Isn’t marriage queer?
A SOCIALIST TAKE ON SAME-SEX UNIONS
by Frances Piper
I wonder what Matthiessen, a Christian and a socialist, would say today. In the 36 years after New York’s Stonewall riots ushered in the movement for queer liberation, the battle lines for civil rights have been drawn and redrawn. While gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender and transsexual people are far from living free of discrimination, they’ve nonetheless made substantial gains around such issues as censorship, freedom of association, pension entitlements, employment equity and AIDS treatment. And in the coming months, the Canadian government will vote on Bill C-38, which legalizes same-sex unions.
BILL C-38
For many on the left, the bill marks a significant step forward, clearing the way for queers to be fully accepted into society. Others argue that demanding such acceptance is more accurately viewed as capitulating to the cultural norms and institutions of a patriarchal capitalist society, and a step backward from the sexual radicalism that once characterized the movement for queer liberation. We should be knocking down pillars of the current social order, critics argue, not rapping on the system’s doors, asking to be let in. Such a critique is powerful, and has the merit of keeping the broader goals of the movement for radical change in plain sight. It doesn’t engage, however, at the level on which the debate is actually occurring. As a result, though a crucial reminder of the need for radical transformation, on its own, this argument fails to provide practical political direction in the face of the very real possibility that the bigotry of the religious right will win the day.
The religious right is aligned in a way we’ve not seen in Canada since the abortion issue came to a head in the late 1980s. Led by Primate Ouellet, archbishop of Quebec and Canada’s Catholic Church, who claims same-sex marriage “threatens to unleash nothing less than cultural upheaval whose negative consequences are still impossible to predict,” the SOS Marriage coalition has flooded MP’s constituency offices with emails and phone calls, and undertaken a massive postcard mail-out to congregations. On the political front, they’re backed by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. They’re also bolstered by their friends south of the border. Evangelical leader James Dobson-who made headlines recently for his homophobic attack on SpongeBob SquarePants, an absorbent cartoon character who holds hands with another male cartoon character-was quick off the mark. On the airways immediately after Prime Minister Paul Martin introduced Bill C-38, he urged Canadians to follow the lead of the US. There, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as a heterosexual institution and shields states from having to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. And last fall, Dobson’s coalition Focus on the Family orchestrated an eleven-state ban on same-sex marriage (six states banned civil unions too).
As a result, Bill C-38 may not pass. Opinion polls reveal even splits among politicians, or slender majorities in favour of the bill. Despite proclaiming that “you can’t pick and choose the minority rights or the fundamental rights that you are going to defend,” Martin can hardly be said to be rallying the troops. He’s insisted only that his cabinet vote en bloc: other Liberals can “vote by conscience.” That is, they’ll do whatever is politically expedient in their riding. What should have been a slam-dunk-with the support of the governing Liberals and the NDP-has become a truly tenuous proposition.
The most forceful endorsements of same-sex marriage come from EGALE (the “respectable” face of the lesbian and gay movement), Canadians for Equal Marriage, the New Democratic Party and a handful of liberal religious groups. They argue, like Martin, that same-sex marriage is a human rights issue. In a letter to Martin, the General Council of the United Church of Canada, however, writes that alongside unequivocal support for same-sex civil marriage, it also “unequivocally supports the right of communities of faith to decline to perform such marriages”-a provision which is, in fact, embedded in the bill. Such a position is disingenuous. Human rights are, by definition, universal. In introducing qualifications-be it a vote-by-conscience or an exclusionary policy-these “defenders” of same-sex marriage signal their willingness to allow bigotry to exist in pockets.
QUEER LIBERATION
Still, is same-sex marriage worth fighting for? Marriage is the cornerstone of patriarchal capitalism, a powerful and pervasive means of regulating sexuality and gender relations. It legitimates only one form of union (up until now, monogamous and heterosexual) as the best suited for raising a family; in the name of marriage, women have been overworked, undervalued, berated, beaten and killed. It’s also the primary mechanism through which the responsibility, cost and labour involved in feeding, clothing and nurturing each other is placed in the hands of individuals. Meanwhile, capitalists benefit from having a workforce that is fed, rested and healthy. And let’s not forget that weddings are a multi-billion dollar industry, many of which turn into grotesque carnivals of consumerism, with capitalists standing in the wings, preying on and reinforcing people’s fantasies for eternal happiness. (South African diamond giant De Beers is a great example: just as Coke invented Santa Claus, De Beers invented the diamond engagement ring and the slogan “A diamond is forever.”) Allowing gays and lesbians to marry may push at the boundaries of those sexual norms, but not in a way that challenges the system itself. Rather, it encourages people to see marriage as the only stable and legitimate foundation of human relations. Moreover, as gay wedding trade shows, magazine features or the upcoming TV reality program My Big Fat Gay Wedding attest, it invites newlyweds to plow tons of money into what writer Anne Kingston calls the “wedding industrial complex,” as they latch onto the myth that it’s a gateway to eternal bliss. Indeed, left-wing critics of same-sex marriage are reacting in part to the retreat within queer communities from libertarian sexual politics and their growing social conservatism, through which the interests of professional, well-heeled gays and lesbians dominate.
So, how can such an institution possibly be part of the plan for queer liberation? Well, only in the limited, partial way that all bourgeois rights are. Think, for instance, of same-sex pension benefits. Integrally wound up with capitalist power relations and structures of legitimacy, they are simply an individualist solution to a social issue. Nonetheless, it’s important to fight for queer access to private pensions if only to expand rather than limit the options and rights of individuals in the here and now. It’s also critical to acknowledge that socialist-feminist and queer liberationist forces are too weak to influence the terms of public debate. We can only intervene, which in this case means intervening on a terrain shaped by a constitutional argument on the one hand and bigotry on the other. If the religious right prevails (or even makes significant inroads) today, it will be emboldened to pursue its agenda further, attacking abortions, daycare, teaching evolution in schools and more. And that-taking the wind out of the sails of the right-is one of the most important reasons to support Bill C-38.
In the meantime, it is worth noting that gays and lesbians aren’t exactly rushing to the alter. While same-sex marriage has been available for up to 85 per cent of Canada’s population for two years (since the 2003 decision by an Ontario appeals court led to marriage liberalization in six provinces), only 4,500 ceremonies have been performed, and the rate of marriage has fallen in the last year. Clearly, the country’s tens of thousands of same-sex couples don’t view marriage as the apotheosis of freedom. Many may in fact share Matthiessen’s perspective, who continues his letter to his lover: “We are beyond society. . . And so we have a marriage that was never seen on land or sea! . . . Oh it is strange enough. It has no ring, and no vows, no [wedding presents] . . . And so of course it has none of the coldness of passion, but merely the serene joy of companionship. It has no three hundred and sixty-five breakfasts opposite each other at the same table; and yet it desires frequent companionship, devotion, laughter. Its bonds indeed form the service that is perfect freedom.”
Frances Piper is an editorial associate of New Socialist