[100 Things] The Queer Bundle #1

[eumelia]

I just worked though my feelings regarding President Obama's statement of marriage equality in the United States by creating fanfic with another non-American fan.

I'm gay and she's straight and we were both... unimpressed. Probably for different reasons. Her country has had marriage equality for over a decade. I live in a country that has no civil marriage for anyone.

Look at that quote.

This is what President Obama said (Via The Atlantic Wire):

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,”

Now look at me.

President Obama has laid out in those few sentences what his opinion about marriage equality is about.

An opinion, that should have no bearing on the law.

No one's opinion should have any bearing on the nature of people's relationship.

Beyond that, he's making it a personal issue, as opposed to a social issue, reiterating the false dichotomy that what matters, is what matters to the people he knows and that the rest will have to find different solution.

When he says - "when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together," - he is giving us the baseline of decent gay people, of worthy gay people. Long term and monogamous who are productive members of society by being reproductive members of society.

And if they're not reproducing, they're out there killing people in far away lands - "when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone," - because now gay people can go out into the world, openly, and kill anyone in the name of Freedom, Liberty and Democracy.

That was sarcasm.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a cruel decree, and its repeal is a good thing (This is not sarcasm).

That doesn't make the draft a tool of progress for gay people. Being able to be visible is a necessary thing, and I don't begrudge that. However, the fact that the fight was focused on this repeal as though it would change the culture of homophobia inherent to an institution based on hierarchy and conservative notions of masculinity, kind of boggles me.

Taking the above into account and once again, marriage equality is placed out there as a prize the second class citizens of America need to aspire to.

I find that notion absolutely abhorrent.

People sexuality, their relationship style, their loyalty to the government and reproductive choices should not be a standard for their humanity.

And their humanity should not be equated with a state contract.

"I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married"

The President's personal opinion has no bearing, whatsoever, on the inherent humanity of gay people, who may or may not be in a relationship.

The fact that his personal opinion is favourable, but he states at the same time that it should be remain a state issue is extremely telling.

Ironically, Obama has been the best President with regards to Trans issues, which is saying something, considering the majority of marriage equality advocates shuffle trans people under the bus when it comes to pushing an agenda. I see it in the States and I see it in my own locale.

And that's why I've been saying gay people throughout.

There is no discussion of the humanity and dignity of bisexual people, or men and women and other genders I couldn't name who are in a relationship that may or may not be romantic. Or who aren't in a relationship at all. There is no discussion of kinship without marriage. There is no discussion of healthcare plans without a spouse. Why is there a moral imperative when it comes to children?

Bottom line.

Obama expressed his personal opinion that marriage is something gay people have to earn. By fighting, tooth and nail.

This is progress?

Comments

[gramina]

"This is progress?"

:/

Yes. It may be a sideways progress, b/c I'd rather see people acknowledging that *no one* needs to earn the right to be treated with respect and consideration as a human being, and allowing civil marriage is one way we show that respect to one another, but acknowledging that we *may* deserve that respect *at least if we work at it* is in fact progress. It's just achingly slow, painful, still-not-justice progress.

:(

[eumelia]

Okay, so I get what you're saying and I just can't agree with that.

I don't find the kind of judgement that is placed on LGBT people and being told that they have to live up to a certain standard is what is necessary for them to be considered human in the United States.

If in order to be human they have to be a monogamous relationship, be (re)productive members of society and loyal to the State, where does that leave the other, not so nice and sterile queers?

[gramina]

*Nods* It is clearly not *finish line* progress. It *sucks small planets* that it can be considered progress even in dim light and if you squint, but the thing is, *lack* of such a statement is the reverse of progress, so. It's being starving to death and being given a raw onion, and maybe - *maybe* - s stale crust of bread, but the onion is closer to food than air is. So it's progress in only the darkest way, but it's still -- pretty much literally -- better than _nothing at all._

IMO, etc. --As a bi poly switch living in a complex family without children or militar service.

[kindkit]

I think, in the incredibly messed-up state of US culture and politics, is is certainly progress. It's far from perfect, but if we reject every kind of progress that isn't instant perfection we're never going to get anywhere. I think it was Emma Goldman who, when asked about whether the fight for an eight-hour workday wasn't pointless because it was so far from revolution, replied basically that it might be but it would certainly make people's lives better in the mean time.

[eumelia]

Emma Goldman had a lot to say about compromise, while being actively anti-sufferage in her politics because sufferage meant giving more authority to the state when it came to power.

Regardless, it makes whose lives better in the mean time? Those that live up to the standard set up? One LGBT's can't actually live up to, because that standard is to be straight. What are the rest to do with that kind of statement?

[kindkit]

I really don't understand your logic here. Are you suggesting that same-sex couples who want the rights afforded to them by legal marriage are . . . secretly straight? Are traitors to the queer cause?

As it happens, I agree that nobody's rights ought to be based on their domestic arrangements. In a better world, everyone would have equal access to health care, the right to housing and a decent standard of living regardless of employment, etc. etc. No one would be denied, say, cancer treatment because her partner's job only provides health coverage to legally married partners. But we don't live in that world, and in the mean time, changing a system in which some people are denied rights that others possess based solely on their sexual orientation is an improvement.

I think you ought to think twice before judging what rights other people ought to be allowed to aspire to or be happy about winning. Because right now it feels like you're not so much angry with Obama's various failures, or with the US's pervasive climate of homophobia, as with (some) other queer people for wanting something you don't approve of.

[eumelia]

Obviously I crossed some wired of communication here, if that's what came out from what I wrote then I'm at a deep remiss and I'm sorry.

I hope this clarifies my point.

I'm not saying queers who want to get married and want all the rights afforded to them are secretly straight. Not at all. I'm saying that marriage and the rights and privileges that go with marriage are dangled like a prize in only all queers live up to a certain standard, a standard that is inherently straight, because straight people and society are the ones to say "you're okay" and I don't think LGBT people should have to live up to that expectations for any reason.

[dorothean]

This, this, this.

I'm glad he made this statement, but I'm not impressed.

[eumelia]

Agreed.

[lilacsigil]

While I agree it's a weak statement, it *is* progress for the US, and Obama has been the kind of President who has been quietly and competently improving life for a lot of people: for example, making the Justice Department actually enforce anti-discrimination laws, and getting some kind of healthcare bill through.

[eumelia]

I feel like putting a qualifier, "for the US", weakens the position of American LGBT's course of action. Yes, as I said, Obama has done great stuff, but I take issue in having the requirements for humanity be part of a marriage and monogamy agenda.

[silveradept]

Unfortunately, yes, this is progress. Because up until this point, no President has been on the record saying they support marriage equality. And many of the people who want to unseat him would prefer to roll back not only that, but all of the other things done during his presidency. And more.

This is not progress, but it is progress.

[eumelia]

I feel like I'm repeating myself and I don't know how many times I can do that.

LGBT's should not be held up to a standard they cannot achieve simply because they are not straight. Their humanity should not be determined on what their relationship, job or loyalty to the state status is.

That is the underlying message Obama is sending out and I deeply oppose that kind of discourse.

[silveradept]

I agree. I'm sorry that I misunderstood. I think many of us are weary that things like this statement will be hailed as progress wen we could do so much better, but we'll take the small things because they're better than no things, and because we know whet the alternative is offering.

It's not progress, but it will probably be celebrated as such, while quietly but insistently turning a blind eye to how much it isn't progress. Because human rights are human rights, and they shouldn't depend on any other status.

Do I understand you correctly now?

[eumelia]

That's how I see it, because it's basic humanity at stake here.

Obama's statement is important, but it shouldn't be lauded as some great change if you ask me.

[silveradept]

Okay, then we're agreed. It is nice that someone as public as him is willing to go on the record and say so, but there's so much more to do that the Congress needs to do (and if they won't, the courts need to) that everyone should say, "Good. Words match actions now, let's have more actions."

[schemingreader]

In my personal life I have a problem. Sometimes, when I get stuck on a task for a long time--say, making a dentist appointment after a long period without one--it begins to seem huge to me. Then, when I finally do what turns out to be a pretty simple thing and call the damned dentist, I feel stupid. Why couldn't I have done this sooner? I sounded like a dork on the phone with the dentist. Don't I even realize that the only way dental care works is by regular brushing, flossing and checkups? And of course, it's all true, but this robs me of any sense of peace or happiness I might have had from finally taking a step in the right direction. That way lies, if not madness, a pretty serious case of constant, low-level depression.

The night before last, Jon Stewart mocked Obama on TV for being too much of a wimp to admit that he supports gay marriage. (He had, much earlier in his political career, come out in favor of it.) We all assumed that middle-of-the-road, Christian Obama was going to equivocate again.

Let's say this. For twenty minutes, I'm going to feel happy that a person in power has affirmed several principles that everyone should affirm all the time anyway. That m/m and f/f relationships are worth celebrating! That people have the right to choose with whom to build a family! I think those are good things. It's OK to feel happy when there's a step in the right direction. Maybe marriage isn't the direction every GLBT activists thinks the movement for human liberation should go--but whatever, it's something.

And now, I have to get ready to go to the dentist. See, since I finally made that first appointment, I have regular checkups and cleanings every six months, and it's time for another one today.

[eumelia]

It's not a move to liberation when it excludes every LGBT who isn't a part of that type of establishment.

It is something, but that doesn't make it the only thing.

[schemingreader]

This guy has good things to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmrf0ljbD6w&feature=g-all-u

[eumelia]

Okay, trust J Smooth indeed. Thanks :)

[amethystfirefly]

This is progress for the US. You can pick it apart and say it's not up to your standards, but it's very progressive for as fucked up as we are over here. It's not right that it's progress, but it is.

It's flat out unrealistic to expect Obama to do more because he will lose the election if he does. Fuck, it's entirely possible that he put his presidency in jeopardy by coming out and saying this much, because the evangelicals are going to throw a hissy. And President Romney would be a hell of a lot worse than Obama is.

An opinion, that should have no bearing on the law.

It shouldn't, but it does. He's the freaking president and he leads the party. And dictates where it goes. Now that he's come out and said this, other Dems can come out and say "I support marriage equality" and act on it because Obama'll take the heat for it.

[eumelia]

I'm picking apart the words he uses in order to affirm the fact that he thinks that the inherent rights people should already have, should be bestowed as privilege.

I never said Obama was a bad President, I think he's done pretty well with what he's been up against. I stated, in the post, that he's done a lot of good on trans issues and the DADT repeal. That doesn't make his language or his evolution unproblematic or untouchable to criticism.

Of course he's better than Romney, I still don't think him saying that LGBT's being worthy of human rights is something to celebrate.

It the lowest decency I expect of a person. To treat another person with the respect they deserve for being a human being. That is not what he has said in that statement.

[amethystfirefly]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.