on marriage
Jun. 16th, 2005 02:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcAs legislation mandating national equal ("same-sex") marriage moves closer to enactment in Canada and Spain, I've been reflecting both on my personal investment in the issue and my views on partnerships of all sorts.
I consider myself an old-skool grassroots post-AIDS queer activist. I came out sexually into an invisible epidemic: my first steps as a gay men were almost entirely sexual and I was very promiscuous in my teens. At university I started the process of coming out as a gay person (as opposed to having lots of gay sex); the dissonance between my quasi Oirish-Catlick upbringing and my emerging sense of a gay self rather quickly radicalized me. I became the Angry Young Gay Man.
Since the mid 80s I've staffed gay switchboards, coordinated anti-gay violence (and same-sex domestic violence) services, agitated for change to Canada's immigration policy for same-sex couples...I've done a lot. I've a few plumes in my cap. I'm proud of the work of which I was a part. Nearly all of this was organized around the notion that the struggle for queer rights is a struggle for liberation, and that while law reform is integral to that struggle so too is the restructuring of rigid, heteronormative and heterosexist notions about males, females, men, boys, women, girls, families and partnerships.
In fact, I was--until recently--very much of the mind that marriage was a dysfunctional institution. I was (and remain) a queer man who isn't monogamous and who rather happily goes about pursuing sex with dozens of strange men every year. I have not endeavoured, nor have I accepted it, when anyone tries to pigeon hole me as a "nice" (white, middle class, monogamous, twice a weeker) gay man. I'm nice, but not that kind of nice. If I were to have used my own life to set priorities for queer rights, things like sex on premise venues, funding for sexual health, queer women's health, trans issues--the stuff that seemed to inspire an all-too-often visceral, negative reaction in mainstream society. I wasn't like them, didn't want to be, and often found the sorts of people who were pushing a "gay people are just like everyone else" vision of suburban assimilation just weren't on the same page.
But I was never a self-involved activist. I was usually willing to pitch in with any queer justice initiative. So I wrote the letters, attended the demonstrations, even went on TV to help move things along that didn't really matter to me personally. Equal marriage was one such issue: I was all about equality of same-sex partnerships before the law (rights and responsibilities), but I found a hierarchy of relationships objectionable. In Canada back then (it's now the mid 90s) married folks were paramount, de facto opposite sex a bit lower, and same-sex de facto a bit lower than that (particularly around adoption rights; one partner could adopt "as a lone parent" if the system ignored their partner's existence).
Even then there was no clear consensus about what the best path would be in the pursuit of equality. Many of us (including me) wanted the law to treat all households equally, whether the couple involved were a romantic/sexual pair or not (co-habitating siblings, for example, could be one of their employee-based health insurance scheme). More of us wanted all types of romantic/sexual coupling--married, de facto and even conjugal (committed but not cohabitating) treated the same--which never really had a chance; government tends to view commitment as cohabitation, unless a barrier (like living in a foreign country and having no status) temporarily precludes cohabitation. A fair number of others viewed the hierarchy as being unassailable, which meant the only way to achieve true equality with opposite-sex headed families was to pursue equal marriage. On the argument I found this unsatisfying; on principle, however, I cannot oppose anyone else's pursuit of queer justice. In a lot of contexts, these different positions would have been the queer communities undoing--it certainly has been in Australia, where infighting among different stakeholders not only didn't impede a same-sex marriage ban, but continues to ensure no effective opposition to the current right wing government in Canberra. Thankfully, Canadians are less likely to interfere with others pursuing their aspirations if one's own aren't impeded or derailed. So a range of endeavours were pursued, with varying levels of success.
Two things about Canada greatly enhanced these campaigns: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which don't include sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination, but which has a mechanism for the courts to "read in" and add communities to protected status) and a high calibre judiciary largely inured of partisanship and ideological bias. Beginning in the mid 90s, a series of court precedents lead to several couples in Ontario, Québec and British Columbia asking for the right to civil marriage with their same-sex partner. The unanimity of the decisions in each case make Canadian equal marriage unavoidable...so the current legislation only hastens access in the remaining 3 provinces and 2 territories where courts have not yet ruled same-sex marriage into law. Still, it's nice that the right will be universal, based on legislation rather than wholly court precedent: 3 of 4 parties in the House of Commons support the bill, representing almost 2/3 of the seats.
So what about me? Well as this was coming to a head, I was finalizing plans for a year in Australia. I not only hadn't planned on acquiring a![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
querrelle, I was resolute about avoiding any emotional entanglements. I got very excited as court after court gave access to equal marriage in Ontario, then BC and then Québec. By then I was in love--deeply, powerfully, passionately, oh my Gawd in love. And still the non-monogamist raunchy promiscuous man as before--but head over heels at 39. And one night while we were out dancing, it tumbled out of my mouth: marry me. Please. It wasn't premeditated or planned, but it had been on my mind. I had been in love before (with toneyvr), but back then marriage just wasn't an option so I never considered it.
I respect those who reject or critique the institution of marriage, I really do. In fact, if the sort of marriage I could have withquerrelle were like my parents, I wouldn't have been interested. Civil marriage in Canada doesn't require--or even condone--the sexist cultural legacy of "traditional" marriage. And I still think that all committed, healthy, sustaining relationships should be equal before the law--which is why I refer to querrelle as my partner more often than husband. But I will fight tooth and nail anyone who seeks to impede any two loving adults from pursuing full equality as a family before the law. If you don't want to get married, don't. Or, if you don't "believe" in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex as you.
But don't you dare ever, ever dismiss or impede my pursuit of my and my family's rights.
I consider myself an old-skool grassroots post-AIDS queer activist. I came out sexually into an invisible epidemic: my first steps as a gay men were almost entirely sexual and I was very promiscuous in my teens. At university I started the process of coming out as a gay person (as opposed to having lots of gay sex); the dissonance between my quasi Oirish-Catlick upbringing and my emerging sense of a gay self rather quickly radicalized me. I became the Angry Young Gay Man.
Since the mid 80s I've staffed gay switchboards, coordinated anti-gay violence (and same-sex domestic violence) services, agitated for change to Canada's immigration policy for same-sex couples...I've done a lot. I've a few plumes in my cap. I'm proud of the work of which I was a part. Nearly all of this was organized around the notion that the struggle for queer rights is a struggle for liberation, and that while law reform is integral to that struggle so too is the restructuring of rigid, heteronormative and heterosexist notions about males, females, men, boys, women, girls, families and partnerships.
In fact, I was--until recently--very much of the mind that marriage was a dysfunctional institution. I was (and remain) a queer man who isn't monogamous and who rather happily goes about pursuing sex with dozens of strange men every year. I have not endeavoured, nor have I accepted it, when anyone tries to pigeon hole me as a "nice" (white, middle class, monogamous, twice a weeker) gay man. I'm nice, but not that kind of nice. If I were to have used my own life to set priorities for queer rights, things like sex on premise venues, funding for sexual health, queer women's health, trans issues--the stuff that seemed to inspire an all-too-often visceral, negative reaction in mainstream society. I wasn't like them, didn't want to be, and often found the sorts of people who were pushing a "gay people are just like everyone else" vision of suburban assimilation just weren't on the same page.
But I was never a self-involved activist. I was usually willing to pitch in with any queer justice initiative. So I wrote the letters, attended the demonstrations, even went on TV to help move things along that didn't really matter to me personally. Equal marriage was one such issue: I was all about equality of same-sex partnerships before the law (rights and responsibilities), but I found a hierarchy of relationships objectionable. In Canada back then (it's now the mid 90s) married folks were paramount, de facto opposite sex a bit lower, and same-sex de facto a bit lower than that (particularly around adoption rights; one partner could adopt "as a lone parent" if the system ignored their partner's existence).
Even then there was no clear consensus about what the best path would be in the pursuit of equality. Many of us (including me) wanted the law to treat all households equally, whether the couple involved were a romantic/sexual pair or not (co-habitating siblings, for example, could be one of their employee-based health insurance scheme). More of us wanted all types of romantic/sexual coupling--married, de facto and even conjugal (committed but not cohabitating) treated the same--which never really had a chance; government tends to view commitment as cohabitation, unless a barrier (like living in a foreign country and having no status) temporarily precludes cohabitation. A fair number of others viewed the hierarchy as being unassailable, which meant the only way to achieve true equality with opposite-sex headed families was to pursue equal marriage. On the argument I found this unsatisfying; on principle, however, I cannot oppose anyone else's pursuit of queer justice. In a lot of contexts, these different positions would have been the queer communities undoing--it certainly has been in Australia, where infighting among different stakeholders not only didn't impede a same-sex marriage ban, but continues to ensure no effective opposition to the current right wing government in Canberra. Thankfully, Canadians are less likely to interfere with others pursuing their aspirations if one's own aren't impeded or derailed. So a range of endeavours were pursued, with varying levels of success.
Two things about Canada greatly enhanced these campaigns: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which don't include sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination, but which has a mechanism for the courts to "read in" and add communities to protected status) and a high calibre judiciary largely inured of partisanship and ideological bias. Beginning in the mid 90s, a series of court precedents lead to several couples in Ontario, Québec and British Columbia asking for the right to civil marriage with their same-sex partner. The unanimity of the decisions in each case make Canadian equal marriage unavoidable...so the current legislation only hastens access in the remaining 3 provinces and 2 territories where courts have not yet ruled same-sex marriage into law. Still, it's nice that the right will be universal, based on legislation rather than wholly court precedent: 3 of 4 parties in the House of Commons support the bill, representing almost 2/3 of the seats.
So what about me? Well as this was coming to a head, I was finalizing plans for a year in Australia. I not only hadn't planned on acquiring a
querrelle, I was resolute about avoiding any emotional entanglements. I got very excited as court after court gave access to equal marriage in Ontario, then BC and then Québec. By then I was in love--deeply, powerfully, passionately, oh my Gawd in love. And still the non-monogamist raunchy promiscuous man as before--but head over heels at 39. And one night while we were out dancing, it tumbled out of my mouth: marry me. Please. It wasn't premeditated or planned, but it had been on my mind. I had been in love before (with toneyvr), but back then marriage just wasn't an option so I never considered it. I respect those who reject or critique the institution of marriage, I really do. In fact, if the sort of marriage I could have with
querrelle were like my parents, I wouldn't have been interested. Civil marriage in Canada doesn't require--or even condone--the sexist cultural legacy of "traditional" marriage. And I still think that all committed, healthy, sustaining relationships should be equal before the law--which is why I refer to querrelle as my partner more often than husband. But I will fight tooth and nail anyone who seeks to impede any two loving adults from pursuing full equality as a family before the law. If you don't want to get married, don't. Or, if you don't "believe" in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex as you.But don't you dare ever, ever dismiss or impede my pursuit of my and my family's rights.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 06:14 am (UTC)We'll be settling in Vancouver; if you ever head out to the whacky wet coast maybe a coffee?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 02:22 pm (UTC)