Queers against gay marriage: What to do in this postal vote?
By: Jess Ison
Advertisement
I am a queer person vehemently opposed to gay marriage. Right now, this means I am navigating so many complexities. Do I vote? Do I boycott? Do I go to the marriage rally because it is about more than just marriage now? Do I try and speak out against the institution of marriage, even though it risks being picked up by the bigots? Let me work through this here.
Firstly, as queer people, one of the best things we have is our commitment to creating new family structures. What S Bear Bergman calls “the constellation of intimates”. This constellation, also widely known as the chosen family, is a way of living in this world differently.
We do not follow the norms that dictate heterosexual relationships and we are damn happy about that. In the face of a society that says we are wrong, our communities are nothing short of revolutionary. Marriage is about property rights, and we are over here trying to restructure society.
Some gays and lesbians view marriage as the end of queer resistance. Photo: Willard. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0.
We know that marriage is traditionally about owning women and that the monogamous heteronormative model so often includes violence. Surveys of LGBTIQA+ relationships show that we, too, have high rates of intimate partner violence. Why is no one talking about this? An entire movement around relationships and no commitment to changing the fact that violence may be fundamentally tied to the heteronormative relationship model?
When you look at social movements, there has often been a call for incremental change. Historically, the idea of incremental change has been a way to advance the privileges of the already privileged. Calls for cage-free eggs, for example, seem to have done little to change the reality of industrial farming. Yet, now people can sit back and feel good without actually changing their behaviour or diet.
Similarly, middle class white heterosexual feminism in the 70s told other groups their needs would also be met once things like equal pay and abortion rights were secured. At the time, working class women were asking for a living wage and Indigenous women in so-called Australia were asking to keep their children.
And yet, with some gains, these middle class white ladies retreated into their privilege, while oppressed women kept fighting. Where are these white ladies now? While I’m careful not to conflate issues, we can see that across many movements, campaigning for small scale change that only benefits the ruling class, does not change anything for the rest of us.
I believe gay marriage is exactly the same. Once they have property rights, will those privileged gays and lesbians campaigning for marriage turn around and fight for homeless queer people to have a room? Will they give up their property to make a homeless youth shelter for LGBTQIA+ teens, because we do not have a single specific queer youth shelter in all of Australia. Will just one of those rich gays hand over their house?
There is a reason why the people campaigning for gay marriage are constantly showing off their happy families. They fit the norm. How often have I read “we are just like you” and shuddered, because we are not just like straight people and we don’t want to be.
Silvia Rivera, a trans woman of colour who threw the first bottle at the Stonewall riots, was never invited to the White House with her chosen trans family from STAR house. If she were alive today, she would probably never have a platform at a marriage rally, because the respectable gays would be too busy talking and holding nationalistic signs about “Aussie love”.
This is the reality, that rich gays and lesbians never have been, and never will be, the ones championing our causes. They won’t turn around and fight for the oppressed after they win marriage. They fight when it helps them, and what helps them generally reinforces hierarchies that oppress the rest of us.
However, and this is a big however, in this postal vote, what choice do we have? There are 3 options: Yes, no, and abstaining. The debate has shifted from marriage to be about LGBTQIA+ people, so in this instance the no vote represents the bigots who hate gay people. We clearly cannot vote no.
I wonder then, will I have the courage to tick yes, given my distaste for marriage and any form of state intervention? The only other option is to boycott. This could have been a tactic that we utilised, but we would need everyone on board.
The fact is, we haven’t organised a boycott so not voting isn’t really going to achieve anything. Which means the only option is to tick yes, because what other choice do I have? A fellow anarchist once told me he votes because it is “harm reduction”, which is how I generally approach voting.
In this postal vote, harm reduction is about the most positive spin I can put on it. So, I’ll tick yes because it matters to some gays and lesbians. And that’s the thing with us radical queers, we usually do join their fights and support them. I guess we have to tick yes, and stop expecting anything in return.
Jess Ison is doing a PhD and tutoring at La Trobe University. She is the representative for the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, a rescuer for the Coalition Against Duck Shooting and an editor for Writing from Below. Jess can be found most nights ranting about prison abolition, fermentation and high heels.
Better late than never with this comment. Unfortunately i wasn’t aware of this article in the lead up to the plebiscite.
Deciding to vote NO was easy for me. Marriage is patently unsuitable for us as a form of relationship recognition. We need a legal green field that will allow us to be inventive in the ways we recognise relationships. Marriage is more scorched earth than green field!
I was shocked at the negative reaction from our community towards my decision to vote NO.
While I found one Queer blog that was openly discussing a NO vote. I was being carefully and strategically silenced by the rest of the community. I’ve never struck this scenario before. It was a real eye opener.
totally agree with you Jess! when i read ‘Is Kinship Always Already Heterosexual?’ by Judith Butler back in 04, it dawned on me, yeah, why do we privilege a certain relationship type. why not a relation of friends, siblings excetera. because the hetero relationship can produce new tax paying citizens? so what. sometimes they don’t but yet are still privileged. i too had trouble considering how i would vote. i never got involved with the fight to get marriage equality on the table, never even signed a petition for it. i’m a queer ciswoman and strongly support the definition of queer: to always be at odds with the normal; and marriage equality isn’t a fight for queer lives. i voted yes tho because as you intimate, it wasn’t just a vote for gay marriage, it was a vote for legitimacy. those on the no camp showed their feelings (hatred) to the community so a no vote would have legitimated their positions which would have had horrendous repercussions for the community.
so, essentially i want to say, thanks for putting it out there. i’m sorry i missed it at the time.
Gay politics has always been about a cultural pride and driving to be accepted for exactly what we are. Not what everyone else wishes we are. But suddenly, or not so suddenly, we seem to have become no longer proud of what we are and have taken to redefining ourselves as failed heterosexuals instead. We seem to have become ashamed of being homosexual.
I don’t believe, back in the day, that marriage is what gay liberators had in mind for our future – another kind of closet, and yet here we are today, lowering the bar to exactly that. Why would anyone be campaigning to be a part of such a hoary, old-fashioned, heterosexual institution that thankfully has had nothing to do with us? This is not a progressive move on our part – it is regressive.
One of the many blessings of being gay is that we aren’t automatically expected to confirm to heterosexuality’s often dubious customs and mores. But here we are now, begging for them. When did we get to be so lame, and so needy and so ‘victimy’?
Why would anyone wittingly want their relationship sanctioned by the state, allowing the law to intervene in the most sacred union of one human to another?
And if we really insist on having our relationships recognised, why haven’t we chosen a better version than marriage (yes, same but different – just like us), or created our own superior model, as befits us?
I’m a Gay man and activist at the turn of the century when much of the work on relationship laws was done. At soon as i got the Survey i voted NO. Marriage is a failed way to recognise relationships. It is full of flaws and encumbered with too much hostile history. Like it or not the religions will always have influence on how marriage plays out in Society. Our heterosexual society, families and friends will of course apply pressure to their gay loved ones to take the “highest’ form of recognition. Sure, you might decide to use alternate means for recognition but i believe that marriage will become the driving force in shaping our own culture around relationships. Things like ‘a longer relationship is always a better one’ should be challenged. Should the end (or divorce) always be a battle? Reinforcement of the ‘one must be the man and the other the woman’ view of same-sex relationships. Do we really want to join them, take on all this rubbish, and more as we have read in the blog. Is this really harm minimisation? We should plug the FEW gaps where there is disadvantage between marriage/registered partners/de-facto and then get on with what we have been doing with freedom – making it up as we go.
as an anarchist and a feminist I am pro choice. I therefore supported the ‘yes’ vote since this allowed free choice to marry or not to marry, I myself would not marry my partner.
So brilliant a piece as this needs national airplay. As a heterosexual person, I had never considered the aspects of this issue that are so pertinent it hurts. Thank you so much, Jess. Obviously I need to get out more.
Thanks so much for the terrific, considered essay. I have similar views and will also be voting yes. I love the term ‘harm reduction’ 🙂
Hi Jess! You say, “We know that marriage is traditionally about owning women and that the monogamous heteronormative model so often includes violence.”
This may apply in some cultural or historical backwaters, but I don’t know of anybody I’ve met in Europe who says, “Hey great! I’m married! That means I own a woman!” Is there no room for love and mutuality in your vision of (heterosexual) marriage?
Furthermore, I feel really and truly compassionate for you if your experience has led you to believe that heterosexual marriage is a breeding ground for violence. I think many, if not most people, experience their family as some kind of haven, and certainly a haven is what the family is intended to be.
The fact that LGBT couples also experience high rates of violence ought to hint at the real problem, common to all people regardless of sexual or political orientation, which is the defect of our human nature that the Bible refers to as “sin”. It is our broken, fallen sinfulness that leads us to act jealously and aggressively when we should be loving and forgiving one another.
Jesus loves you, Jess, and I pray you’ll discover what I have found to be true: that He heals all wounds and meets us with overflowing love.
Jess, what a rambling, incoherent rant. So you don’t like the institution of marriage. Fair enough. You make so many off-the-wall statements it is difficult to reply to them without writing pages. Sorry you feel betrayed for voting yes when we don’t support your causes to the extent you feel entitled.
I will vote yes for tge right fighter. Besides i was boting no anfd i am gay. Cause ppl will mainly divorce because all guys are sluts will cheat and most will fail. Now i find myself struggling how to answer. The no reasons i mention are only voting yes for financial or legal gain. Thats not a reason to vote yes or no but fuck it ill vote yes cause its just a survey and it means nothing. Polys can ignore tge result anyway. A survey isnt a legal document and politicians will continue to fight it being past. If tgeu wanted it thwyd have a referendum. Then the yes votes or no votes will either change law or not. Polies dont want tge law changes. At least not liberal party. The 1 rinni g govt of the present. They dont want it. I cant blame tgem. Cause its abt moneyary gain and legal right gains
Agreed, rachel joy. This account helps to me to explain clearly the complexity of this Abbott-inspired, loaded performance:- for any anarcha-feminist; for critics of marriage’s economic base and its ‘holy couple’ exclusivity; for democrats who see this insulting, inappropriate process as quintessentially anti-democratic . Thank you Jess.
This reflects my feelings exactly, Jess. Thanks for articulating it so well.
Jess, it was with great relief that i read this piece, a sensitive critique in sensitive in sensitive times. I agree with your analysis and will also grudgingly vote yes as a matter of ‘harm reduction.’
I really liked and appreciated this well-considered piece. I agree there are things we as a community need more than marriage equality, but it’s as you point out, now a symbol for being LGBTQI, so there’s no other way to vote. I also would have been happy to boycott.
Your attitude is hard to navigate and seemingly unnecessarily complicated. Stick to duck hunting or whatever you do in your spare time
A tit-for-tat complaint: ‘I won’t fully support marriage equality because marriage equality activists won’t turn around and fight for my causes’ – the result of the privilege of having someone else campaign for your right to equality.