Skip to main content

View Diary: So Marriage Equality is Heteronormative? So What? (86 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The oppression of traditional marriage (8+ / 0-)

    A raging debate in some feminist circles, as well.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Sun Apr 20, 2014 at 05:48:08 PM PDT

    •  That raging debate (5+ / 0-)

      is the one I'm engaging here.

      Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall

      by Dave in Northridge on Sun Apr 20, 2014 at 05:51:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I noticed you put queer theory in your tags. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Scribe, Dave in Northridge

        I have always tiptoed around the edges of that. It seems to have a pedigree linking it back to intellectual systems that I don't have a very good opinion of. like the Frankfurt School.  

      •  Feminist arguments for marriage, and for choice (6+ / 0-)

        It is an interesting debate in some respects, and it can be hard to put a finger on exactly what the point of the institution is. I've highlighted one that I think is especially meaningful

        With marriage rates falling and social sanctions against cohabitation falling away, why would a feminist choose to take part in such a retro, potentially oppressive, bigotedly exclusive institution?  Well, there are a lot of reasons, actually. Foremost are the emotional ones: love, companionship, the pure joy that meeting your match brings with it.
        I want to take the good from marriage and leave the rest. I know it's not for everyone, but the "for as long as we both shall live" love and support thang really works for me. Sure, I didn't need the wedding to get that love and support, but neither does the fact of marriage automatically consign me and my man to traditional man-and-wife roles....But also publicly--with our name change, for example (explaining to folks like the Social Security Administration and whoever hands out passports that, yes, we both need new papers, because we each have added the other's name was, and I mean this quite seriously, a thrill). And it's this public nature of marriage that appeals.
        http://www.msmagazine.com/...
        If you understand one principle about Feminism, it ought to be this: that Feminism respects a woman’s autonomy to make her own choices. If that means going to school and getting your PhD? Awesome. If that means starting your own business? Super. If that means getting married young and being a stay-at-home mom? STILL GREAT.
        http://thescarletwoman.tumblr.com/...
        “I don’t think we get married because it’s the best thing for society or for our families or for our religion or our country or the Western world. I don’t think we get married because it’s the financially responsible thing to do or because we can be counted as part of a statistic. I think we get married because, like any relationship, it teaches us and helps us grow as individuals. There are a thousand different reasons that people choose to either get married or not get married. People live the lives that work for them. But being married brings things into my life that otherwise I wouldn’t have. It makes my life richer, fuller, more complete, grounded, hopeful, and confident. Some may find those things in their life through other ways and means, but for me I have those things in my life because I am married to my husband.”
        http://www.newsweek.com/...

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Sun Apr 20, 2014 at 06:06:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then why didn't you post the link to the article (0+ / 0-)

        you are responding to instead of just presiding over the "debate" with your own point of view?

    •  I can see the political theory of wanting (6+ / 0-)

      to disrupt traditional institutions in which patriarchy has a vested stake. The lesbian and gay issue is somewhat the mirror image of the feminists. For us getting into it is a disruption of an oppressive tradition.  

    •  It's only oppression (8+ / 0-)

      if you allow yourself to be oppressed. I guess my marriage to Mr. Scribe is pretty non-traditional; we have a pretty good division of labor, we've been free to travel on our own (or were before we wound up on a fixed income) and to pursue our own interests, yet we have enough interests in common (politics, religion, sports just to name a few) that keep us interested in each other. And he cuddles very well... ;-)

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Apr 20, 2014 at 05:57:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since the 1950s, many couples - (5+ / 0-)

      married and otherwise, gay and otherwise - have fought the oppression that was "traditional" marriage.

      Feminism demanded that women no longer be helplessly invisible, defined by male society. Individually, many couples applied that to their marriages. That didn't make them not married, it made those marriages not oppressive.

    •  Hi, Catte Nappe - Hope you will go to the article (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe

      thttp://www.dailykos.com/... sparked this discussion. Geminijen

      •  I can see why that diary led to this one (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geminijen, Dave in Northridge

        You've got some interesting propositions there.

        I was taken aback to see you fall into the religious definition:

        the social respectability that comes with two people signing up for a lifelong monogamous relationship that only comes with marriage sanctified by God
         I'm sure you are well aware that marriage is a legal contract, and the "sanctified by God" part is purely optional.

        Beyond that, your policy prescriptions are for radical changes that are unlikely to occur in our lifetimes, if ever. They give truth to the heretofore hysterical fear that the desire is to "destroy marriage as we know it" for everybody. It would take a great deal more than "shoring up" civil unions to get full equivalence in rights and benefits, too.

        I found your diary an interesting thought experiment, but not something that proposes practical solutions.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 01:47:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing is considered "practical" until it occurs. (0+ / 0-)

          A number of these ideas have gotten some support and the only way we can make them "practical" is to institutionalize them.  For example, eliminating the requirement of sexuality as an integral part of the definition of an economic family union in a civil union.  Even two friends living together and raising children or all the various assortment (gay and straight) of grandmas and nieces cohabitating with or without children could use some of the financial incentives and other legal benefits that accrue to spouses.  This is one I think could fly, if not this year at some time in the not too distant future.

          I appreciate that you came to the AMC site and read the diary.  I only wish you had felt comfortable also posting your comment there.  It would be nice to have the discussion shared by all concerned parties.  

          •  Carts and horses (0+ / 0-)

            I think you have the cart before the horse, as they say.  You don't get where you propose to get by institutionalizing those approaches. They become formally institutionalized when and if sufficient numbers of people are practicing them informally, and institutionalization becomes the next logical step; or a demanded step.

            I appreciate your drawing my attention to your diary. I was not "uncomfortable" commenting there, but as an older diary it was coming to the point where some might define it as a "dead thread". Since you drew my attention to it in a discussion here, I responded to you here.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 04:17:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site