I wrote a post three years ago, about same sex marriage in Canada. I was very pregnant at the time, and very thoughtful about it. To spare you the whole deal, I’ll paraphrase:
I’m not gay. I’m your stereotypical married woman. I’m also pregnant, which makes me part of that group the Conservatives are ostensibly trying to protect.
I’m due in August. By the time the debate is done and the vote has been cast tonight, I want to be able to ensure that my child, when he or she comes into the world, will be born never having known their country to prevent this right. This child will grow up and live in a country without ever having to think of the right to marriage as a heterosexual right.
No matter what my child becomes, no matter who they choose to love, I’ll never have to stand outside the gates of our government and shout for justice for them. They will never have to think of themselves as less than, or excluded from. Who they love won’t define their place in society.
So, now California is back in the business of same sex marriage. Good, say I. Makes me happy to hear. It does appall me is that anyone thought to go stand outside city hall to protest the marriage of octogenarians, whose very existence belies the notion that gays don’t create lasting bonds. That these people would sport signs bearing crude references to sodomy, and/or bright red circles with strikes through them, across the faces of same sex couples.
It’s appalling, but I guess to be expected.
What I am surprised by is this post at Feministe.
It’s a very well written post stating that the right to marriage was won at a high cost, the “sanitization” of the GLBTQ community.
And I quote:
. . . by privileging individuals and couples and relationships that are the most tame, the most palatable, the most marketable while shunning those who stray a bit too much from Middle America’s ideas of propriety.
Not only would all the nice, normal gays and lesbians need to wait around until the government and the rest of American society decided that the freaks were human, too, but those same nice, normal gays and lesbians might have to confront their own prejudice and acknowledge their own privilege. Gasp!
I get it. The polyamorous families go without. The flamboyantly gay go without. Transsexuals go without. They all go without the chance to be the display model for Gay Today.
Since when did this distinction between “nice, normal gays” and “marginalized by their own kind gays” spring up? Since when was there an expectation that one body, comprised of multitudes, could possibly service the needs of every member in their own unique circumstance?
I have an idea! Why don’t all these marginalized fringes splinter off into smaller, more bite-sized groups - easily identified by their homogenous nature and their narrow focused goals? Why not narrow it down to groups encompassing just the Transgendered, just the Gays with short haircuts, just the Overtly Feminine or Incredibly Butchy? Won’t that make it easier to raise agenda items that get the world to sit up and take notice? Won’t all of these smaller groups form a better force for building momentum?
I mean, heck - it worked for feminism, didn’t it?
No?
Maybe it’s utterly insensitive of me to think “It’s politics. It’s how the game is played”. After all, I’m not gay. I have no gay relatives. My gay friends are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Hells, I don’t even play a gay person on TV. Do I even have a right to say anything at all? Or does that make me part of the people oppressing the margins?
Still, whether I’m entitled to an opinion or not, I do think you have to play to the public relations/media aspect of things as much as you have to represent the needs of your community. To imagine that the game ought not be played at all (or by your own rules) is a sure way to remain sitting on the bench, in that there marginalized position you were talking about.
