Comments on: Civil Unions For Everyone http://godheval.net/civil-unions-for-everyone/ Writer, Philosopher, Dreamer, Idealist Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:22:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Leah http://godheval.net/civil-unions-for-everyone/comment-page-1/#comment-851 Leah Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:53:50 +0000 http://godheval.net/wordpress/?p=15#comment-851 Ugh fine, inspire me to procrastinate more, haha. What's your e-mail? I've looked around the blog and can't find it. Ugh fine, inspire me to procrastinate more, haha. What's your e-mail? I've looked around the blog and can't find it.

]]> By: Godheval http://godheval.net/civil-unions-for-everyone/comment-page-1/#comment-850 Godheval Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:35:17 +0000 http://godheval.net/wordpress/?p=15#comment-850 Oh no no, you're going to have to talk about hate crimes, because I don't know what you're referring to. Maybe by e-mail though. Oh no no, you're going to have to talk about hate crimes, because I don't know what you're referring to. Maybe by e-mail though.

]]> By: Leah http://godheval.net/civil-unions-for-everyone/comment-page-1/#comment-849 Leah Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:22:29 +0000 http://godheval.net/wordpress/?p=15#comment-849 The combination of this post and your other post is interesting for me because I, as a queer, absolutely agree with this post and, as a queer who also promotes this as the political strategy for queers, don't wish I could have the marriage that straights take for granted. As a straight person, though, I think you are right in asserting a non-reactionary vision while simultaneously acknowledging the straight privilege in adopting that vision - yet, maybe a bit ironically, it is the queer organizations with the least privilege/resources that are most critical of marriage. I strongly believe that many broader movements, including the "lgbtq movement," need to center themselves around a trickle-up model of justice rather than a trickle down one. The pumping of all this money into marriage is obscene to me, for many of the reasons listed on the Beyond Marriage document on the QEJ site. I believe it's obscene too, especially because marriage rhetoric always cites material "benefits" to the marriage contract that would a) hardly be secured for all queer individuals if people got gay marriage - like, ya know, how you need to OWN property in order to transfer it, to HAVE health insurance in order to share it with a partner and b) Fighting for civil unions and just getting rid of the word marriage would actually work strategically much more swiftly than fighting for that word would!!! Which would, as you suggest, move towards a direction of relegating marriage to the religious institution that it is for ALL people, which would have all sorts of other implications. So, in short: the gay marriage struggle is one of privilege in that not only are the benefits it cites mostly middle class and dependent on couple status, but it refuses to engage in a struggle that would actually bring about those benefits that they say are so critical! Well, if I started on how the marriage movement is one of privilege I could take all day.....don't even let me get started on hate crimes! The fact is, when the mainstream lgbt movement gets wind of non-middle-class-white-lesbiangay issues they deem those individuals to have "intersectional" issues and not specifically "gay" issues that specifically "gay" organizations should center on. However, these issues they call specifically "gay" ARE intersectional, they mean "gay and white and middle class." The combination of this post and your other post is interesting for me because I, as a queer, absolutely agree with this post and, as a queer who also promotes this as the political strategy for queers, don't wish I could have the marriage that straights take for granted. As a straight person, though, I think you are right in asserting a non-reactionary vision while simultaneously acknowledging the straight privilege in adopting that vision – yet, maybe a bit ironically, it is the queer organizations with the least privilege/resources that are most critical of marriage.

I strongly believe that many broader movements, including the "lgbtq movement," need to center themselves around a trickle-up model of justice rather than a trickle down one. The pumping of all this money into marriage is obscene to me, for many of the reasons listed on the Beyond Marriage document on the QEJ site. I believe it's obscene too, especially because marriage rhetoric always cites material "benefits" to the marriage contract that would a) hardly be secured for all queer individuals if people got gay marriage – like, ya know, how you need to OWN property in order to transfer it, to HAVE health insurance in order to share it with a partner and b) Fighting for civil unions and just getting rid of the word marriage would actually work strategically much more swiftly than fighting for that word would!!! Which would, as you suggest, move towards a direction of relegating marriage to the religious institution that it is for ALL people, which would have all sorts of other implications. So, in short: the gay marriage struggle is one of privilege in that not only are the benefits it cites mostly middle class and dependent on couple status, but it refuses to engage in a struggle that would actually bring about those benefits that they say are so critical!

Well, if I started on how the marriage movement is one of privilege I could take all day…..don't even let me get started on hate crimes! The fact is, when the mainstream lgbt movement gets wind of non-middle-class-white-lesbiangay issues they deem those individuals to have "intersectional" issues and not specifically "gay" issues that specifically "gay" organizations should center on. However, these issues they call specifically "gay" ARE intersectional, they mean "gay and white and middle class."

]]>