Gay Rights — Just like everyone else?
The conversation that we had in class about gay marriage last week has really got me thinking. Does wanting to be “just like everyone else” or asserting that gays and lesbians are “just like everyone else” make a nod towards heteronormativity? I don’t think so.
The ideas that are put forth by saying that gays and lesbians are “just like everyone else,” merely serves to say that the gay and lesbian lifestyle is pretty much identical to the heterosexual lifestyle. We all go to work, do our jobs, come home, go out with friends, pay the bills, have pets, etc. There is very little difference in the lived lives of gays and lesbians in comparison with the lived lives of heterosexuals. In fact, gays and lesbians can be involved in political groups, just like heterosexuals. They can even have the same values. I would argue, and maybe this is just an experiential difference – since I think that I live my life “just like everyone else,” that my existance compared with my heterosexual friends’ existances are pretty much equal.
So why then, does the granting of rights to homosexuals make a nod towards heteronormativity? I’m really confused as to where this idea comes from. My girlfriend argues that we all need to do the same steps — she thinks we should abolish marriage and make everyone go though paperwork to be married. How does that nod towards heteronormativity?
On the Limiting of Marriage
The DOMA that is working its way along in Washington state attempts to limit marriage to individuals who can/intend to produce offspring. Take a look at the text:
On July 26, 2006, the Washington supreme court cited the “legitimate state interests” of procreation and child-rearing as a basis for preserving the defense of marriage act. The People of Washington find it desirable to place part of this ruling into statutory form and make procreation a requirement for valid marriage in this state.
From: http://www.wa-doma.org/Initiative.aspx
There are so many problems with DOMAs in general, but this DOMA, in particular, is insane.
Some other choice quotes:
The following individuals cannot be married:
(d) When the parties are unable to have children together for any reason
and
(1) All couples married in this state shall have three years from the date of solemnization of the marriage, or eighteen months from the effective date of this act, whichever is later, to have filed with the state registrar of vital statistics or designated deputy registrar at least one certificate of marital procreation as described in section 11 of this act.
(2) Failure to comply with subsection (1) of this section shall result in the marriage being unrecognized as described in section 7 of this act, effective as of the midnight ending the time period described in subsection (1) of this section.
Now, then. What I take issue with here is not the attempts to say that reproduction is the sole and most important byproduct of marriage (although I do find that problematic in itself), but the fact that there are many heterosexual couples who cannot have children and many more who do not have children. The Washington state DOMA would prohibit a large population of heterosexual individuals from getting married, including:
the elderly
couples with fertility issues
couples who choose not to have children
women who are infertile due to health reasons (PCOS, hysterectomy)
men who are infertile due to health reasons or accidents
When we cling to an essentialist construction of gender, we believe that men and women are constructed differently and complementary. A marriage that produces children fufills the essential duty of marriage. However, not all women can have children (or want to have children). Is a woman any less a woman because she is infertile or has had a hysterectomy? This DOMA seems to imply that our gendered roles are fulfilled by our wanted to become mothers and fathers.
The Mainstreaming of Transgendered Identity
Recently, there has been an influx of transgendered characters in fictional TV shows and transgendered individuals on documentaries. I think this is a good development. In fact, I find the mainstreaming of transgendered individuals to be a step forward in the right direction. The media is so powerful that it has the capacity to make people more confortable with people of different sexual orientations and gender expressions.
Take, for example, the appearance of gay and lesbian characters on mainstream television shows in the past 10 years or so. If we grow accustomed to seeing gay and lesbian characters on television, does that make us more confortable with gay and lesbian individuals? I think that the answer is yes, especially for younger viewers. I would argue that growing up watching more diverse characters on television makes people more tolerant. So, what does this do for transgendered individuals?
The transgendered character on tv’s All My Children introduces a transgendered character to the daytime viewing audience. However, Zarf (the character in question) is strange at best. From what I have seen, Zarf’s eloquent speeches about being in the wrong body is coupled with a very strange personality with multiple identities. Another show that is scheduled to air a transgendered individual showcases a transgendered (MTF) woman with her wife (they were married before the husband transitioned) with a family of Wiccans and a variety of differently-abled individuals. Do these portrayals of trans individuals help or hinder the transgendered case? Is any publicity good publicity?
This hearkens back to discussions we’ve had about radical lesbian feminists. If Andrea Dworkin and her anti-porn legislation (or bra burners or protesters) are the only face a movement has in the media, does that make them more legitimate or less? Is mainstreaming even a good thing? Are we trying to build legitimacy within mainstream society for lesbian/gay/transgendered identity or do we want to embrace the full spectrum.
Links to TV shows with transgendered characters/individuals:
All My Children: http://abc.go.com/daytime/allmychildren/index.html
Sid Davis and 1950/60’s Anti-Homosexual Propaganda
Sid Davis’ film career was sparked by the 1949 murder of six year old Linda Joyce Glucoft. Urged by his desire to protect young childen (his daugher, Jill, was six at the time of Linda’s murder) from the dangers of strangers, Davis began to produce 10 – 30 minute ‘educational’ films for young people (150 in total). Boys Beware (1961), is a 10 minute film intended to educate young boys about the dangers of homosexuals.
Here’s what Boys Beware tells us about homosexuals:
Homosexual men prey on young boys.
Homosexuality is a sickness.
Homosexuals are criminals.
Homosexuals can engage in violence and murder.
This film clearly portrays homosexual men as child molesters (A similar film called Girls Beware sets out to inform girls to watch out for strange men, too). Of course, the 1950’s and 1960’s are a time in which homosexual men are portrayed as predators and dangerous to young boys, and homosexuality is still considered a mental illness (and is included in the 1963 verison of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Ok, we now know that children (both boys and girls) are more likely to be molested by men (pedophiles) in heterosexual marriages who consider themselves to be heterosexuals, however homosexual individuals (especially men) are villanized as predators even today.
This homosexual-as-pedophile rhetoric is seen in the literature of many anti-gay groups, most notably Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Paul Cameron, the head of the Family Research Council, has published numerous ’statistically driven’ articles that support the hypothesis that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters. The problem with Cameron’s research is that he classifies any man who has sexual relations with a boy as a homosexual, ignoring the context in which the molestation occurs. So a heterosexual man in a heterosexual marriage who molests a boy is, according to Cameron, a homosexual. Paul Cameron actually rejects the term pedophile for these men, preferring to classify them as homosexual. Research from the Family Research Council has been used in court cases deciding custody issues when homosexual individuals are involved. So, perhaps we are not too far away from the views put forth in Sid Davis’ videos.
What is even more disturbing is Sid Davis’ (and Paul Cameron’s) assertions that homosexuals are criminals, a topic that I will return to on a later date.
Some useful links:
Background on Boys Beware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Beware
Some information on Paul Cameron: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
