Wed 27 Jun 2007
Next of Kin
Posted by k under Displays
[19] Comments
The following post is something I’ve wanted to say for some time. My decision to say it now is not due to any particular event, and I am not directing it at any particular person, and I write it with all due respect.
It seems to me that the recent agitation for and against state sanctioned marriages between gay couples has obscured a valuable conversation about the function of marriage more generally. What’s more, it obscures valuable work being done by glbt/queer folk to re-invent the meaning of kinship. The reason that I do not agitate for gay marriage is because I find the legalistic and social functions of marriage to be antithetical to this queer project. In other words, I do not believe that queer culture and marriage can co-exist in some sort of mutually tolerant arrangement. I also do not believe that openminded and well-intentioned people will change the function of marriage “from the inside.” This does not mean that I think married people are nefarious, or that people who want to get married are chumps. I appreciate how difficult it is for any of us to get by in the world and get a little validation and security, and find a little meaning. My motivation for writing this is not to draw lines or to separate the men from the fags, but only to make visible a persistent tension in my life. On the one hand, I wish to support all my friends in however they choose to arrange their families. On the other, I wish to construct novel, durable, and sustainable forms of kinship, and frankly this means dismantling conventional forms.
And here maybe you’ll ask: Why does it have to be either/or? Aren’t people symbolically building all manner of family all the time? Don’t individuals decide for themselves who their family is anyway? And why do others have to be different for you to do what you want?
The problem I have with these arguments is that they grossly underestimate the influence of legal and social structures on individual behavior. Such arguments pressume those structures to be some how optional, and individual decisions to be some how independent of such influence. Most distressingly, I find that those who make these arguments often present themselves as disinvested from such structures, as if their own seemingly private, abstruse reasons for wanting to get married stand apart from the usual rationales.
It is precisely that fashioning of marriage as a personal, private decision that most bothers me. If it was private, than you would not need to announce your marriage, or have a wedding, and you most certainly would not need me to attend. The only thing private about marriage is the privilege of doing it at all, which is to say it is exclusive by its very definition and intended to grant legitimacy to some relationships at the expense of others. And the point at which a marriage is so private it’s a secret, then it no longer counts. The same is true for kinship in general: it doesn’t count if no else can see it, or if no one else recognizes it. This invisibility was the problem some queer folks hoped to address by calling for gay marriage. But I’m not interested in making gay people more like straight people; I’m interested in dismantling heteronormativity, and that means making visible, and available, alternative forms of kinship. There are myriad ways in which to make that happen, so to be clear, I’m not arguing that discrimination prevents me from creating a family. I’m saying I see people choosing conventional forms of kinship rather than making use of those other options.
So, what to do? Boycott all weddings? It would save me money, but it also means I don’t get to be a part of an important event in my friends’ lives, and that only further dispossesses me of any legitimate community ties. It seems the best thing to do is to have my say so at least I don’t just wander around the reception grumbling to myself. I will, however, take this opportunity to make the following announcement: All future wedding presents from me will be in the form of a donation to organizations working to secure legal options for gay people who wish to adopt children, retirement communities for glbt folks, and domestic partnership benefits (broadly defined).
19 Responses to “ Next of Kin ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from dot unplanned » It’s an Institute One Might Disparage
June 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pm[...] The “K” of “nerdmeyr & K” wrote some interesting stuff about marriage, then the “nerdmeyr” part followed up in a comment in that same entry. [...]
-
Pingback from David Ernst chats with the World » Joining In on the Kinship Conversation
July 7th, 2007 at 1:16 pm[...] On nerdmeyr.com, K wrote a very personal piece about her attitudes on marriage. This inspired a wave of comments on the blog, and a wave of thoughts in my own head. Like mph, I decided that it wouldn’t be right to fill so much space (disk space?) on their blog with all I wanted to say, so here it goes. [...]
-
Pingback from dot unplanned » More Marriage
July 9th, 2007 at 5:23 pm[...] Since my entry on it, the comments over on Kathleen’s marriage post have grown a little. Several jumped out: [...]

June 27th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
“Too much agreement kills the chat, ” said Eldridge Cleaver. Even at the risk of killing the chat (before its begun!), I must say “hear, hear”, and “Yes, indeed. What she said.”
June 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Adding onto my previous comment with something of more substance…. in college, I got pretty angry at straight friends who got married and expected me to attend the wedding. “You know, ” I used to proclaim, “if the government prevented black folks from getting married to each other, all you righteous liberals would decry and deny the institution and you’d make a big show of protesting bad policy by not engaging in it… and here you are, getting married when I won’t ever be allowed to.” What I really was reacting to was the inherent unfairness of certain kinds of relationships (two people only: male, female) being lauded by friends, family, and the state.
Michael Warner, in his amazingly good book _The Trouble with Normal_, writes: “Marriage sanctifies some couples at the expense of others. It is selective legitimacy…To a couple that gets married, marriage just looks ennobling…Stand outside of it for a second and you see the implication: if you don’t have it, you and your relations are less worthy. Without this corollary effect, marriage would not be able to endow anybody’s life with significance. The ennobling and the demeaning go together. Marriage does one only by virtue of the other. Marriage, in short, discriminates” (82).
The effect of this goes a lot further than just the current issue of whether same-sex couples are worthy of the right to marry. Who hasn’t witnessed numerous examples of how the average American marriage (gay or straight) cannot consistently address basic needs for emotional and financial security, strong interconnected relationships in community, personal growth, and decent child rearing arrangements? It seems to me that the institution of marriage is a Trojan horse, loaded with validation, privilege and a new Cuisinart, and carrying in its belly state-sponsored control, exclusion, discrimination, and a fundamental lack of creativity and imagination.
As Warner states: “As long as people marry, the state will continue to regulate the sexual lives of those who do not marry. It will continue to refuse to recognize our intimate relations…It will criminalize our consensual sex. It will stipulate at what age and in what kind of space we can have sex…. All this and more the state will justify because these sexual relations take place outside of marriage. In the modern era, marriage has become the central legitimating institution by which the state regulates and permeates people’s most intimate lives…In this context, to speak of marriage as merely one choice among others is at best naïve” (96).
I could go on and on about this, but k has already presented a thorough argument. I would like to reiterate her point that this isn’t about particular individuals or situations, and I really don’t wish my comments here to be taken as personal criticism by those who have chosen to get married, but this issue is one that k and I have been discussing on and off for years now, and this is as good a place as any to put down some writing about it. I leave with this final quote from Warner “Because the institution of marriage is itself one of the constraints on people’s intimate lives, to judge the worthiness of the institution is not to condemn the people in it. But it does mean that marrying should be considered as an ethical problem…The ethical meaning of marrying cannot be simplified to a question of pure motives, conscious choice, or transcendent love…marrying consolidates and sustains the normativity of marriage. And it does so despite what may be the best intentions of those who marry” (107-09).
June 28th, 2007 at 9:25 am
A large part of the reason it’s been so difficult for nymes and I to make these arguments before is that we fear people will think we’re turning their nice party into something political. But our point is that when you decide to get married, regardless of the reasons, you yourself are making a political statement. There’s just no way of getting around that. We’re not making anything political so much as responded to those politics.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I’m glad you did, k. I’ve heard about your thoughts on the matter, but not directly, and that has not been very useful. Maybe fine for having a few scraps of ideas I could fashion into a Virtual Kathleen with which I could have discussions, but my head needs another voice in it like it needs another hole.
Same to you, Nymes.
I’ve read k’s original post a few times since Al pointed it out to me yesterday, and Amy’s followup comment only once since this morning. I think I’m going to retreat to the comfort of my own Web space for any attempt to discuss, but in case that gets lost in the shuffle I wanted to drop a quick “thanks for writing this.”
June 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I’m enjoying this discussion and it’s making me think a lot about my participation in the institution. It’s also made me think about how I participate in other institutions that are discriminatory as well. For example, I think we all can agree that the public education system discriminates against the poor and people of color. However, we also agree that it’s a useful system to have, even with its faults. I mean, all of us are products of the public ed. system. We were taught a lot of crap and we witnessed teachers being abusive to us or other students. I’m gonna send Ben to public school knowing that it’s not perfect. I’m also going to actively work to change public ed. so it works better for everyone. I’m not saying that we should accept racist/sexist/homophobic institutions as they are. Rather we should critically analyze these institutions and attempt to change them so that all people can equally benefit from participating in them.
As for K’s comment, “we fear people will think we’re turning their nice party into something political”….everything personal is political, whether we want it to be or not. It’s much more comfortable to separate the 2 because it’s just downright unpleasant to accept that we benefit from the oppression of others.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I’m enjoying this discussion and it’s making me think a lot about my participation in the institution. It’s also made me think about how I participate in other institutions that are discriminatory as well. For example, I think we all can agree that the public education system discriminates against the poor and people of color. However, we also agree that it’s a useful system to have, even with its faults. I mean, all of us are products of the public ed. system. We were taught a lot of crap and we witnessed teachers being abusive to us or other students. I’m gonna send Ben to public school knowing that it’s not perfect. I’m also going to actively work to change public ed. so it works better for everyone. I’m not saying that we should accept racist/sexist/homophobic institutions as they are. Rather we should critically analyze these institutions and attempt to change them so that all people can equally benefit from participating in them.
As for K’s comment, “we fear people will think we’re turning their nice party into something political”….everything personal is political, whether we want it to be or not. It’s much more comfortable to separate the 2 because it’s just downright unpleasant to accept that we benefit from and sometimes unintentionally perpetuate the oppression of others.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Oh, you agitant drags. Don’t you know you’re just supposed to show up in your church clothes at the authoritarian ritual and snicker and maybe absently wonder, “What’s it all about, really?” as well as “Will they make it, now that they’ve strapped this steel chassis to their formerly pink and formless organism?” not to mention, “Why didn’t I take a picture of her puking after the Butthole Surfers show in her ‘QUESTION AUTHORITY’ t-shirt so I could leave it by the cake?”
For the most part, though–straight, married breeder that I am–I’ll have to say, guilty as charged, to the extent the charge is willful obliviousness to the many forms exclusionism takes. The path of least resistance is thornier than it seems.
I compared the straight-marriage amendment to segregation myself in a post I was very proud of, and I did some rafter-rattling about how, if it came up and/or passed, my wife and I ought to just get an annullment because blah-blah-blah. However, your point about our implicit complicity is well made. I also pay my taxes. What to do, indeed?
I have a few things to say in my defense before I’m through, but right now I have to leave my office, pick up my boys, meet my wife for dinner, then mow my lawn. After that, I think I’ll drink a martini and vote Republican!
I am only kidding about the last one.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
mmmmmm, martini. the one I’m currently drinking has TWO jalapeno-stuffed olives.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 am
Alright, I’ve got my own personal representation of this heterosexual phenomenon going on in my life, and I’m absolutely sure that neither the bride or groom are reading this blog, so _I’m_ actually going to get personal. Because, frankly, this is one of those issues where I don’t know that the political realm has that much to do with the way it _feels_. And it seems to me that the way it feels is at the core of the issue.
First: I’m not spending a lot of time agitating for queer marriage, myself. Have written the requisite letters, called the political offices, (repeat ad naseum) but beyond that, I don’t feel like getting into it, for many of the reasons k and nerdmeyr mention. Hell if I’m going to let an actively discriminatory amendment happen, but I’m not really _for_ the act of legal marriage.
What I want is the right to affordable, high-quality health care for my family. And none of the people in my family who need the health care are recognized by law or insurance as belonging to me. I want to be able to name my family as it actually occurs (my aging mother, my “little sister” through the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program, my closest friends’ daughters, my female partner) in every context where doing so would communicate those relationships to the proper authorities, give me access to benefits for them from agencies that believe it is in their best interests to support the family that supports me, and further publicly name these people as my family.
But that’s the legal side of things.
The personal side of things is how hard it is to watch people you care about, with whom you have felt kindred, with whom you have believed you were building that kind of chosen family, suddenly pull “straight” rank and sign up for the whole kit and heterosexual caboodle. Yea, yea, they’re happy and excited to have taken this step of commitment in their personal, private relationship, and they want everybody to celebrate with them, but it _feels_ like a slap in the face and a denial of the chosen family you thought you were a part of. Now, suddenly, the het couple is the family, and you’re the outsider…..again.
I should be saying “I”. This is happening to me, with my oldest friend, David. He’s been one of my closest friends since we were both 14. I thought we lived in the same world. But he fell in love with a woman, and slowly but surely, instead of fighting to demand that their relationship maintain the ethics and outside-of-the-box approach that I always wanted to believe he shared with me, he simply let the box take over. “It’s easier,” he says. “We’re insecure,” he says, “this will give us some support.”
And that’s the thing. He’s willing to take that support, and to some extent, erase my relationship to him, and exclude me from what he’s defining as family. And that hurts.
If he said something else, if he constructed what he was doing differently, it could be better. If he could listen to me tell him this instead of shutting it down and telling me I’m being too political and too idealistic, it would help. But he’s not.
The ironic thing is that I’m totally in favor of him developing, committing to, and showing up for a long-term, intimate relationship. Even the monogamy and the potential breeding seems like something that might actually be a growing thing for him. I could be their relationship’s biggest fan. And frankly, when over half of marriages end in divorce, I think everybody could use as many fans as they can get.
And that’s the other side of the coin: I want and need David to be _my_ family’s biggest fan. He has been in the past. There’s been plenty of times when I was tired, and haggard, and ready to walk away from the emotional demand of any number of those family relationships and David was right there. “Grow up, danni. You’re in this, deal with it. You know she loves you. You know your mom needs you. You know O’She is still just a kid. Stick with it. So what if the rest of the world can’t see your connection? You’ve never done it the easy way.” Now, I’m having a hard time believing that he’ll do that for me. Because he’s obviously choosing the easy way himself. How can he help me in my struggle when he’s given up?
So, I hear you. I also feel you. Maybe it’s not quite so personal for either of you, and I don’t mean to project. When I think about the arguments you both present about this, though, the personal is what comes up.
Thanks for having this conversation. It helps to know other people are thinking about it.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
This is the second time in my life I’ve publicly disparaged the institution of marriage, the first being when I was twenty and it came in the form of a zine I wrote called Motor Pussycat. At the time, I honestly thought everyone would agree with me as if there was some unspoken consensus that marriage was old-fashioned. What I learned then and continue to be reminded of is that, it’s complicated. Mike, I wanted to make clear that my condemnation of the institution wasn’t a judgment of the people in it because people sometimes think, as you so eloquently argued in a post I can’t find, that one’s sexuality correlates to one’s ethical standing. So yeah, some people might assume that I think they’re less radical or more compromised if they’re married or had some sort of wedding-like ceremony. they might also assume that if I choose to get married tomorrow that it some how means I recind my argument, or that it no longer has credibility. ha!
while I don’t think pk’s tax analogy really holds (I can’t be sent to jail or get fined for not getting married), I do like Al’s public schools analogy. and danni, yeah, the injury is emotional. as easy as it is to make this about health benefits, some days for me, it’s about all that validation that I can’t have.
if i could figure out how to “pingback,” to Mike’s post at dotunplanned i would…so here’s the url instead: http://mph.puddingbowl.org/
July 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I wish I was a smart enough person and a good enough writer to defend myself against these allegations. Maybe the fact that I can’t, means that they’re true.
I remember feeling like I’d really betrayed my “aunts” Liz and Bobbie. I went to their 30th anniversary party, probably 15 years before my wedding. A year ago Liz and Bobbie came to visit me and my wife and kids and I asked them about the whole gay marriage thing. Turns out, Bobbie proposed to Liz and Liz turned her down years ago.
I don’t think that the answer lies in denigrating marriage – the whole damn thing would be solved if our society had its priorities in order. Universal health care, intolerance of intolerance, more equitable distribution of wealth, etc.
I chose to get married to protect myself and my kids from the problems that we would have if we weren’t married. I’m not sure that endangering myself and limiting my life based on principles makes the world a better place, or that my marriage makes the world a worse place.
I’ll have to give that more thought.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
It is horrible that in the US, marriage confers privileges only afforded to a subset of people. These privileges include but are not limited to health benefits and survivorship. Depending on your situation (company for whom your work, state in which you live), marriage may be the only way to obtain these privileges. It is perhaps even more insidious that marriage is also social “shorthand” for legitimacy, wholesomeness, and Christian morality. Disentangling the shorthand message from the state-sponsored privileges raises several very difficult questions and poses a constant set of challenges if one chooses to not simply accept the status quo.
I am not going to explain our reasons for choosing to get married here. I am not going to share the details of our many discussions balancing the pros and cons to ourselves, our intentional family, or to the “outside world” here. I am not going to defend nor articulate our particular form of kinship here.
I will challenge the belief that the only way to change this system is to not participate. I believe this is one valid approach, but that there are also three more; to exist inside the system as it is with no challenge, to exist inside the system but attempt to change the system lawfully, and to exist inside the system but attempt to change the system unlawfully. All are valid responses for individuals to make. It is also my belief that to make any sort of system wide change, a combination of these options from different people at different times is required. Any system sufficiently complex and embedded in a culture as marriage is, in my belief, requires a holistic and sufficiently complex response.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Y’know, I had another thought. We invited plenty of people that we knew and/or hoped wouldn’t show up to our wedding. The invite, in these cases was more of an FYI for these folks. You could put yourself in that camp and I doubt your true friends would be offended, especially now that they know your reasons. I personally have attended waaay less than half the weddings that I’ve been invited to, and I’m a married, breeder type person.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:26 am
I guess I’m puzzled at the idea that refusing to participate in either the institution or in some semblance of it will make one free. Just because someone chooses not to marry does not help them become immune from any of the negative beliefs that marriage has already created inside of us.
How do you know when something is “alternative” as opposed to conventional? The “tribal” connection that so many of us long for and that is often opposed to the “nuclear family” is not alternative in tribal societies and is even fairly common among large rural families who live near each other.
I have to say that in my experience, alternative tribal communities of friends have a failure rate just as high as marriage. Commitment is hard no matter how you cut it.
It’s interesting that no one has raised the key function of marriage here, which is not (in my opinion) PRIMARILY to draw a line around good and bad sexuality (although it does serve that function) but rather to have a system for keeping track of who is responsible for children.
It’s a silly system we have — no doubt about it — since you could eaisly have a child-registration system and universal health care and separate weddings without state sanction for those who find it important. It’s weird and outdated to conflate all of those things.
But changing the system would not get you away from SYSTEMS any more than living in a coop gets you out of your chores.
A child is found wandering in the street and needs to be returned to someone. If two people both claim that the child should be returned to them, you need a way to resolve that dispute.
Someone dies and all their stuff is left. If four people close to that person disagree about who gets that stuff, you need a way to resolve that dispute.
This is what family law is about in every society and every country, whether you are allowed to marry one, two, four or fifteen people and whether the society is matrilinial, patrilocal or otherwise.
Societies need systems. I’m totally open to alternate systems. But I don’t personally want to live in a world with no common language, no common ethics, and no common norms, ie. with no systems.
In fact, as we all know, you will have *more* chores in the coop. The lines of power may very well be less clear and the system may therefore be less democratic, all while pretending to be more so.
As someone who just got married (at least, in ONE state), I wish everyone who doesn’t wants an alternative system well! I will fight for universal health care and equal tax laws and recognition and validation for all unmarried people!
In the meantime, having explored and enjoyed an alternative family system for over 10 years, I am now looking forward to exploring marriage and discovering its strengths and weaknesses.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:29 am
Wow — sorry about that grammar there.
Uh … I meant to say: “I wish everyone who wants an alternative system well!”
Time to sleep.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 am
rejoinder: Of course I appreciate that susan took the time to comment on our post. I wish, however, that her response was not full of uninformed assumptions about who I am and what kind of relationships I have (or desire). I don’t recall ever suggesting that not getting married would make me more “free.” Free and freedom are words that I would never use unless I was mocking. Freedom is not a governing value in my life. The values by which I choose to live my life include commitment, responsibility, care, diligence, imagination, and grace. I also don’t recall suggesting that by not getting married I was somehow living “outside the system.” I think she means to accuse me of subscribing to some naïve free-loving ethos, but anyone who knows me knows that I believe sexual relationships should be subject to propriety (and that I have little patience for those who thoughtlessly breach those proprieties). I take no issue with the concept of systems. Indeed, I am constantly in awe of the elaborate, and occasionally beautiful, social systems humans invent for themselves in order to practice their everyday lives with some sense of meaning and dignity. Just because I take issue with one particular, historically bound, system that dominates our kinship does not mean that I am anti-system.
It is the last part of susan’s post that I find most disturbing, especially her implied claim that all societies everywhere at any time, regardless of their structure, were/are all ultimately in service to the same beliefs. Never having lived in those other places and times, I really can’t say what those practices mean for the people who live them, but I find it…sad to think that they could only be mere variations on our own ways of being. I don’t share susan’s pessimistic view that regardless of how we might structure our kinship that it all amounts to the same thing. How we arrange our lives _matters_. If it didn’t, then I have to imagine that my original post would have been totally ignored.
While I continue to invite comment on my argument about the _institution_ of marriage, I ask that you please refrain from disrespecting my devoted relationship of almost seven years by mischaracterizing me as immature and naïve because I am not currently exploring the many awesome mysteries of state-sanctioned married life. My commitment to nymes could not be more true or enduring and I, too, look forward to facing whatever challenges it presents me.