W ell, it looks like the fight for same-sex marriage is really heating up. Not between marriage equality activists and their opponents, but among members of the gay community. On July 27 a group of prominent LGBT activists and thinkers released a 20-page “manifesto of sorts” entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision.” It critiques many aspects of the marriage equality movement. While “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” clearly supports marriage equality, it also argues emphatically that “marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.” They argue that the LGBT movement must think of ways to “frame and broaden community dialogues, to shape alternative policy solutions, and to inform organizing strategies around marriage politics to include the broadest definitions of relationship and family.”
The women and men who wrote “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” included long-time activists such as Amber Hollibough and Surina Khan, as well as some of the best, inventive legal minds in LGBT law such as Kendall Thomas and Nancy Polikoff. After its completion, another 230 or so women and men signed it. These range from acclaimed artists Eve Ensler, Tony Kushner, Armistead Maupin, and Dorothy Allison to well known, popular academics such as Judith Butler and Cheryl Clarke, activists Charlotte Bunch, Richard D. Burns, and Bill Dobbs to heterosexual allies such as Rabbi Michael Lerner, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornell West, and Gloria Steinem.
Since its release, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” has received quite a bit of attention, including an article in the July 30 New York Times (oddly in the Style section) and on the right-wing Catholic League website (catholicleague.com). Most of the LGBT news outlets such as PlanetOut also wrote about it and many national LGBT organizations responded to the concerns the document articulated. If “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” can get discussion going it will have achieved its purpose. That is the main reason (aside from agreeing with it) that I was happy to sign it.
So why am I not convinced that this is going to happen? Well, let’s face it, while the mainstream press has generally promoted the idea that the entire LGBT community supports the fight for same-sex marriage, it has long been an open secret within the gay community that there were enormous disagreements over the political efficacy and ramifications of fighting for gay marriage. These are healthy disagreements. They emerged from the broad range of experiences that a wide variety of LGBT people had. To a large degree, the disagreements about same-sex marriage are a reflection of the many differences that LGBT people have in their lives. If we don’t have these discussions we aren’t going to move forward.
Let’s be clear: LGBT people agree that gay people should be allowed to enter civil marriage as a matter of legal equality. What people disagree on is how important the fight for marriage equality should be as a national LGBT issue—and the effectiveness of the tactics that activists are using to obtain it. Based on what I am hearing now, and on what I have heard for years, there are some things that drive me crazy about how same-sex marriage is being discussed—on rather, not—in the LGBT community.
(1) We don’t have open and honest public discussions about our disagreements over same-sex marriage and strategies for winning it. When opportunities for these discussions happen they are usually instigated by people—like those who signed “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage”—who disagree with the current, ongoing politics and policies about same-sex marriage. At a plenary session at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Creating Change conference this past fall Urvashi Vaid and John D’Emilio—both longtime respected movement leaders—offered critiques of the organizing strategies and policies. While these were greeted with some favor by the audience (Creating Change is a politically progressive event), many marriage equality activists were upset to have such sentiments voiced and even some of the conference organizers refused to applaud Vaid and D’Emilio.
(2) One response to “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” is that it is going to give ammunition to the right wing. That by calling for public recognition of all forms of gay and queer relationships, it is opening the door to charges that gay people are immoral, sinful, anti-social and that gay marriage will open to door to polygamy and legal marriage with beloved pets. This charge of unintentional collaboration with the right is an attempt to shut down discussion. Be realistic. Right wingers already say this—whatever “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” argues is not going to make Maggie Gallagher or Bill Frist any worse.
(3) Another response is, “We’ll never win this fight if we don’t have a common front.” Again, I’ve heard this countless times before. I remember doing a radio talk show on WBUR where I was arguing with XXXX about same-sex marriage. (I was arguing in favor of it this time.) XXXX claimed that if same-sex marriage was achieved, it would be a major political event that would change society as we know it. I agreed, indeed it would and we’d be better off. That afternoon I received a barrage of emails from marriage equality supporters complaining that I had committed a major mistake and should not go on a show unless I was willing to state the “official” marriage equality line that gay marriage is about nothing more than equal rights for couples who love one another. The reality is that we all have opinions and expecting gay activists to parrot one idea is not just silly, but no way to run a movement.
(4) I think “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” confuses some people because it insists on talking about complicated issues—especially the interplay between gender, race, economic status, jobs, wages, economic justice, heath insurance, complex human relationships. Hey, the world is complicated. Lives are complicated. To ignore this is to advance at our own peril. But the marriage equality movement—like almost all single issue movements—will not admit to the complexity of political and human existence. “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” is saying, “We believe this is the wrong approach, let’s rethink this.” Historically, political movements have grander, more comprehensive gains when their goals are complicated and inclusive. Single issue movements usually fall short in the long run.
(6) One of the most distressing responses I’ve seen is the charge that it is another attempt by the fringe (read: crazy) “gay left”—also frequently called “gay liberationists”—to disrupt the more normative gay rights movement. Chris Crain, editor of Southern Voice , articulates this in a recent column dismissing progressive gay activists and speakers: “The first ‘gay lib’ generation mostly faded away with the ‘women’s lib’ crowd: defeated alongside the ill-fated Equal Rights Amendment, pushed aside by the rise of the Moral Majority and, in many cases, literally killed off by the scourge of AIDS.” This argument—quite common with pundits such as Andrew Sullivan, Dale Carpenter, and Bruce Bawer—is nothing more than old-fashioned right wing bashing left wing. We also see this argument when people dismiss “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” as being the work of a “bunch of academics.” First of all this is false—look at the list of signatories—and many of the academics who did sign, such as Lisa Duggan, Nancy Polikoff, and Beth Zemsky, have long histories as activists as well. This anti-academic argument is exactly the same as when Ann Coulter or Bill O’Rielly attack the “academic left” or the “lunatic academic fringe.” It is an argument that refuses to enter into any discussion. It refuses to take the concerns of progressive and gay activists seriously. It’s a shameful response that the mainstream marriage equality movement should rebut and condemn.
I am not claiming that there is massive, fascist, political silencing of progressive voices on this issue. That sort of silencing, when it happens, almost always involves the government and even national LGBT groups don’t have anywhere near the political power to silence individual gay people or smaller groups. But they do have the power to promote real community discussion about important issues. I am fully aware that as a frequently published writer I have a platform—so do Lisa Duggan, Richard Kim, Kendall Thomas, etc.—but this is different than having a community discussion, especially one that is fostered by institutions and organizations.
The response to “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” has been swift and often critical (and frankly what the national groups say off the record is far more critical then what they say on record) and I understand that. I understand this is hard. But I also understand that disagreement—yes, even public disagreement—is vital for any movement. Once internal disagreement stops, a movement, well, stops moving. I signed “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” because I—along with many, many other people who, over the past 50 years, have been a part of changing the world in which we live—believe in what it says. I also signed it because I hoped it would instigate real community discussion. I hope it does. I am waiting.
Michael Bronski teaches Women and Gender Studies and Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College. His last book was Pulp Friction: Uncovering the Golden Age of Gay Male Pulps (St. Martin’s Press, 2003).
