I Now Pronounce You...Oppressed: An argument against marriage equality

What is Marriage? This is the first question one should ask when discussing the oppressive and liberating aspects of this social institution. Currently, in the United States of America, marriage is legally defined for only a man and women. Under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) marriage is defined as, “ a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband and wife.”[1]According to Gregg Easterbrook of the New Republic “Marriage is, more than anything else, the expression of love,”[2] and according to Fredrick Engels, “The overthrow of the mother right was the world-historic defeat of the female sex. The man seized the reigns of the house also; the woman was degraded, enthralled, the slave of the man’s lust, a mere instrument for breeding children,”[3] which is from his discussion on capitalism and private property in marriage. From these examples we see that marriage is presented in different ways, but what one should focus on, for this essay, is the heteronormativity that echoes throughout these definitions. Within this essay, my goal is to dissect marriage at its current state and highlight the misogyny, patriarchy, and heterosexism that are presented throughout this cultural benchmark. Throughout this argument I will present marriage in its history, the pros to having marriage for LGBTQ persons, and the negatives to this allowance. By showing these vectors of marriage, I hope to appropriately discuss that by assimilating marriage, at its current state, onto LGBTQ persons will in turn further oppress LGBTQ persons.

To draw upon Easterbrook’s definition of marriage, I feel that it is safe to say that his idea of marriage is one most commonly accepted. These romantic ideas around marriage in our cotemporary moment are the focal point around this current institution, with the history of marriage being rarely discussed, and if so it is still discussed in a romantic vein idea. The society in which we inhabit is a privileged based society, and has labeled marriage to be one of the many benchmarks in which one gains more privilege. Historically, marriage has always been about privilege, but it originally derived from the exchange of private property for women, which this still is currently happening across the globe. In The Future of Marriage, Dave Blackenhorn discusses the history of marriage through the analytical lenses of both Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. He shows that at the beginning of marriage the wife was someone “who differs from the ordinary courtesan only in that she does not hire out her body, like a wageworker, on piecework, but sells it into slavery once and for all.”[4] This shows the patriarchy and misogyny within the institution of marriage, and that it was constructed to further exploit women, and for this essay I will use the term “the feminine”[5] when drawing correlation between women and the LGBTQ community. In summary, marriage is an institution with an exploitive past. Its central purpose was to objectify women, and allow for them to be sold into a more socially acceptable slavery. By doing this, women were able to serve a “better” role within society by not being limited to only domestic skills and child bearing, but to also help in the monetary gain and exchange of men.

From the perspectives of queer and feminist theory, one can see that the definition that both the Bible and DOMA present is extremely limiting and oppressive. When empowering the social constructs of “male” and “female” [6], one is allowing society to further construct rigid guidelines on these binomial options presented at birth. So from here we can note that the bases of our contemporary attitudes towards marriage are limiting, and do not allow for fluid interactions to occur between persons. By further instilling this into marginalized groups we will be assimilating heteronormative culture onto a group that has derived most of its problems from heterosexism and homophobia.

By using marriage as the platform to gain equality the LGBTQ community are using the forces that oppress them currently to gain power, which is infinitely indivualistic and does not allow for a body at large to progress, but instead individuals. As of now, the marriage equality fight has been, in the words of John D’Emilio, “….unmitigated disaster.”[7] However, there have been wins, with currently 5 US states that allow for same-sex marriages to be recognized. If marriage is made legal for same-sex couples there will be many social and civil rights gained through this act. Currently, around 1,200 federal benefits are given to persons who are in heterosexual marriages, which are not obtainable under the current laws to same sex couples. Some of the benefits to being married are: Medicare benefits, death benefits, estate and tax recognition and benefits, and the list continues[8]. By allowing same-sex marriages, we would be allowing for legal and social frameworks that currently block same-sex couples from having the same mobility and privilege as heterosexual couples to be taken down, and allow for a more accessible and palpable rights for same-sex couples. In short, by allowing same-sex marriage we could theoretically even the oppressed “playing field” by bringing the society as a whole to the same legal level, we would allow for a certain equalization to occur, but I would remind many that civil rights are not equal rights. With the allowance of same-sex marriage, the movement would not be directly dealing with the root of LGBTQ oppression, which is homophobia and heterosexism. Rather by allowing this assimilation to occur the LGBTQ activists who are so adamant about equalization through marriage would be assimilating the oppressor’s rules even more onto there lives.

One of Audre Lorde’s most famous quotes and poems would be applicable in this situation, “The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.”[9] If we view heterosexism and homophobia as part of the master’s house, then marriage would be a tool that built the master’s house. Homophobia and heterosexism is the hatred or extreme dislike of the feminine, and through these vectors we dehumanize and exploit the feminine, and sometimes kill the feminine. The misogyny and patriarchy that are present within the foundations of marriage are the same ideals that fuel homophobia and heterosexism, so by subscribing to marriage we are ultimately subscribing to the same forces in which have allowed for this marginalization which will not dismantle the master’s house. By subscribing to marriage and pushing it to the forefront of the LGBTQ movement for equalization, we are further perpetuating the marginalization of the already marginalized group. Yes, it can be argued that by allowing same-sex marriages to occur LGBTQ people would be allotted more social mobility, but this would be mobility through an already oppressive field, and ultimately subscribing to heteronormativitey and showing our underlying dependency on patriarchy. I, personally, feel that being part of the LGBTQ community is entirely about not allowing binaries and social structures to not limit your performance not only as a gendered individual, but all aspects of one’s life. Marriage equality will further instill the social frameworks that limit social expression.

When subscribing to ideals like marriage equality, we are essentially turning our heads away from the real problems that are hurting the progression and distigmitization of the LGBTQ community. The LGBTQ movement at times seems quite egocentric. By allowing marriage equality to be the main stage of activism, we have lost sight of what is actually important to humans in our society: to interact equally. Today marriage, in general, is an institution of privilege that at its current state relies greatly on a classist principle of having funds to actually get married. From this we can draw that marriage is unnecessary for living, and is more of a sign of social and intimate status. When we start to fight for the rights of the homeless LGBTQ youth[10] that have no access to living quarters, let alone money to pay for a marriage license, or the need for universal healthcare so that person’s not only infected with HIV/AIDS virus in the LGBTQ community, but the world community can have equal access to health services, then we can start deciding on the colors of our wedding attire. However, I do recognize that these problems are immensely difficult to solve, and that the current path may be the only path able to be taken. All that I ask is that we do not mistake these civil rights as human rights.

Also, the way in which heterosexuality has been represented has constantly changed over the past half-century,

“Being heterosexual no longer means settling as a young adult into a lifelong coupled relationship sanctioned by the state and characterized by the presence of children and sharply gendered spousal roles.”[11] – D’Emilio

We now live in a society in which one can get married in a drive through, and get a divorce easier than ever. If I was to focus on the intimate relationships as a battleground for my pursuit for equality, I would combat it so that we wouldn’t allow for these unions to be the only arena in which we can allow another person legal access into my life and also, again, make it to where certain benefits like healthcare were more accessible to everyone, and not only to the privileged “loved” one’s. With intimate interactions moving more into a category of causality, we may no longer in the future desire marriage, so all of this work would in the end be in vain.

In conclusion, marriage is the patriarchal, misogynistic, and heterosexist institution that serves as a medium for persons to express their “love” for one another, in a contemporary context. The history of marriage is littered with slavery, exploitation, and pseudo-happiness. Marriage is a tool derived from the objectification of the feminine, the same objectification of the feminine that birthed homophobia, which is the contemporary mode of oppressing persons of “alternative lifestyles”. Once again, by assimilating the ideals onto an already marginalized group that suffers from the same oppression that started the institution of marriage, we are essentially reinstitutionalizing these already institutionalized forces, and further oppressing ourselves. Allowing marriage to take place in same-sex relationships would allow access to the current marital benefits that are not accessible to same-sex couples. This allows them more social and legal mobility, but this is still subscribing the oppressor’s agenda. My call to action for marriage equality activists is to direct these efforts to areas in which would bring an actual level of equalization to not only LGBTQ persons, but everyone that is marginalized by current frameworks. If the reason for marriage is so one has access to partner’s healthcare, then work for universal health care in America. There are more proactive outlets of gaining equalization than through the institution of marriage. The very fact that marriage would aid another limiting binary to the already limited society is enough reason to questions its “need”. We live in a society that limits us in all aspects of life, and many times our activist groups are seeking for another box to fit into rather than eradicating this boxes or frameworks in place, and in turn trying to build a society in which equalization is in place and mobility is a constant.

---

[1] Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419

[2] Easterbrrok, Gregg “Easterblogg,” New Republic Online, November 22,2003.

[3] Engels, Friedrich, The origin of the family, private property and the state / by Frederick Engels Resistance Books (Chippendale, N.S.W. : 2004), pg. 68-69.

[4] Blackenhorn, Dave. The Future of Marriage. (Encounter Books, New York: 2007), pp.29.

[5] I use the term “the feminine”to describe any aspect or person that doesn’t fit the “masculine” ideals which rule our current society. This term incorporates women, gay males, lesbians, etc. because queer does not adequately fit into discussions around heterosexual woman.

[6] When discussing male and female I am using the concept of Judith Butler that sex and gender are both social constructs. “As a result, gender is not to culture as sex is to nature: gender is also the discursive/cultural means by which ‘sexed nature’ or ‘a natural sex’ is produced and established as “prediscursive”, prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts.” Butler, Judith. Gender Troubles: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. (Routhledge, New York:1999)

[7] D’Emilio, John. “The Marriage Fight is Setting Us Back”, A Bimonthly Journal of History, Culture, and Politics (2002), Pg.2.

[8] The United States General Accounting Office compiled the listed with federal benefits. U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense of Marriage Act, GAO/OGC-97-16 (Washington, D.C.: January 31, 1997).

[9] Lorde, Audrey. `The Master's Tools will never Dismantle the Master's House', in C. Moraga and G. Anzaldua (eds) This Bridge Called my Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. (Boston, MA: Persephone Press, 1981)

[10] Youth are 30% more likely to be rejected by family when “alternative” sexual orientations are discovered. Evans, Wendy Grace. “Supporting LGBT Youth and Their Families: The Family Acceptance Project”, Homelessness Resource Center. March 10, 2010 <http://homelessness.samhsa.gov/Resource/View.aspx?id=46133&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1>

[11] D’Emilio, John. “The Marriage Fight is Setting Us Back”, A Bimonthly Journal of History, Culture, and Politics (2002),pg.3.