Friday, July 27, 2012

When Weird Gets Real: The Rhetoric of Marriage Inequality, or, Red Hot American Summer

Caveat lector! I'm probably going to piss off a lot of people with this post. But, you know what? It's been over 100 degrees F here for the past six weeks, I have to hear the words "Mitt" and "Romney" spoken in earnest all day long on the radio, and I'm feeling a little cranky. From the rhetoric of the presidential campaign and the stuff floating around the interwebs these days, I get the feeling that a lot of people are feeling cranky too. Leaving aside the presidential rhetoric about tax returns etc, I'm going to write a little bit about the debates going on concerning same-sex marriage, religion, and fast food. This comes out of a discussion I've been having on Twitter with Matt Moberly, who informed me that supporters of gay marriage are boycotting Chick-Fil-A and Christians opposed to gay marriage are boycotting Starbucks. (Sidebar: Does this seem like a weird way to carry on a debate about marriage rights? Yes. Yes it is.) From there we went on to discuss another rhetorical tactic of the proponents of gay marriage: comparing their cause with the civil rights movements of the 1960s.

Matt then referred me to an article by Voddie Baucham titled "Gay is Not the New Black," published on July 19, 2012 by The Gospel Coalition. I'm sure there are a lot of other articles that present Christian opposition to gay marriage in more well-reasoned terms. (A warning to the highly literate: this one displays poor logic in numerous areas.) I feel compelled to post my own response to the article here, not only because I support marriage equality rights, but because I find that this kind of rhetoric distorts what marriage means to me as a non-religious, feminist woman living in the 21st century. What follows is an excerpt of an email I sent to Matt:

"There are a lot of problems with the logic of that article. But I will focus on the primary one: In the United States, religion (any religion) is not the authoritative basis of marriage. A religious marriage is neither A) required for American persons to be considered "married," nor B) legally binding. The state provides that authority, along with all the legal rights and privileges granted to married peoples.

"This evidence is anecdotal, but bear with me. Dennis and I were married in Cook County marriage court in 2005. We are granted both legal and cultural benefits of marriage. So we have legal rights to each other's property (for example), and cultural benefits of being viewed favorably by the population for appearing to adhere to a hetero-normative bourgeois lifestyle. We don't appear to rock the social boat, so to speak. Religion doesn't enter into it, and frankly, I get a little irritated when folks (like the author of the article) insist that my marriage has any relationship to religious tradition. I have entered into a legal union, the name of which is coincidentally shared by a religious union to which I do not subscribe."

This is a photo of me taken after my non-religious wedding, courtesy of my best maid, Sara Stromer:


"Would you agree, that as a non-religious person, I still have a right (granted by the state, but upheld by the culture at large) to this legal union? I am going to assume that you do, and continue with my argument.

"Ok. So let's do a little hypothetical. What if, instead of being born with a y chromosome, Dennis had been born Denise, and we lived in a state where same-sex marriage was legal, and we decided to enter into the same legal union we have now, but with a gender difference? There would be a certain amount of cultural opposition to this union (religion being just one basis for that cultural objection). However, in this hypothetical situation, there would be no legal objection. Jessica & Dennis get married, or Jessica and Denise get married, it makes no difference to the state. And the state is who we are talking about when we are making claims about civil rights.

"Of course, under this hypothetical situation, there would still be states (most of them, in fact) where Jessica & Dennis would be granted legal rights that Jessica & Denise would not. And in this way, the gay marriage comparison actually does match up somewhat to the black civil rights movement. While we equate civil rights today with cultural and social equality, it was primarily directed at legal exclusions based on race. The civil rights movement didn't outlaw racism, but it did mean that an African-American person had to be treated equally by the laws of New York and Alabama.

"As I said before, the gay marriage/civil rights movement comparison is overstated. The subtle homophobia directed at the LGBT community has qualitatively different effects than the Jim Crow laws of the past. And frankly, I think that the gay marriage debate is a red herring designed to direct our collective gaze away from that more subtle and powerful homophobia, which we avoid by debating whether the state or the church governs marriage rights. But like riding at the front of the bus or sitting at a lunch counter, same-sex marriage has become emblematic of a movement for equal social treatment. What my critique of Baucham's article tries to show is just this: Churches and other cultural institutions don't get to decide who can get married in the United States today, the state does that. But there is a difference between the rights granted by the state, and the acceptance of those same rights by some people in the nation (and they don't all object based on religion). I'm just asking that we recognize that difference, and think hard about the reasons why the general culture accepts Jessica & Dennis but not Jessica & Denise."

If you have managed to read all the way through this rhetorical critique/rant, then let me reward you with some of the (slightly) more lighthearted weirdness that you have come to expect from this site. I recently visited the amazing "Underneath It All" exhibition about the history of women's silhouettes, and the undergarments required to create them, at the Missouri History Museum here in St. Louis. There I saw this:


It's a nursing corset. Apparently there was a time in recent human history when new mothers were expected to wear a corset while nursing their babies. Aren't the nipple flaps kind of incredible? I could go on to make some further point about how, as humans, our expectations for behavior are in a constant state of evolution, and that some of the constraints we have placed on ourselves in the past seem insane to us today. But I think I'll just leave it at that, and let you make what you will of the nursing corset, as well as the rest of it.

Comments welcome.

4 comments:

  1. As a fellow feminist non-religious lady, this was really interesting to read. I often wonder about marriage for these reasons, its history, its religious tie-in ("tie-in" may not be the best word as that seems to summon up images of Batman-related toys in a Happy Meal but you get my gist), but your statement is incredibly well-said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amy, yes marriage is kind of a problem for a woman whose priorities include personal independence and the destruction of patriarchy. As a cultural institution it carries a lot of sexist baggage, and I will admit that in my own case it implies more than a little cowardice. But I think what I'm trying to say is that we have an opportunity here to redefine it. I feel like that's what Dennis and I have done in our own marriage; we've adopted a traditional structure but we use it on our own terms. I think that anybody who wants to do the same should have the right to do so, but of course, I think we all should also be more socially accepting of people who choose not to wed. (Seinfeld voice: "I choose not to wed!")

      Delete
  2. This is a great post -- it is refreshing to read such well-thought-out and well-written commentary. I recently experienced something that really brought home the importance of marriage as a civil right. My husband and I were visiting his father, who has some major health issues, and suddenly became ill on our trip. When the ER nurse asked if we were all family, and I was able to answer "yes," I finally realized how as a straight couple, we take for granted the rights and benefits we received in being able to marry. I struggled with the decision to marry my partner for political and philosophical reasons, and in that moment, I truly understood how important this right is and the hugeness of the cruelty of not allowing equal status to certain couples based on their gender.

    And on the nursing corset...do you think 100 years from now, we will find the idea of a "nursing bra" just as ridiculous? I rather hope so!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erin, you make a great point. Marriage does grant us access to so many things. And we take that for granted, as do the parties granting the access. Don't you think it's interesting that the hospital takes your word that you are married, and then grants you rights that you wouldn't otherwise have? This was my thought when I applied for a mortgage. Dennis and I have different last names, which vexed the mortgage broker a little bit. But when he asked if we were married, and we replied in the affirmative, that was that. It strikes me as a very superficial way to conduct business, but an awful lot of business gets conducted this way. I'm not saying that granting rights and benefits based on marriage is the right way to do things. But as long as same-sex marriage is outlawed, a lot of people are left at a disadvantage.

      As for the future of the nursing bra, I have no idea what we'll think about that in 100 years. But it's fun to try :)

      Delete