so many straight people who are like "i'm all for gay marriage, but all that partying and hookup culture and crossdressing and stuff is just icky and gross." if we look like monogamous middle-class straight (mainly white) couples, it's sorta kinda okay. other expressions of queerness are not okay.

obviously some straight people will never accept us no matter what. but it is true that if you try hard enough to conform and you don't have certain markers that automatically put you outside of the mainstream, you can get a little bit of conditional acceptance. and that's great. but it can be taken away in a heartbeat because that's how the society we live in operates. (and as we've seen with violence against poc and with the recent war on women, just as examples, it can be taken away from you no matter how much legal protection you think you have.) and some of us will never even have that.

[blush]

I have been hearing many folks toss around terms like "normalized" and "mainstream" as though these are dirty words and "real" equality warriors don't want families. I find this especially laughable given that many of these so-called "mainstream" queer folk have endured the same hatred and discrimination. Do we really think Phelps is going to distinguish his hatred between mainstream and non-mainstream queer folk?

phelps isn't, but a lot of other people do.

we live in a society where we have a certain conception of what normal looks like (usually male, white, middle/upper-class, able-bodied, cisgender, monogamous, for starters). everyone else tends to be judged by how well they conform to that idea of normalcy. we police people's identities based on that conception of normalcy. some people who don't fit into those categories have some amount of acceptance, but that acceptance is always conditional and can be easily taken away.

so, for example, being a woman - if you are a woman who's monogamous, white, and middle class, and you have the right job and you dress well and you stay inside certain lines, you have a certain amount of safety because you are trying to conform to the best of your abilities. if you are poor or a woman of color or a sex worker or fat or otherwise not a "good" woman, you are policed. and sometimes even if you try as hard as you can to be a "good" woman according to the standards of our society, that one time you get raped they'll try to find ANY indication that you weren't "good" and you'll get smacked upside the head so fast.

i don't think there's anything wrong with being a monogamous, white, middle-class lesbian couple who just wants to get married and live in suburbia. i do think that that vision of what "queerness" is is what gets privileged. i do think there is a problem with saying "all queer people want to be just like you normal straight people! we're all mainstream!" because those of us who don't fit heteronormative society's ideas of what mainstream looks like then end up getting labeled as "bad queers." we're setting the movement back. recently a friend of mine who's a bisexual middle class 20-something white cisman with a nice professional job, living in suburbia, said, "god, those crazy queers at pride parades and you poly people are making us look bad." if i had a nickel for every time someone told me that...i'd be a wealthy woman.

i don't have anything wrong with mainstream people. i think mainstream people deserve rights as much as the rest of us. i'm not saying every middle class lesbian who just wants to get married and live in suburbia needs to go live on the streets and be homeless. the problem is mainstream people tend to get rights and the rest of us tend to get left behind, in my experience (at least with the mainstream feminist and disability movements). i know so many straight people who are like "i'm all for gay marriage, but all that partying and hookup culture and crossdressing and stuff is just icky and gross." if we look like monogamous middle-class straight (mainly white) couples, it's sorta kinda okay. other expressions of queerness are not okay.

obviously some straight people will never accept us no matter what. but it is true that if you try hard enough to conform and you don't have certain markers that automatically put you outside of the mainstream, you can get a little bit of conditional acceptance. and that's great. but it can be taken away in a heartbeat because that's how the society we live in operates. and some of us will never even have that.
Yanno, you're absolutely right. And so is Ender on this one. I shoved my thinking through a shit-ton of my white privilege. Sorry about that.

[Quintease]

Putting it beautifully in Australia TuIbEJz23uY

[Apocalipstic]

Again,

Thank you President Obama for saying what you did about Gay marriage. NO other sitting President has ever done that.

I will not participate in picking apart what he said.

I never ever thought a day would come when I was not afraid to walk down the street or go in a bar without being killed or ending up in jail.

I am grateful and proud of President Obama.

[BullDog]

White, middle class people are not the only people who get married.

[Quintease]

White, middle class people are not the only people who get married.

I was waiting for someone to say that.

[CherylNYC]

White, middle class people are not the only people who get married.

My point, exactly. Trans people of all income levels get married. Very poor people get married. The benefits to them are many, and that seems to be the issue here. Why are lgbt people who don't believe we should be working on marriage equality in the habit of telling me that marriage is a privileged state precisely BECAUSE it brings financial benefits? If it's so privileged, why is it just as easy for a poor person to get married as a wealthy one? And, what's wrong with anyone accessing a state that brings some financial stability?

I don't have the energy to search through this thread to find Ender's post wherein he asserts that there's no real benefit to bi-national couples who want to marry. That pissed me right off, but I'm already so irritated that I decided not to answer. That's a flat out ridiculous assertion, and there are a few people on this site who would be breathing fire if they were to have read it because of how deeply their forced seperation hurts them. There are far too many lgbt binational couples who are kept apart by their inability to marry. Amongst my friends, the butch member of the binational couple in the direst circumstance due to marriage inequality is a low-income woman of colour. There, now. Does that mean you can care about marriage equality now?

[Quintease]

My point, exactly. Trans people of all income levels get married. Very poor people get married. The benefits to them are many, and that seems to be the issue here. Why are lgbt people who don't believe we should be working on marriage equality in the habit of telling me that marriage is a privileged state precisely BECAUSE it brings financial benefits? If it's so privileged, why is it just as easy for a poor person to get married as a wealthy one? And, what's wrong with anyone accessing a state that brings some financial stability?

There are people in this thread whose sole argument against marriage seems to be that minorities won't have access to it. That's crazy. Straight people don't have to be white to be married. In fact any old poor, non-white, sex-working, non-monogamist with a criminal record can put a ring on their beloved's finger, provided they're of the opposite sex. But not gays of any ilk*.

In my own life I've had TWO ''gay" marriages. One to a TRANS MAN from a working class background (as am I from a working class background) and another to a woman who was NON WHITE and wasn't even born in the western world. Part of the reason we broke up was because she wanted to return to her part of the world which didn't recognise gay marriage (the other part was because she was an asshole, but enough about that).

Earlier I posted a link to a Facebook page. If anyone believes that Bi-national couples don't need marriage, please click on it.


*depending where you live of course

[DapperButch]

I admit to not reading every single post, but I think I pretty much have the jist here.

Not to sound ageist here, BUT, I do think that age may play a part in how significant one sees this announcement.

First, living history is different from reading/hearing about it, so the feeling of validation from the President after spending a chunk of your life sneaking into gay bars, or just worrying about being beat the hell up (with societal support), is pretty damn powerful.

Additionally, for those of us who are looking ahead to retirement and death, we tend to think about what we will need as we age and also what we will be leaving to our partners (including social security benefits). When I was in my late 20's or early 30's, this stuff wasn't as important to me. Now that I am 41 (and also had a serious health condition), I do.

I guess I am saying two things. One is tangible and one is not. Both are important.

One, for some of us Obama's announcement is the highest validation that we are just people, just like anyone else. We haven't heard that before. There is reason to believe that this will trickle down to how N. American society views, and then subsequently, treats us (like when I, a butch, am laying in a hospital bed and need my pain pill, the nurses might not move as slow to give it to me as they do now).

Two, there is more hope now that I will be able to marry my partner and she can get my social security benefits at my death. Yeah, that is a big deal.

Late for work or I would clean the above up a bit. Hope it makes sense.

[Glenn]

Pardon me for jacking the thread. Not trying to belittle anyones point here. I agree on boths points. There's no shortage of identities except for human identities. But, I think I missed the part about Prop 8 and how big business (aka money) influences politicians and the media. I just can't think of a time in herstory/history when this was'nt true. Where there is money, folks will use it to influence politics. Hell, there's almost no point in being rich if your not going to use it to control politics and the media and the environment, and I don't think this is ever going to change.

[girl_dee]

Maybe i'm a dreamer but i look forward to the day when none of this is an issue.

In the grand scheme of things the President announced equal rights in marriage for all... whoopdee doo! To us that should be a given, equal rights. BUT He is also the FIRST President to make such a (sadly) bold statement. If he isn't re-elected, never heard of again, he paved the way for the next ..... and that is a BIG thing. He has made it OK for the President of the United States to speak up for our rights.

i am not a big flag waiver, i never have been. i don't want to stand out because i am gay, i want to fit into society, to show society that we live and breathe just like they do. Straight folks don't waive the straight flag.
But until we are equal in ever single right it's necessary for us to stand up for every single right we are denied. Some of us NEED a President to speak up for us.

Being gay in Canada is so much different than in the states. It's just not as big of a deal here, i hope one day it is like that in the states. Until then we can't stop speaking up and backing those who do! If we pick apart the people who are trying to help, what good will that do?

[Cin]

Ya know I get that words are not legislation. But it is also true that you cannot legislate acceptance. Therefore it is also useful to have people in the public eye, especially respected individuals, advocating acceptance. Yet we do need the legislation. However to get the legislation before the acceptance is not without its own set of difficulties. I imagine you could pass a law making bigotry of any type illegal and you would not have any less bigots just more criminals.

Still laws need to change, however when they do it does not guarantee much of anything except exactly what the law allows. If you are allowed to marry then that’s exactly what you will get. No more, sometimes less, like when someone refuses to marry you because it’s against their religion, or if you can afford and want a wedding some will still be able to refuse to plan your wedding or allow you to hold your wedding in their establishment because of religious concerns. Perhaps because they advocated enthusiastically for the preservation of their particular version of human rights.

When humans are not allowed to exercise what are considered human rights there needs to be a law in order for many of us to have any recourse, because clearly human rights are not a guarantee for all human beings. And for many of us humans they are non-existent unless specifically legislated.

Legislation won’t change the fact that some people will still hate queers of any ilk (or hate some particular ilk much more energetically and emphatically than other ilks) and wish us nothing but pain and misery and even participate in various activities geared toward ensuring that we suffer pain and misery abundantly. But it will make certain activities geared toward creating specific pain and misery against the law. It will also add a small measure of protection in the form of consequences for breaking the law and trying to withhold the specific human right a specific legislation has granted us. And whether we personally want that right or not it’s still in all our best interests that we are validated legally as being worthy of a specific human right. I get that doesn’t mean diddly squat in regards to the plethora of basic human rights many of us are still denied.

It also won’t change that some of us can and some of us will choose to join mainstream society. It won’t change that some (queer republicans come to mind) willfully, even cheerfully participate in their own oppression because they realize that the oppression of the rest of us, even if it means that they are also minimally oppressed in one aspect of their lives, is of more financial value to them than personal freedom and that equality in any form simply means less for them.

It won’t change that some of us are myopic and see the world through a very privileged lens. It won’t change that some of us only have interest in what personally affects us and when we get what we want we go back to apathy, beer and baseball or whatever entertains us. It won’t change much, but it will require one particular human right to be available to one group of human beings previously denied it. And to me this can never be a bad thing.

I guess I am trying to understand what exactly is being said here. If you are against gay marriage could you explain specifically what gay marriage will do to oppress certain segments of the queer population? Is it that it drains too much energy from various movements? Or is seen as the only legitimate movement? And if you are not against gay marriage per se, could you explain what you are against surrounding gay marriage.

I have to add that the fact that without Canada’s federal recognition of same sex couples rights to immigrate Truly Scrumptious and I would not have been able to live together and that might make it difficult for me to understand another point of view. Neither of us are occupationally or financially privileged so we would have had no way to circumvent the immigration laws in the US. Family class was the only possible avenue open to either of us for immigration. So without Canada’s immigration laws it would have been exceedingly challenging, probably impossible, for us to be together sharing our lives every day (at least legally). I get that kind of relationship is not for everyone but it is for some of us and I doubt that sexual preference, class, race, gender, sex, intelligence, or even mental health dictates the existence of this need in an individual. Besides I don’t believe human rights are rights because they are popular or because everyone wants to exercise them.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I don't blend in with society's version of normality I'm also one of those people who feel I should not have to argue, prove, or debate my civil rights. I'm glad Obama took a stance but I'm also aware that what will trickle down as far as benefits will be so for those who do want to marry. Marriage shouldn't garuantee my rights that to me falls under that whole binary you gotta be married to be validated. I'm also ELATED that those who can CAN!

I think Obamas gay marriage endorsement is a tool for all of us under the LGBTQI spectrum to get out there and fight, not stay silent, change legislations etc.


"I" would love for this to be a Federal law not just state to state. I'm also very aware unless we (queers,gays,etc) do something it isn't going to happen overnight.


My kids have it a tiny easier because change has happened.

[julieisafemme]

This is frustrating. I support marriage equality 100 percent! I am extremely pleased that President Obama has publicly stated that same sex couples have the right to marry.

Ok. So now let's look at what exactly he said and how that affects the still ongoing fight for marriage equality. DOMA, while not being defended by his Justice Department, is not on his agenda to repeal. He said that on The View yesterday. Without the repeal of DOMA same sex couples will not enjoy the rights of tranferring social security benefits, having access to federal pensions, enjoying federal tax treatments for married couples or surviving spouses, and immigration. These are all things that have been mentioned in this thread that will not be changed by what President Obama said.

We are still in the same space as before. Yes we have recognition and that is very important!!!!

The second issue is the emphasis on gay marriage as THE issue facing queer people. It is one issue. Everyone has their idea as to how marriage equality will affect other issues queer folks face. I have heard compelling arguments on either side. I do not understand why we have to all be if the same opinion.

[girl_dee]

Yes yes yes, marriage is not the only thing on the gay agenda where rights are concerned.

Syr and i will never be legally married, She is my *next of kin* here. i have yet to figure out how much weight that holds here in Canada where i can list Her as my partner, but not my legal partner. Maybe one day poly marriage will be legal! Try finding loopholes in Immigration law without the benefit of marriage, it is NOT easy unless like Miss Tick said, you are wealthy. Wealthy folk can stay as long as they like without a problem.

i feel in ALL walks of life we should be able to choose who in the hell we want to to be with us in the hospital and to be proxy if that is needed. Being gay just makes it that much harder in some places, and that is what sucks.

i incorrectly thought when a couple states (MA for one) adopted gay marriage in 2004, on the state level, and the rest of the USA could see they didn't fall off the map, that the Earth still spins that things would change, here we are still begging for equal rights. NOT special rights, just equal ones. It is really a sad thing.

i keep saying *that's the first step* then the second step doesn't happen. i don't want anyone to have special treatment, i just want equal treatment across the board.

[Toughy]

I'll be 60 the end of June. Trust me on this: Obama is not the enemy. Obama does not deserve being picked apart. I am stunned that in my lifetime a sitting President has vocally supported homosexuals and marriage for homosexuals............stunned. I am stunned Obama got rid of DADT.

Why on this earth are we taking Obama to task for being a vocal supporter of equal rights? It sounds like a bunch of whiney kids who are having a temper tantrum because they only got 1 scoop of ice cream instead of 2 scoops.

The real enemy (in the US) is fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. Here is an interesting blog about how it is chasing many many many folks away from Christianity.

http://rachelheldevans.com/win-culture-war-lose-generation-amendment-one-north-carolina

[Cin]

I don’t care to have to argue, prove or debate my civil rights either. Yet, nobody is offering to give them to me. And I sure don’t fit society’s idea of normal. That’s not likely to change any time soon either. And I’m very okay with that. Nor do I believe gay marriage is the only gay issue. As far as human rights issues are concerned it’s not even in the top ten. That said I certainly support gay marriage. And although Obama’s personal declaration concerning queer marriage is not going to translate into legislation at this time, it is acceptance on a personal level and that has value. You cannot legislate acceptance. You cannot legislate public opinion. You cannot pass laws that will erase bigotry. That happens gradually over time and movements in that direction are just as important as legislation in my opinion because once you have acceptance legislation is much easier to come by. Although traditionally it is not done that way. It is usually civil rights that are legislated and then with any luck acceptance follows a few hundred (sometimes a few thousand) miles behind.

I have to say I am having a bit of a difficult time understanding what is going on in this thread. I'm not following it. I'm not even sure where the dissention lies exactly. People seem to mostly agree or maybe it's just that I don't get it. I don't know where the paths diverge, except maybe in regards to the level of importance that should be placed on Obama's declaration. Or maybe on gay marriage? Too much thinking makes my head hurt.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I specifically started the thread because we ALL have different opinions on what's going on politically with "gay marriage" being a focus. We all aren't going to be shaking our head yes yes yes, some will stop think others may not.

The article I posted has some things I agree with others not, it certainly is nor has my opinion been stated by whining, shredding Obama apart or demonizing the marriage thing.

I expected different views and opinions with some being agreeable some not. It's not a pick a camp thread I'd hoped it could should be a conversation that could be civilly had knowing not everyone has to or will agree.


Opinions are just that, opinions

[The_Lady_Snow]

PS

I also agree strongly Toughy, religious hands are way to deep in the government cookie jar but that's a whole other thread and a whole other brain aneurism:|

[Gráinne]

I personally believe that one day, hopefully soon, gay marriage will be on the national level. It wasn't that long ago, in my lifetime actually, in which whites and minorities (not just African-Americans) could not marry. One by one, the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down until 1967. Then as now, it was the Deep South who were the last to get rid of them. Gay marriage will do the same.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I personally believe that one day, hopefully soon, gay marriage will be on the national level. It wasn't that long ago, in my lifetime actually, in which whites and minorities (not just African-Americans) could not marry. One by one, the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down until 1967. Then as now, it was the Deep South who were the last to get rid of them. Gay marriage will do the same.



The Zealots don't share this viewpoint, they see interracial marriage being accepted finally as "natural" between man and woman. The Christian Nation is defending the sanctity of natural marriage what we do according to them is against scripture. Churches are SCREAMING in anger that Obama is betraying Christian law.


A law that has no business in Government buy I'm telling ya that's a whole other thread about us (queers) and Zealotry running this nation.

[Cin]

I'd hoped it could should be a conversation that could be civilly had knowing not everyone has to or will agree.


Yes, and as with basic human rights equitably assured for all, it is certainly something we can hopefully achieve.

[Sachita]

I don't need someone's approval or acceptance about who I love or fuck. If it was illegal, lets face it in some places it is, I would have to be more careful. As a human being I want the same rights as everyone else, of course, however having lived in this USA I can't support any government venues. The whole thing with marriage, paperwork, etc is a big turn off to me. I understand equality but if you think about we have never ever been treated equal and as women we may not see that day in our lifetime. I also feel like its a sell out on their part and although I think Obama is a fucking great president I don't trust any of them.

I don't need legal marriage to show my love and devotion.

[Sparkle]

I am finding some of the posts in this thread disturbing and a bit mind boggling because it seems that the message is: if you're not exclusively cheerleading Obama in response to his announcement then you're a naysayer and a nitpicker and a parade-pee'er.

What is wrong with looking critically at the Presidents' actions and words?

I think Obama is a fantastic President. I admire him. On some issues I don't agree with the choices his administration has made. On other issues I am 100% behind him. I consider his bravery and progressiveness in relation to the LGBT rights groundbreaking, but let us be honest, the bar wasn't set very high (in terms of presidential support for equality). I think Obama publicly supporting gay marriage is amazing, unexpected and quite possibly political suicide.

I voted for Obama once and I will vote for him again, he already had my vote prior to his announcement and despite my critical view of his administration.

And I strongly agree with the posts of aishah and julieisafemme (and a few others), I believe we must CONTINUE to take a critical view of all of our political leaders. I believe we must keep our eye on the big picture, which includes a number of different legal rights, not just marriage.

I believe that "gay marriage" is one piece of the pie when it comes to LGBT rights. It is potentially a large piece of the pie IF (and only if) DOMA is repealed and legislation happens on a federal level.

While DOMA exists, marriage equality does not.
As an aside, I far prefer the phrase/term "marriage equality" to "gay marriage" which sounds a whole lot like "special rights" to me.

I live in Massachusetts, I've had the legal right to marry for years. I'm very proud of my state and grateful for the rights it affords me and very-very-very aware of the rights my state has no ability to give me (federal rights). I expatriated for this reason. I continue to funnel my resources in to immigration equality because my lack of rights impacted me so deeply.

Meanwhile...there are so many other pieces of the pie to be advocated for, to be fought for and to be won. And Obama saying he supports gay marriage, while a wonderful endorsement, does not equal legal change on any front.

It really bothers me that taking a critical view, not only of Obama's announcement but also the actual and potential legal and political ramifications of the announcement (or the lack there of) is labeled "picking apart" the President!

I celebrate Obama's announcement, I tip my hat, I salute him, I throw a virtual ticker tape parade for his announcement.

And I want more - I want full legal parity.
I want my basic human and civil rights. Full stop.

And I will not stop taking a critical view.
I hope, when the virtual confetti is swept off the virtual streets, the rest of our community won't either.

[BullDog]

Hmm well I am not some mindless cheerleader.

Those taking a "critical view" - what exactly is it that you want? What should be done differently?

I believe in riding momentum for all of it's worth rather than sitting around and criticizing. I think we have a better chance of positive change with that type of strategy. That's just me.

I think everyone is well aware that same sex marriage is not the only important issue in this world.

[Sparkle]

Hmm well I am not some mindless cheerleader.

Those taking a "critical view" - what exactly is it that you want? What should be done differently?

I believe in riding momentum for all of it's worth rather than sitting around and criticizing. I think we have a better chance of positive change with that type of strategy. That's just me.

I think everyone is well aware that same sex marriage is not the only important issue in this world.

Perhaps we have different views of the language I used...

I think taking a 'critical view' and 'criticizing' are wildly different, in connotation and denotation.

Taking a critical view is saying: "I'm proud of my president AND I'm really concerned about how marriage equality can be achieved while DOMA continues to exist? how do we move forward from here? what are the next steps? how can we capitalize on this endorsement?"

criticizing is saying: "our president sucks, he should have said this 4 years ago, this is all motivated to win more votes, he's disingenuous, he doesn't care about us and I think his tie was really ugly."

[BullDog]

Yes how can we capitalize on the momentum- I believe that is something many people could agree on. I do think those of us who find the President's announcement to be a positive thing are quite aware there is much more work to be done. I think President Obama is aware of that as well.

[Sparkle]

Yes how can we capitalize on the momentum- I believe that is something many people could agree on. I do think those of us who find the President's announcement to be a positive thing are quite aware there is much more work to be done. I think President Obama is aware of that as well.

I agree that the President is aware of that as well.

And the part I bolded, that is what I am responding to - I haven't seen anyone in this thread who has not said they think "Obama's announcement is a positive thing". And that is why it bothers me that people posting views in this thread that go beyond unequivocal cheerleading have been labeled as "picking apart" and diversive.

Pretty much everyone (in this thread and that I personally know) thinks Obama's announcement was a great thing and that it has very positive cultural and political ramifications AND some posters continue to analyze the political climate, the legal status of LGBT rights and continue discussing a strategy for leveraging that endorsement in to legal change. And doing so does not take away from the awesomeness of Obama's public announcement.

[Cin]

Well I certainly don’t need anyone’s acceptance, approval, understanding or permission to love anyone I please or to be exactly who I am. And I also want my basic human and civil rights. I do not plan on stopping wanting and advocating for them until I have them and then until every human being has them or until I stop breathing whichever comes first. However, I am very clear on the reality that I cannot achieve this alone or with only others like me. I do not need acceptance and approval on a personal level. But we all need it on a political level if we expect to achieve equal rights. I didn’t understand people’s posts about the good that can come from Obama’s statement as a cry to stop taking a critical view. I don’t believe politicians are anything but pawns for the financial elite who bought and paid for them. I have more than a critical view of all political figures. But again we cannot achieve anything alone. It is necessary to have support to affect change. I can understand both the impotence legislatively speaking of Obama’s statement and the monumental importance of it. I have seen many going beyond unequivocal cheerleading that have been quite delighted with Obama's statement. I don't think it is only those who are not unequivocally cheerleading who are taking a critical view. I also haven't seen all those not unequivocally cheerleading being labeled as "picking apart" and diversive.

[BullDog]

We are definitely reading some of the posts as well as the original article quoted differently then.

I think you are over stating things on your end. I am not looking for cheerleaders.

I think those of us on the left have a tendency to shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to strategy and trying to work towards positive change.

There are queer issues that wouldn't affect me directly- such as trans sex/trans gender that I would still support. I would support them because of people I care about personally as well as my community. It would also be smart in a strategic sense.

The anti-marriage queers don't want certain legal rights to be attached to marriage. I can see the point, but truly I would like to make some progress instead of holding out for the Revolution which may never come.

[Cin]

The anti-marriage queers don't want certain legal rights to be attached to marriage. I can see the point, but truly I would like to make some progress instead of holding out for the Revolution which may never come.

I sincerely hope it comes and soon. But I do agree with your point.

[julieisafemme]

Thank you Sparkle! The only thing I am picking apart are the public policy questions that will lead to federal legislation recognizing same sex marriage. I am from California and Prop 8 was such a painful blow. I could not believe the voters did that.

What if, G-d forbid, Obama does not win? What if we cannot get change on the federal level in the next four years and the next administration seeks to strengthen DOMA?

What if everything goes well and marriage equality is the norm and the rest of the LGBT issues are put on the back burner for another decade?

I don't necessarily have answers for all these questions. I am just asking them because I want to know what others think.

[Kätzchen]

And I want more - I want full legal parity.
I want my basic human and civil rights. Full stop.



*best strand of thought, ever.*

Thank you Sparkle for articulating your point of view with clarity.

~D

ps/ when I am feeling better, I will come back in participate more fully in this particular conversation/subject.

[aishah]

i agree with sparkle. and many others.

i don't understand why what i said earlier seems to have been so unclear, but...

* i am not against gay marriage. i am very much for it, as i stated over and over and over again. i think it will help many people.
* yes, it's true all kinds of people get married, not just middle class people. (though in my experience marriage tends to be less of an ideal choice for poor people of color, but that's neither here nor there to what i was saying earlier.)
* i think it's cool obama came out in support of gay marriage. i don't trust him (or any politician), but i voted for him and i probably will again. i suspect it was an election stunt, but honestly that's also neither here nor there.
* the response to what obama has said has been overwhelming, and while his words carry some weight, they don't actually make concrete change for us right now. i'm not sure they ever will. i hope they will. but the fact remains that (as julie and others have pointed out also) he is treating it as a states' rights issue and does not see it as a federal civil rights issue. so despite his support, even he still believes we should be treated as separate and unequal.

here's where i seem to have lost some folks.

* i have a problem with the fact that the mainstream lgbtq rights movement has turned itself into a single issue movement - gay marriage.
* the frustration i most deeply have with this is that every time a politician says something about this issue, or the mainstream media prints something about this issue, i am painfully and deeply reminded that this is almost the only issue that gets any attention in the mainstream. other issues that disproportionately affect working class and poor queers of color, disabled queers, and other marginalized folks get very little attention. passing gay marriage will not fix these other issues. at the same time, most straight folks i know don't even know these issues exist because all that they hear about is gay marriage.
* obama won't ever talk about these other issues, like incarceration and murder of trans* women of color. the nyt isn't about to put it on the front page. because the mainstream lgbtq community barely pays it any attention to begin with, so why should the rest of the world? i'm not frustrated because i disagree with gay marriage, but because i disagree with the way we've made gay marriage the ONLY issue. bulldog asked what i would change...that's something i would change. i wish that the big lgbtq organizations talked deeply and critically about other issues besides gay marriage. i wish that we brought other issues to the attention of the media and politicians.

and here's where i apparently REALLY lost some people...

* gay marriage does not mean equality, and passing gay marriage laws does not mean we will all be "mainstreamed" and "normalized." these laws extend a few more rights to monogamous same-sex couples, but as we've seen with the war on women and many other situations, those rights can easily be ignored and taken away. as can any other legal rights we get. that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek for them, but personally i don't feel that that's the ONLY thing we should focus on because it's so tenuous. often the most marginalized among us are the first ones to have those legal protections violated.
* our society is fundamentally unequal, and as i pointed out in post 49, the attempts to push the idea of a "normalized" gay person has set up the dichotomy of "good queers" (those who are most easily able to conform to a heteronormative society, to the best of their ability, usually but not always middle/upper class white gays and lesbians)/"bad queers" (the rest of us). this is not directly relevant to marriage in and of itself, however it is relevant to the mainstream lgbtq movement's attempts to say "we're just like (middle/upper class white) straight families" and the fact that the rest of us frequently get told we are making queers look bad. because of what i posted in post 49, i don't think being mainstreamed or normalized is a helpful goal - it just reifies the existing oppressive structures in our society.

it boils down to the fact that i believe our movements have the capacity to actually be inclusive of all of us, including the most marginalized, and the issues that disproportionately affect us. and that in the history of civil rights movements, the argument of "just wait til we get x law passed and then we'll care about other issues that affect you" never actually ends up happening. the mainstream movement gets its single issue passed and everyone else is still stuck in the shadows with no funding and no coverage. i think gay marriage is awesome, i think people supporting it is great, but it's not the only or the most immediately pressing issue for many of us.

i don't care if you agree with me, but i'd appreciate it if you at least consider what i am saying without misrepresenting what i am saying. (or just ignore it. whatever floats your boat.) nowhere have i said that i don't agree with gay marriage or don't support what obama said. and people of all ages agree and disagree with what i've said...it is not an age issue.

normally i wouldn't have posted in a gay marriage thread at all, because i can see the backlash coming from a mile away, but i felt some of the issues i brought up were relevant to the article snow posted (which was not unquestioningly applauding obama's announcement). if it had been a "yay obama supports gay marriage" thread i would have walked on by. just as i have walked on by the news about gay marriage and other threads. i thought this thread was to critically discuss the implications of this issue, not to unquestioningly all agree that obama is wonderful and anyone who doesn't think he is is a mean person who's setting the movement back.

[BullDog]

aishah, you didn't lose me. I get that you are frustrated and that you think there are other issues that don't get addressed. How do you think things should move forward?

Obama's public support of same sex marriage doesn't address other issues. True statement. If Obama came out in support of rights for trans sexed people it wouldn't necessarily address same sex marriage. It wasn't an all encompassing statement. You're right it doesn't cover everyone. The Civil Rights Act really didn't cover me either, but I am very happy for the movement and the laws that have been passed.

I am 50 years old and never thought I would see the day when a President of the United States would acknowledge us in ways that President Obama has. It does mean a lot to me and it seems to me it would be politically smart to rally behind it more. That is my opinion. Not everyone has to be rah rah cheerleader, but this is an historic moment. I am frustrated by queers too. I guess just in different ways.

I think it's funny that people are suspicious that this is politically motivated. Well if it is we should be pumping our fists that we have that much political power, lol. If not, maybe President Obama really has evolved. Or maybe they've carefully calculated things and are reasonably sure according to the polls that it won't hurt Obama and so now he can say it publicly.

Seriously whatever the reason, the President of the United States said something supportive. We are actually mentioned and supported in the Democratic Party's Platform. The Republican Party's Platform specifically states in several places that they are against same sex marriage and will actively work to legislate. Is the Democratic Party perfect? Absolutely not, but when people go around talking about mistrusting all politicians it seriously makes my head spin. There are huge differences between the political parties.

I am frustrated aishah that you continue to align marriage with white, middle class. I am white and middle class. I don't want to have the right to have a legal marriage so that I can be heteronormative and live out someone's fantasy of the "good lesbian next door." I want to have the rights because I love my partner and I want to make sure we have all the legal protections that heterosexual married couples do. People of all races and classes marry.

Heterosexual as well as queer singles and polyamorous people are left out of some of the same legal protections that married couples receive. I get that. There is more than one issue that needs to be addressed. It's also true that it is not always financial advantageous to be married. If you are queer or an unmarried heterosexual partner you aren't legally responsible for your partner's debts and taxes. If you are legally married then you are.

[aishah]

thanks, bulldog :) i feel like we tend to agree on most things here.

i did not align marriage with white and middle class. i aligned the mainstream lgbtq movement with white and middle class. it's something of a coincidence that the single issue there is marriage - that does not mean that marriage isn't important to other folks. the distinction i'm trying to make is that the rest of us have other issues that disproportionately affect us, but don't necessarily affect the face of the mainstream lgbtq movement (which is mainly white and middle class), and that's why (it seems to me anyway) that our issues are not considered as important.

i'm grateful for obama's statement. i know it was not meant to address other issues - i didn't expect it to. i'm just frustrated that he will NEVER address other issues because the mainstream lgbtq movement has ignored those other issues. for example, i don't see obama coming out and saying something about the recent murders of trans* women of color in the bay area the way he did about gay marriage.

i do understand and respect that in this particular instance that would have been a tangent. i'm looking at the bigger picture - what are we doing in our movement that is causing this situation where other urgent issues aren't being covered in mainstream media and by politicians? and the answer to that, to my understanding, is the single-pointed focus on gay marriage. that doesn't mean that in this particular instance i don't think it's great that obama came out (sort of, as a states' rights issue) in support of gay marriage. it's just - if we look at the larger picture of media and political coverage - could our movements be more inclusive? i hope so.

i can't apologize for mistrusting all politicians, unforunately. given the oppressive structure of our systems, and the corruptive weight of lobbying interests and other issues.... well. i have trust issues out the wazoo anyway :) i'm glad i voted for obama. originally it was a last minute decision out of fear for safety, given the violent islamophobic tension in the last election, but this time i will be voting for him with eyes wide open. he's the best option we have. i just...have too much faith in people to settle for the idea that our current way of doing things is the only way. like sparkle said, i want my basic human and civil rights. full stop.

[CherylNYC]

... i suspect it was an election stunt...

...so despite his support, even he still believes we should be treated as separate and unequal...

... these laws extend a few more rights to monogamous same-sex couples...

... the attempts to push the idea of a "normalized" gay person has set up the dichotomy of "good queers" (those who are most easily able to conform to a heteronormative society, to the best of their ability, usually but not always middle/upper class white gays and lesbians)/"bad queers" (the rest of us)....
.

Apologies for cutting up your post. I pulled out some quotes that I wanted to directly address.

Election stunt? Do you seriously think that Obama thinks he's going to gain votes from anywhere with his statement of support? He already had the gay and liberal vote. He almost certainly lost some centrist votes, and energised the evangelicals who are lukewarm about the Mormon candidate, but white hot about denying us full civil rights. All the indicators are that this WILL hurt him at the ballot box. Apparently, Obama had come to his decision a month or more ago, and decided to announce his position prior to the Dem convention to avoid a divisive floor fight during the convention. The CW on this is that it would have been far better for his campaign if he had waited until after the election.

"Seperate but unequal" would have been Obama's previous position in favour of civil unions. Supporting marriage equality means equality. Period. Yes, I would have been far more impressed had he not said he thought it was a states' right's issue. On the other hand, he's laying the groundwork for the repeal of DOMA. The reality is that once DOMA is repealed, states will no longer have the ability to discriminate against a person who has been legally wed in another state.

Why on earth do you assume that marriage means monogamy? I have never been monogamous, nor would I become monogamous if I were to marry. Many married couples are non-monogamous, and I don't mean cheaters. The government can't legislate monogamy, and frankly doesn't care to despite the efforts of all the, (probably cheating), tea baggers. Additionally, when you assert that marriage equality only provides "a few more rights", you expose tremendous ignorance about the real legal ramifications of marriage, which is odd when you're so passionate about this subject. There are more than 1,100 specific rights and privileges granted to legal spouses. For someone so invested in the welfare of poor people you seem to be willfully ignoring the plight of lgbt elders who are, on average, far poorer than their straight counterparts because they are denied their deceased partner's social security benefits. This is a very serious hardship since many poor people rely on social security as their sole support in old age.

I'm an avowed pervert, non-monogamous biker leatherdyke, hippie artist. I just went out to look at a pro dungeon where the Lesbian Sex Mafia might decide to throw our Leather Pride party, which I am organising. There is not a soul in my community who suspects that I may be "normalized", or a "good queer". This pervert is just as happy about the prospect of full marriage equality as I am about the advancement of any other major civil rights issue. And I'm that much happier because many people that I care about stand to gain more than 1,100 specific benefits when their relationships are recognised as equal. Oh, and many of those friends are not white or middle class. It would be OK to care about their wellbeing even if they were, though.

[aishah]

to me, states' rights issue essentially means separate but unequal. either they are rights we should have or they are not. if you look at the civil rights movement, in terms of laws actually being enforced, people's rights were not ensured until it was treated as a federal issue.

too tired to deal with the rest right now - bed :) night.

[Cin]

I don't believe federally recognized marriage for same sex couples means equality for queers.

I don't believe legislation giving me the right to marry whom I choose makes homosexuality acceptable in the eyes of Mr. & Mrs. Straight America.

I don't believe gay marriage will change society's belief there exists only two sexes and two genders and that even within that extremely tight structure there will continue to be no mix and match.

I don't believe winning the battle for gay marriage federally will somehow increase in numbers or in enthusiasm those kinds of queers who believe the best course to achieving equality is to tip toe quietly, blend in as best you can and attract as little attention as possible and who blame the rest of us for the hold up. I think you either are that or you are not that.

I don't believe that there is a danger of being mainstreamed or normalized or a purposeful goal by a certain segment of the queer population to mainstream or normalize that is in any way meaningful enough that I want to give up the opportunity to receive the immigration freedoms and social security benefits that federally sanctioned marriage will allow (and the 1000 other benefits).

I don't believe federal marriage equality reifies or has an affect whatsoever on existing oppressive structures in our society. Oppressive structures in our society are already as real and concrete as they can get. My gaining the right to federally sanctioned marriage will not affect that.

I don't believe a push for gay marriage is a push for the idea of a “normalized” gay person.

I don't believe a desire for marriage equality or a desire to marry is heteronormative or will set up a dichotomy of “good queers”/”bad queers” or will align me with the mainstream lgbtq movement in general or with their attempts to say “we’re just like middle/upper class white straight families.

I don't believe that I have anything in common with middle/upper class white families be they straight or gay, period, whether or not federal marriage for same sex couples ever happens. Or that I ever have to in order to enjoy the benefits of federally sanctioned marriage.

I don't believe that mainstream movements of any type are going to help me or queers like me (or people like me in regards to mainstream movements not of the queer variety) except by accident or by incidental and unavoidable trickling down. It would not be anyone’s goal in a mainstream movement, even a mainstream movement for and about marginalized people to help the most marginalized of its people. Once a movement achieves mainstream status it’s probably sold its soul to the devil for the privilege and it’s time to find another movement. However this will not stop me from enjoying any human or civil rights they win for their mainstream queers.

I don't believe any politician ever has as his/her goal to help the least powerful in society. Again though I will enjoy any rights they get standing up for or next to the marginally powerful movement in my group of marginalized people.

I especially don't believe that human or civil rights won today won’t have to be fought for and won again. I need only to look at the current attack on women’s reproductive rights happening in the US today to have that underscored emphatically.

I do believe that there is interconnectedness to achieving equality. Any gain clicks another piece in place. And while it is certainly not desirous, necessary or even really possible for everyone to become mainstream nor is it acceptable to be defined or valued by one’s ability to closely resemble society’s definition of normal, there is a benefit to gaining any human or civil right that will, above and beyond any trickle down effect, bring a group of individuals closer to being seen as people deserving of basic human and civil rights (which is different from being seen as mainstream or normal). It will also shine a light on the reality that one segment of society is without the basic human and civil rights most take for granted.

I also believe that the fundamental inequality inherent in our societal structures makes me closer in class and in political purpose to a poor straight person than it does to a middle class queer.

[BullDog]

The more I think of same sex marriage supposedly being a class issue the less it makes sense to me. This isn't just in response to things aishah has said because I have heard it outside of BFP too.

Let's say you have a wealthy gay male couple and a poor lesbian couple. Who do you think needs legal protection for their relationship more?

The wealthy couple can hire attorneys, tax accountants, financial planners, estate planners etc etc. What sort of access does the poor couple have?

[Cin]

The more I think of same sex marriage supposedly being a class issue the less it makes sense to me. This isn't just in response to things aishah has said because I have heard it outside of BFP too.

Let's say you have a wealthy gay male couple and a poor lesbian couple. Who do you think needs legal protection for their relationship more?

The wealthy couple can hire attorneys, tax accountants, financial planners, estate planners etc etc. What sort of access does the poor couple have?

You know that's exactly what I was thinking but I feel like I must be missing something. And as a poor, definitively marginalized, quite the opposite of mainstream, butch woman who has never been confused with a middle/upper class white queer, I keep trying to understand what I am missing. Growing up how I did and being poor all my life I usually grasp stuff like this but I'm not seeing how marriage equality whether or not it is an over emphasized and over valued issue can be anything but a good thing for me. Plus it opens up coming back to the US as an option.

[BullDog]

I certainly get that white and middle class issues often dominate and others have to continue to fight to be heard and have their issues part of the movement as well. We only have to look to feminism to clearly see that.

However the way same sex marriage is described as a white, middle class issue truly makes no sense to me. As Cheryl said, what about low income people who lose their partner and then don't have access to social security benefits that a heterosexual would have?

[Cin]

And for same sex marriage to have any benefit for me personally it has to be federal. Yet I see each victory in each state as a stepping stone.

Maybe it is to some degree an age thing. I've seen so much change that I never even imagined I would that I probably don't have the same kinds of expectations as someone from a generation that grew up hearing queer and rights in the same sentence. I think the shape of the hate and prejudice you experience twists your expectations. When I was a teenager I thought it was a great weekend if I escaped getting the shit kicked out of me at some bar by some fun loving dudes who thought it was a big joke to call me little man and play hacky sack with my head. Not that stuff like that still doesn't happen it's just a bit of a different climate today. I never imagined I would get to marry the woman I loved. I want my basic human and civil rights too, but I'm prepared for it not to be an express ride.

[aishah]

i don't expect it to be an express ride, either - i don't know any younger (or for that matter older - 40-50+) activists (at least in the communities i am part of) who do. most of us have experienced hate and prejudice (not to mention loss of jobs, loss of loved ones, violence against loved ones, violence against us, etc.). i respect that it was much harder decades ago. but most of us know this shit is still hard.

i don't believe marriage itself is solely a white, middle-class issue. i do believe white, middle-class folks dominate the conversation (at least in the u.s.) and that that is part of why marriage is the single issue. and part of the media piece is projecting an assimilationist/mainstreamed idea of what queer is (usually white, middle-class, and monogamous), and i think that does some harm to the rest of us in terms of marginalizing us further (regardless of whether we have legal protection for our marriages).

[Cin]

i do believe white, middle-class folks dominate the conversation (at least in the u.s.) and that that is part of why marriage is the single issue. and part of the media piece is projecting an assimilationist/mainstreamed idea of what queer is (usually white, middle-class, and monogamous), and i think that does some harm to the rest of us in terms of marginalizing us further (regardless of whether we have legal protection for our marriages).

Yes I do imagine it might marginalize us further when we don't meet the expectation of what queer has been projected as being. What a disappointment I will be for sure.

As a very masculine looking person who insists on being seen as a woman I never expect assimilation. The idea of being seen as even less mainstream because of some image the media has projected about queers and marriage has never entered my mind. But I suppose anything is possible. i just haven't thought about this possibility much. I just don't expect middle North America to ever look at me with anything less than disdain. And personally I'll take disdain over some of the other looks I get. At least it's fairly benign. I suppose that could change if queers are supposed to look a certain way and I don't meet the expectation. I would hate to find myself in a world of shit because of false advertising from mainstream queers for marriage.

[dark_crystal]

<snip>
* so much of the money and work in our community goes towards this single issue, while we are experiencing violence, bullying, unemployment, incarceration, police brutality, etc. etc. etc.
* the people who will benefit most from passing gay marriage ( for example, upper-class white gays and lesbians who are seeking to be accepted as part of a heteronormative society) are not the most vulnerable people in our community who need our protection (for example, homeless youth, incarcerated trans* women of color, queer sex workers, etc.). and the people who DO need obama to speak out for them will never matter to him

New Rules Target Sexual Assault Epidemic Facing LGBT Inmates (http://www.advocate.com/politics/washington-dc/2012/05/17/new-rules-target-sexual-assault-epidemic-among-lgbt-inmates)

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's Department of Justice has released new rules to combat the epidemic of sexual assault in the nation’s prison system, a crisis that disproportionately affects LGBT inmates, as the agency specifically addressed Thursday.

[aishah]

^ okay, he is pretty awesome and i'm glad he keeps making me happy i voted for him :)

another thing that came to mind while i was at work yesterday is the gratitude piece...i think a lot of time folks think that when people are critical, we're being ungrateful, and that's bad. to me, i am grateful, but the emphasis that people place on gratitude in these baby steps is really...demoralizing sometimes. it is the government's job to protect the rights of minorities. these are my human and civil rights. we have been fighting to get them for decades. it reminds me of my experiences having to constantly couch accessibility needs in apologies, begging, pleading, etc. - when having access should (in my opinion at least) be a matter of fact issue. i understand that it makes us look bad to straight people if we're ungrateful for baby steps, and that can compromise the future of achieving more baby steps. but at the same time...i am frustrated that we have to beg, plead, and fall over ourselves thanking folks for rights that should be guaranteed to us and that straight people have had for centuries - and that we have had to fight like hell and sometimes die for.

this is what i think of when i think of gratitude and waiting.

ediuDf7fMXY

(i must say i'm grateful for this thread and all the posts here though :) )

[Kätzchen]

There is such a wealth of opinion in our own community as well as in our own constellation of friends and family and certainly in terms of the community at large who are not a part of our own community here online. I’m at a place this morning where I can offer my own express opinion on the subject of marriage as framed by Lady Snow and others participating in the on-going discussion, currently at stake.

I have a ‘Love-Hate’ relationship with the subject of marriage.

I could offer a dossier of evidence culled via opinion in our own community, but I feel that offering my own dossier of opinion might add toward the discussion as it spirals and weaves throughout many social constructs prevalent in society today and hope that it adds toward the currency of Equity in terms of providing food for thought – not only for myself as I inspect my own attitudes that shape my own viewpoint on marriage but as I inspect my own system of beliefs that might keep me from seeing a much fuller and richer spectrum of available remedies we seek as a people who have little to no equity in a society that commits acts of hate upon women because we are the female of the species, but also, seemingly, because we are people who are not the Color of Water (reference to James McBride) or Indispensable (reference to Noam Chomsky) or because we seem to be saddled down with quotients of Emotional Labor (reference to Berkeley scholar: Hochschild, 1983 – The Managed Heart).

The three italicized references above speak to three social constructs prevalent in US society that seem to have more weight in social settings and provide for a glimpse into the culture of how women have been oppressed and dressed down for ages with lashes on our backs as proof of a culture (isomorphic by design) that hates on women 24/7 (et al).

I’ve mostly held a Minnepean sense of attitude (satirical by design) where it concerns marriage (Mikhail Baktin, Communication Theorist from Russia).

I believe that Miss Tick and Sparkle said it best, for me, where it concerns Marriage:

“…I think the shape of the hate and prejudice you experience twists your expectations…” Miss Tick.

“…I want my basic human and civil rights…” with the much important caveat, which speaks toward a more full spectrum issue that needs our full attention in ways that red flags seems to not get the attention it needs and deserves: “I want FULL LEGAL PARITY…” Sparkle.

I emphasized with all caps the part concerning “full legal parity” not to be taken as yelling but rather as the crucial piece to the stake at issue: the populace minority does not have full legal parity and in my express opinion, until the minority and undocumented minority are given full legal parity, we won’t be seeing much of any legal parity in the foreseealble future.
I say that because in one of my late graduate classes in Communication Law, we studied how Legal Eagles make crucial decisions at the level of The Supreme Court. Let me see if I can articulate what I want to say in the simplest terms possible because the situation is NOT distilled to a set of simple facts nor is it a situation, as we’ve seen for years now, that seems to have a solution that the majority opinion holders and voters can wrap their minds around. IF we can all influence change on any subject alone, THEN we must be willing to examine issues from the trajectory of, seemingly but not too terribly wise position of: The past is a predictor of the present (I forget which psychologist to reference for this analytical design/framework).

If we take that strand of thought for the moment, we can see how past issues have been handled from a standpoint that what has happened in the past has strongly influenced what transpires in the present. For example, one member of our community stated that in the past marriage between people of differing race was not tolerated socially and people were punished in legal fashion as well as socially, hence why after much social resistance and terrible acts of atrocity impacted the fabric of the American populace to wield a particular type of change that would afford people of color to marry people of no color. Being punished for being a person of color who is not a part of the overwhelming majority of people of no color not only caused suffering of great magnitude and lent toward a stripping of identity at social, cultural and political levels of life in America but also gave power to a people of minority status which helped change social, cultural and legal attitude. But that kiind of change did not happen overnight. It took almost a generation and a half or two for that kind of change to be found among the landscape of “The Free”. I say that with a dose of sarcasm with the impact of an unrelenting tidal wave of tsumani magnitude.

We’re not free at all in America.

We’re not free of prejucial actions and attitudes.

We’re not free of inequitable arrangements at a social, cultural (dare I say religious), and legally framed way of social order. In Communication Law, I learned that justice is served in ways that are not always judicicously applied in the best interest of the people who reside under the umbrella (rubric) of current construction of applicable law. We live in a time where archaic law guides executive decision. And in my own opinion sincerely, until a time comes where we can grow a set of attitudes that extend social equity to all rather than the select few (which seems to be the majority in our American universe), we will be not sitting too pretty at any time soon.

Even now, as I almost turn 53, I’ve been of the mindset where the only reasonable solution to me concerning marriage was I will never be able to participate in this particular social construct with full legal parity. I’ve been… “single, going steady”… for a long time now but not with anyone else but myself.

In my own estimation, until we achieve full legal parity on a number of interconnected issues (referencing Miss Ticks’ express opinion), it will be exceptionally difficult to be 'free' on any account in America.

Yours Truly,
~Dawn

[Nadeest]

I will agree, we need full legal parity on everything.

[Quintease]

This (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/05/obamas-support-of-marriage-equality-proving-to-have-a-major-impact/) and this (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/23/488833/poll-marriage-equality-support-stronger-than-ever-including-among-african-americans/)!

[BullDog]

Thank you for posting the articles Quintease!

Here's another one:

here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-president-obamas-announcement-opposition-to-gay-marriage-hits-record-low/2012/05/22/gIQAlAYRjU_story.html?hpid=z3)

Obama's public announcement is making a difference.