I've got the marriage blues. See, I've been thinking quite a bit about this marriage bit, and I'm just not so sure I want any part in it. After all, just a few years ago we (the LGBTQ movement) were helping to pioneer a critique against marriage. Yet, here we are, demanding access to an institution we once helped expose as inherently flawed.
This is a hard pill for many to swallow. What is it about marriage that's so bad, after all? It seems that marriage equality would be a huge legal step towards full equality for LGBTQ Americans and also a huge step culturally towards eradicating homophobia. And, you know, this is not terribly far from the truth. But to whom is this equality given?
I want to think about other kinds of consequences. I want to consider what this will do to the kinds of relationships we enter into. One thing I always loved about being gay was that I didn't have to have my friends always nagging me about "when ya gonna get married, huh?" I could live a single life without that pressure looming over my head. I can be happy as a single person and deemed so by others without having to get married to validate that.
Moreover, I could enter into an open relationship - as many gay men do - and defy the mainstream's obsession with monogamy. I know many gay couples who have been together for many, many years and have a completely open relationship. When I was just in San Francisco I ran into a couple that has been together for 15 years - completely open and still thriving. Will it work for everyone? No. Does it work for a surprising number of people? Yes. Marriage will help eliminate that possibility by stigmatizing these kinds of relationships.
I want to us to just consider, for a moment, that maybe life-long monogamy isn't all it's cracked up to be. In doing this, we should think about how this whole marriage thing really started. Was marriage always about true love that lasted a lifetime? No. It was, at first, about a man owning a woman legally. She was his property. Marriage, not too long ago, wasn't about honeymoons and deep intimacy - but about the subjugation of women to men for as long as the man deemed necessary. Women were not valuable in and of themselves - they were only deemed worthy via their husband's - their owner's - status. The institution us queer folks are clambering to get into was built on domination and oppression. Let's keep that in mind.
Let's also consider if that has really changed - is marriage no longer about property? Well, let's think about how married couples are formally addressed: "Mr. and Mrs. John Doe." All she is here is a Mrs. - without a name, she is virtually invisible. Were she to be named she would be Mrs. Jane Doe - her family's name erased to make way for that of the man. Women consistently take their husband's name - a sign that some remnants of the origins of marriage are still with us. Also consider how married men and woman physically express their status. Women are supposed to wear glitzy hard-to-miss diamond rings to show others that they are taken, owned. Men simply wear gold bands that are a bit more conspicuous. Let's consider that when asking for marriage.
Let's also think about the arguments made for having access to marriage. Quite a bit of the dialogue around this issue is founded on heart-breaking stories about partners dying and their loved one denied access to the hospital room as her/his lover passed on. These are tragic stories, without a doubt. They demand attention. But I want to consider an alternate narrative. Let's say that I was lying on my death bed and the only person I wanted to be by my side was my best friend. Would he be allowed into my room? No. Our relationship, though incredibly important in my own life, is of no importance here. Only marriage is valued. Even if I was straight and I had an unmarried partner of 20 years the same would be true.
Also, if you weren't aware, the price of the average wedding isn't exactly reasonable. Average wedding costs are reported anywhere between $12,000 and $20,000 (this varies also by metro area). Average! Who is this institution really available to? It's clear that most Americans, especially queer Americans, don't have this kind of cash to throw around. Now certainly full weddings aren't necessary to get hitched - you can go on down to the Court House and get a license for a hundred bucks or so. But there is certainly a LOT of pressure to have a huge ceremony when you do get married - marriages without it might not be seen as serious or worthy of approval.
The bottom line is this: though gay marriage will prove to be an important legal victory towards full legal equality for LGBTQ people, the cultural repercussions need to be better weighed and considered. I don't think that we can really talk anymore about whether we should fight for marriage or not - the dominos have been tipped, a chain reaction set in place. Marriage will happen. It may take 2 years or it may take 20, but I do think that it's only a matter of time. I do not deny the benefits that marriage will bestow upon gay couples that they are otherwise denied. But I think we need to keep in mind that whenever benefits are given, they are likewise denied to others. To be a full citizen of this country - to reap all the benefits of being an American - you have to be married. I find that troubling.