Photo: Members of the Gay Liberation Front protesting outside Bow Street Magistrates Court in February 1971. Picture by Central Press/Getty Images.
You can say that I belong to the anti-marriage squad or something. Yet, I support equal marriage rights for everyone irrespective of gender and sexuality. I am happy when countries legalize same-sex marriages. Why? Because I support equal rights, and marriage rights entail a slew of other rights like adoption rights, property rights, rights arising out of separation, etc. A very significant aspect of the struggle for equal rights for the gender/sexual minority is the struggle for legalizing same-sex marriages. The two most important reasons behind this are, the fact that heterosexuals have the right to marry while same-sex couples do not, and, the fact that the virtues of marriage are lauded by society, for example, marriage allows a couple to participate in family gatherings which do not allow shamefully unmarried couples who do not have a legitimate social sanction. Society teaches that ‘family’ cannot be independent of ‘marriage’. However, preceding the debate about legalization of same-sex marriages was the debate within the gender/sexual minority community internationally (not so much in India) about whether the right to marry is at all a worthwhile goal to aim at. I am talking about a time when the cause itself seemed unrealistic and impractical- the debate as to whether marriage at all means liberation is that old!
One radical school of thought perceives marriage as ‘after all a society-sanctioned institution’ essentially patriarchal and heteronormative and therefore, oppressive. Those who hold this view opine that marriage, if it cannot be radically transformed, should be rejected. Simply making it more inclusive is not a good goal to chase. This is yet another liberationist contention which is applauded in academia but loses all political arguments because marriage rights besides being equated with normalcy and are considered essential to human dignity.
Since issues concerning marriage rights are a public case and the gender/sexual minority worldwide has been struggling to end discrimination pertaining to marriage, corporations in comparatively less conservative or non-conservative countries have been trying to sell everything ‘gay-friendly’- from tourist spots for ‘gay honeymoons’, ‘gay-themed’ weddings and hotels to Burger King burgers with rainbow wrappers. Although the gender/sexual minority is said to be sharing political and social bases, many of us only participate in commercialised events and ‘gay parties’ held in pubs owned by straight entrepreneurs. (Hello, are there gay entrepreneurs anyway!) This is also the trend in India now- expensive after-parties follow pride parades which are mostly about visibility of only a certain class of gender/sexual minority. The idea of the ‘gay man’ we have in our heads is never that of a poverty-stricken gay man. The poor gender/sexual minority is not even the target of most NGO-initiated awareness schemes, forget pride parades!
Kennedy’s contention that marriage embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion and sacrifice is vague. However, he rightly stated that marriage is about practical benefits concerning health care, death, taxes, property, child custody etc. These privileges are hetero-privileges in countries like India. The struggle for same-sex marriage rights never questions why is it that marriage has to be the guarantor of such basic human benefits. The entire movement is confusion. While the activists attack one conservative approach, they adhere to another by ignoring the reasonable possibility that these benefits can also be made available to unmarried partners just like protection from domestic violence. Hence, the gender/sexual minority is willing to embrace a make-believe or limited liberation which promises equality but not necessarily, equity.
In the days of the Gay Liberation Front formed in New York City in 1969, the gender/sexual minority demanded the abolition of marriage and rejected all possible invitations to join the institution they deemed patriarchal and oppressive. Jill Sheila Tweedie, influential feminist, writer and broadcaster wrote in 1971 that Gay Liberation does not want marriage rights for same-sex partners instead, questions marriage thus challenging the status quo. Jill writes, “Gay Lib is in the business of rocking the boat. Though they want legislative and attitude changes these young homosexuals, by their very acceptance of the normality of homosexuality, challenge the status quo, the dedicated heterosexuality of the normal man and woman which creates the family unit, foundation stone of the capitalist system. Gay Lib does not plead for the right of homosexuals to marry. Gay Lib questions marriage.
And the always-frustrating inability for the gay movement to double down on its commitments to core feminist concerns such as sexual freedom, gender violence, and reproductive rights needs to be reckoned with head on.”
Even when the Gay Liberation Front no longer existed, many people like writer Julie Bindel questioned traditional family privileges and raised children in friendship groups and not as married couples, thus also critiquing monogamy. Julie writes, “What would real gay liberation look like? Marriage would be abolished for all in favour of something based on equality and next of kin rights rather than ownership and tax avoidance. Gay men and lesbians alike would challenge a culture and politics based on consumerism, and would speak out against the misogyny that confines both groups to stereotypes. And we would look beyond the picket fence and rejoin the picket lines in protest about the ongoing oppression and anti-gay bigotry we still face, despite legislative equality.”
Indian gender/sexual minority rights activism today looks up to countries that have legalized same-sex marriages at the cost of their radical-and-reasonable potential. Does marriage at all mean liberation?
You can say that I belong to the anti-marriage squad or something. Yet, I support equal marriage rights for everyone irrespective of gender and sexuality. I am happy when countries legalize same-sex marriages. Why? Because I support equal rights, and marriage rights entail a slew of other rights like adoption rights, property rights, rights arising out of separation, etc. A very significant aspect of the struggle for equal rights for the gender/sexual minority is the struggle for legalizing same-sex marriages. The two most important reasons behind this are, the fact that heterosexuals have the right to marry while same-sex couples do not, and, the fact that the virtues of marriage are lauded by society, for example, marriage allows a couple to participate in family gatherings which do not allow shamefully unmarried couples who do not have a legitimate social sanction. Society teaches that ‘family’ cannot be independent of ‘marriage’. However, preceding the debate about legalization of same-sex marriages was the debate within the gender/sexual minority community internationally (not so much in India) about whether the right to marry is at all a worthwhile goal to aim at. I am talking about a time when the cause itself seemed unrealistic and impractical- the debate as to whether marriage at all means liberation is that old!
One radical school of thought perceives marriage as ‘after all a society-sanctioned institution’ essentially patriarchal and heteronormative and therefore, oppressive. Those who hold this view opine that marriage, if it cannot be radically transformed, should be rejected. Simply making it more inclusive is not a good goal to chase. This is yet another liberationist contention which is applauded in academia but loses all political arguments because marriage rights besides being equated with normalcy and are considered essential to human dignity.
Since issues concerning marriage rights are a public case and the gender/sexual minority worldwide has been struggling to end discrimination pertaining to marriage, corporations in comparatively less conservative or non-conservative countries have been trying to sell everything ‘gay-friendly’- from tourist spots for ‘gay honeymoons’, ‘gay-themed’ weddings and hotels to Burger King burgers with rainbow wrappers. Although the gender/sexual minority is said to be sharing political and social bases, many of us only participate in commercialised events and ‘gay parties’ held in pubs owned by straight entrepreneurs. (Hello, are there gay entrepreneurs anyway!) This is also the trend in India now- expensive after-parties follow pride parades which are mostly about visibility of only a certain class of gender/sexual minority. The idea of the ‘gay man’ we have in our heads is never that of a poverty-stricken gay man. The poor gender/sexual minority is not even the target of most NGO-initiated awareness schemes, forget pride parades!
Kennedy’s contention that marriage embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion and sacrifice is vague. However, he rightly stated that marriage is about practical benefits concerning health care, death, taxes, property, child custody etc. These privileges are hetero-privileges in countries like India. The struggle for same-sex marriage rights never questions why is it that marriage has to be the guarantor of such basic human benefits. The entire movement is confusion. While the activists attack one conservative approach, they adhere to another by ignoring the reasonable possibility that these benefits can also be made available to unmarried partners just like protection from domestic violence. Hence, the gender/sexual minority is willing to embrace a make-believe or limited liberation which promises equality but not necessarily, equity.
In the days of the Gay Liberation Front formed in New York City in 1969, the gender/sexual minority demanded the abolition of marriage and rejected all possible invitations to join the institution they deemed patriarchal and oppressive. Jill Sheila Tweedie, influential feminist, writer and broadcaster wrote in 1971 that Gay Liberation does not want marriage rights for same-sex partners instead, questions marriage thus challenging the status quo. Jill writes, “Gay Lib is in the business of rocking the boat. Though they want legislative and attitude changes these young homosexuals, by their very acceptance of the normality of homosexuality, challenge the status quo, the dedicated heterosexuality of the normal man and woman which creates the family unit, foundation stone of the capitalist system. Gay Lib does not plead for the right of homosexuals to marry. Gay Lib questions marriage.
And the always-frustrating inability for the gay movement to double down on its commitments to core feminist concerns such as sexual freedom, gender violence, and reproductive rights needs to be reckoned with head on.”
Even when the Gay Liberation Front no longer existed, many people like writer Julie Bindel questioned traditional family privileges and raised children in friendship groups and not as married couples, thus also critiquing monogamy. Julie writes, “What would real gay liberation look like? Marriage would be abolished for all in favour of something based on equality and next of kin rights rather than ownership and tax avoidance. Gay men and lesbians alike would challenge a culture and politics based on consumerism, and would speak out against the misogyny that confines both groups to stereotypes. And we would look beyond the picket fence and rejoin the picket lines in protest about the ongoing oppression and anti-gay bigotry we still face, despite legislative equality.”
Indian gender/sexual minority rights activism today looks up to countries that have legalized same-sex marriages at the cost of their radical-and-reasonable potential. Does marriage at all mean liberation?