I, for one, would love to know how he “researched” this topic and came to this conclusion.. of all things.
Gay marriage advocates brush aside generations of queer efforts to create new ways of loving, lusting for, and caring for one another, in favour of a 1950s model of white-picket-fence, “we’re just like you” normalcy.
The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill passed through Parliament by a 105-18 vote.
The Catholic fraternal organization, tasked with promoting charity and unity, appears to be greatly focused on fighting marriage equality and other LGBT causes.
Some critics and international gay rights advocates say focus on marriage in US in shortsighted.
The reason black feminists (overall) are less critical of marriage than white feminists is because black women use marriage to access rights and privileges that white women have automatically on account of whiteness. Like the ability to be viewed as a good woman/desirable. because if a white woman is unmarried it’s her personal choice but if a black woman is not married it must be because nobody wants her because she’s loud, assertive, domineering/other racist & sexist stereotypes. Like the ability to be a mother without getting looked down on every time you’re in public because being a single black mom = being a welfare queen/a leach to the system. Because being married helps you avoid vitriol if you have degrees/are professionally successful. because of the myth that successful black woman aren’t marriageable. But a successful unmarried white woman is on the top of her power feminist came ‘leaning in’ like Sheryl Sandberg. What’s sad is not that Bey named her tour “Mrs. Carter” but the possible motivations behind it (besides a genuine love and respect for her husband). But white feminists don’t get it.
Aaaand that’s a wrap. WOW. Excellence.
I don’t even know if I would say that Black feminists are less critical but are differently critical. Our criticisms come from a DIFFERENT history, world view, perspectives. Remember what Audre wrote about differences?
I must say that I find amusement over the anger about Beyoncé’s tour being named “The Mrs. Carter Show.” People are angered that she didn’t use her “maiden” name. Look at that last phrase. “Maiden” name. Research that. Then, realize that her lineage, like most, is patrilineal. “Knowles” is her father’s last name. Even if she were from a single parent home and had her mother’s last name, “Beyincé,” that still comes from her mother’s father (Lumis Albert Beyincé). Her first name alludes to this same last name.
But names also become OURS. Women aren’t just empty boxes where our names do not matter. Parents give the original names. It’s still not the child doing the naming. The feminist policing and politics around names need a revision.
White feminists want to use “feminist” and “human” interchangeably for Black women. This is not acceptable. To them, they have to “approve” a Black woman’s feminist praxis before they can view her as a full human being. Unacceptable. And in the case of marriage, if they were not so drunk on White supremacy, they would see the financial power, social capital and protection that they pretend to never desire are given to them as a birthright and set as a standard that Black women do not “deserve.” Hence Beyoncé’s eradication of their boxes and having what she wants (not even trying to meet White women’s “having it all” mantras) is so appalling to them that they scramble relentlessly to insult her and Black women in general. Notice that theism, Christianity, possible monogamy, marriage before parenthood, two parent home and economically sufficient—all “standard” markers used to claim “respectability” for White women—are ignored in Beyoncé’s case. Respectability politics go hand in hand with racism itself. They’re born out of White supremacy and double standards.
Mainstream feminism involves a lot of demanding Black women reject things that White women are entitled to and Black women need or never receive. Good damn bye with that!
The Mormon church is telling its local leaders that same-sex wedding ceremonies and receptions are prohibited in their churches.
In other news, water is still, in fact, wet.
It’s still unclear whether the state will honor the 1,360 same-sex unions that took place in the 17 days when they were legal.
found via queerandpresentdanger
As young queer people raised in queer families and communities, we reject the liberal gay agenda that gives top priority to the fight for marriage equality. The queer families and communities we are proud to have been raised in are nothing like the ones transformed by marriage equality. This agenda fractures our communities, pits us against natural allies, supports unequal power structures, obscures urgent queer concerns, abandons struggle for mutual sustainability inside queer communities and disregards our awesomely fabulous queer history.
Click the header link to read the full article.
I highly recommend reading this.
A blue-eyed man in a white t-shirt is shackled and gagged with tape. The four glyphs “NO H8” are written on his cheek.
I recognize this photograph as one taken by Adam Bouska from an advertising campaign against the much-publicized Proposition 8 in (my new home state of) California. Proposition 8 is legislation that bans same-sex marriage. This photograph was suggested by Stefanie, who wrote in from Germany saying:This picture is of Benjamin Linus from the TV show “Lost”. The actor is called Michael Emerson. It’s one my favourite submissive men picture at the moment because I really enjoy his evil character in the LOST show and seeing him tied and gagged is hot :)
I don’t know whether or not Stefanie was aware of this, but the context of the picture is one of oppression—the not-fun kind. This might make sexualizing the image somewhat uncomfortable, and some could find doing so morally appalling. How dare someone be aroused by a picture of a man working to support LGBTQ civil rights? Which doesn’t address the fact that I find working on social justice causes sexy, but let’s just move on for now.
Now, banning same-sex marriage is certainly an act of discrimination against homosexual relationships. However, I’m pretty damn soured by the notion that somehow marriage is in any way a legal right for anyone at all. Kate Bornstein said it best:
Fuck marriage equality. Fuck marriage. We’d be more in line with the US Constitution to abolish marriage altogether as a function of government. We could give everyone the rights that come with marriage, via a civil union—a union that isn’t based in gender, romance, religious belief or number of partners involved in the union. And excuse me, but marriage between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman still leaves out a LOT of people!
If what people want is rights, civil unions for everyone is the answer that wouldn’t make anyone a second class citizen. And church and state would be nice and separate. The way they’re supposed to be separate, remember?
Equality is tricky, and it gets trickier when you add to the mix people for whom narrow views of equality itself doesn’t work—people perhaps like Stefanie and like me. In the BDSM subculture, where differing expressions of power are a core part of people’s sociosexual identity, the concept of marriage is perhaps too equal, so a replacement exists:
Some people conduct formal “collaring ceremonies,” which are regarded as effectively solemnizing their relationship in a similar way as a marriage ceremony.
Clearly, marriage—and maybe even equality—as it is commonly understood today isn’t actually well understood at all. Legislating on marriage sounds just as ridiculous to me as legislating on collaring ceremonies. This is why I’m such a big fan of decoupling things from the similar but contextually irrelevant things they sometimes look like yet aren’t, such as how I can sexualize this picture of Michael Emerson without personal guilt. As it happens, this is a skill that every human being arguably exercises in both D/s and vanilla relationships, as harperjean explains:[B]y necessity individuals in D/s relationships view themselves and their relationship to one another through two very different, and seemingly opposed, lenses at the very same time: one in which the dominant partner has control and the submissive is not autonomous; and one in which both are fully autonomous individuals. The D/s reality depends, of course, upon the autonomous reality, which both circumscribes it and gives it life. And yet both partners must inhabit both realities at once for the relationship to work, must believe both that the submissive is free (to disobey, to renegotiate) and that he is bound. (One might say something similar about the tension between “one-ness” and “two-ness” in vanilla marriage, though obviously there are differences.)
So back to this marriage thing, one solution is simply not to deal with the complexities that the existence of people not-like-you bring to the table. Radical feminists (“radfems”) who denounce any kind of power imbalance as a construction of the patriarchy do this and, though often subtler, almost every outlet of hegemonic society does this as well. Radfems pathologize the choices of submissive women into dismissal, while mainstream media provides a frighteningly systematic misrepresentation of gender “norms” that consistently associates submissive men with unattractiveness.
Of course, if we keep doing this, then we’re right back to discrimination, and we already saw where that leads.
Right-wing roundup: Brian Brown says gays are the bullies, while Peter LaBarbera says children of same-sex couples learn ‘perversion.’
Hong Kong’s Security Secretary has extended a court’s order that a transgender woman be able to marry her opposite-sex partner to also include transgender men - but transgender people who have not undergone surgery….
The office of Utah’s governor announced today the state will not recognize more than 1,000 same-sex marriages that took place before a federal injunction brought such marriages to a halt Monday.
A former Arizona sheriff says gays in Utah “are shoving their agenda down our throats” and is calling for an “uprising” against same-sex marriage.
by Tauriq Moosa
For myself, I can see no reason that sufficiently makes marriage, in general, a viable option worth wanting or supporting. I would much rather live in a society that had little interest in my relationship life, but protected me and everyone nevertheless. It’s not a black-and-white situation of total societal interest or disinterest. Keep marriage, if you so want, but it shouldn’t hamper or restrict others from benefits or equal treatment, especially when there appears so little reason for having it.