Same-sex marriage is one of the most prominent, defining issues in mainstream LGBTQ politics today. To oppose it is often seen as being homophobic, and there are indeed many bigoted viewpoints. But it is possible to remain skeptical of marriage equality while fully supporting queer rights.
Marriage equality raises the question of "equality to what?" This framing attempts to set LGBTQ people as equal to straight people, thus accepting straight standards. Those committed to monogamy — and therefore supposedly of higher moral and social standing — are rewarded with special legal rights and unique benefits. Fighting for inclusion does not question why this type of relationship should be valued over others. Often, in response to reactionaries who make alarmist claims about the gays' so-called destructive infiltration into traditional marriage, pro-same-sex marriage groups argue that allowing two men or two women to tie the knot will not change marriage at all, preserving it as sacred. But challenging and transforming an institution whose roots come from the concept of a nuclear family with normalized gender roles is in fact something to be celebrated. I am not calling marriage equality efforts assimilationist. I surely have no authority to say that, and I am sure most who fight for it do not actually aim to ape heterosexual culture and to quash radicals. But the primacy of the marriage agenda might have the unintended consequence of limiting the scope of changing the status quo.
Consider the case of two elderly sisters who live together, share resources and look after each other — is their caregiving relationship not as valid? People live in different family structures, such as single-parent households and extended kinship, for which marriage might not be an option. But these people are just as deserving of state and federal benefits. Marriage can be a positive choice for couples for religious, cultural and personal reasons. But no one should have to marry for economic reasons. Marriage is a private affair that should not involve the state — being sexual or romantic with one person should not be linked to entitlement to medical, insurance, inheritance or other benefits. Family laws that value all families, including non-marital relationships, already exist in some areas and can be spread through reforms.
Moreover, there are other pressing issues such as employment discrimination, housing discrimination and protection from violence that cannot be solved through marriage equality. For same-sex couples to be told they cannot marry must be frustrating because it has the effect of delegitimizing their love and relegating them to second-class citizenship. But the reality is that many LGBTQ citizens and immigrants face social and economic injustice due to systemic discrimination unrelated to marriage. Classism and racism negatively affect LGBTQ people at the lower end of the income spectrum. If a gay man — or anyone else — is mired in poverty because HIV/AIDS stigmatization prevents him from securing a job, gaining the ability to wed his partner will not be of much help. What good does marriage equality do if an individual cannot get health care benefits in the first place, much less extend them to a spouse? In addition, entrenched cultural attitudes that have hurt LGBTQ youth are not likely to be changed by same-sex couples' giving each other rings. Bullying and violence need to be dealt with more directly.
We can hope that the fight for and winning of same-sex marriage will have ripple effects that lead to broader social and legal acceptance of queer people. Granting the right to same-sex marriage might open national discourse and give hope and confidence to gays and lesbians. But that is not enough. Advocating for legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity would be a more efficient and effective way to address these problems. Queer issues are myriad and interrelated. They should not be pitted against each other. But marriage equality as a policy issue runs the risk of losing sight of and diverting resources from the plight of many for whom marriage is not a concern or solution.
I support measures such as the pending bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island because I strongly oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and recognition of same-sex marriage can indeed pave the way for a pluralistic society free of a hierarchy of relationships and more accepting of diverse family forms. But instead of focusing on extending heterosexual privilege to another small part of the population, we should examine why it exists in the first place. We should look beyond formal marriage equality and into issues of substantive equality in all areas affecting quality of life for LGBTQ people and other marginalized minorities.
Tanya Nguyen '13 is by no means an expert on family law or queer activism. She can be contacted at tanya_nguyen@brown.edu.
