Speech given at the recent Lesbian Lives Conference by Noise.
Walt Whitman once said ‘The greatest lessons of Nature are the lessons of variety and freedom’. Today, I would like to put forth that the current activist movement fighting for the right to Civil Marriage for LGBT people should be seen in this light – as a move away from codes of intimacy that restrict and limit us, towards relationships defined by freedom and choice.
There can be no denying that society has gone through radical social change in the 21st century. Most visibly in the western world since the end of World War II. Radical reforms in the post- war period, often seemingly minute, have sometimes led to colossal long-term changes. From the introduction of a tiny pill that would lead to a huge shift in the women’s liberation movement, to one woman sitting on a bus which would lead to an unstoppable civil rights movement – our world has been shaped and reshaped beyond our wildest imaginings.
Such giant shifts in the landscape of our outer worlds, have reflected deeply also on the landscape of our inner worlds. Societal change has gradually eaten away at stereotypes of the nuclear unit and, thus, has greatly challenged our ideas of what a typical family is. It must be noted, however, that despite these titanic shifts, there is still massive change needed to provide the appropriate financial and legal support structures to adequately cater for these fast merging and manifold social realities.
Today many women are choosing not to marry, there are divorced parents, unwed mothers, children with two fathers and a mother, and even we gays are having children. All of these relationships/family forms have become a common part of the social landscape of the western world. These many and varied realities of the way we negotiate our personal lives have each played a part in breaking down what were once given ‘norms’ and rigid expectations. Despite the demands of society on us, at any given time, to live our lives a certain way, individuals still go it alone – by choice or by necessity – and in so doing, have helped to redraw the portrait of the family.
Not surprisingly, ‘the institution of marriage’ has not escaped unscathed from such radical shifts in thinking and living. At different points in history marriage could be viewed – by our current standards – as either conformist or radical, depending on where you are standing. Let’s go back in history – say 2,000 years – the rules of marriage were a little different then … There was a time when, through marriage, it would have been conceivable to own a wife as property and to dispose of her at will, should she fall out of favour. At another point in the evolving history of marriage, in some parts of the world it was acceptable to marry a 12-year-old who you never had met, while in another part of the world you could be imprisoned for marrying someone of another race. Think of how heated this debate would be should marriage norms such as these exist in Ireland today.
In today’s Ireland, a marriage based on love is the one most desired and celebrated. We can for the most part marry whom we like, when we like, for whatever reasons we like … unless of course you happen to be a same-sex couple.
So is this current fight to break down the walls of this institution and grant access to us gays, conformist or radical? I would like to argue that it is both, and in fact, one can lead to another.
Based on the examples listed, I think it fair to say that marriage is a mutable institution. The meaning of marriage has been evolving for centuries; throughout the ages the institution of marriage has being moulded or remoulded, reflective of changing state, religious and cultural definition. Marriage is no longer the ‘Holy Grail’, the ideal relationship form longed for by all. You only have to look at what some of the heterosexual community are doing to marriage for further proof! Despite the Hollywood idealised happy ever after white weddings, most young heterosexuals entering the state of matrimony have vastly different expectations from their parents. Some take their vows as a testimony for eternal fidelity, others regard them as the affirmation of a loving bond, but not necessarily a lifelong one; some see it as a necessity to having children, while others are focused on including kids from a previous marriage into a new one. Then there are the couples that intend to achieve all off the above, but of no intention of bothering with the ceremony.
The growing range of options both within and outside marriage is a reality not just here in Ireland, but across the western world; and the law is evolving accordingly, albeit at very differing speeds. Marriage has become one in a long list of possible options in the straight world. The right for same-sex couples to marry, I would put forth, has everything to do with this emerging flexibility of life options.
There are many potent critiques of gay marriage, whether you take a feminist, socialist, or anarchist perspective, such critics argue that marriage for too long has been at the core of the repression of women, and nourished patriarchal privilege. I’m not here today to dispute these facts, however, I do wish to argue that institutions – marriage included – can, and do change. I would argue that such radical critiques of gay marriage are short sighted in several respects. Most notable, these criticisms ignore the human capacity to transform an oppressive institution into something quite new – something that might be worth fighting for. Thanks largely to the agitation by radicals marriage, today, could be seen as vastly different from the conformist prison many feminists fought hard to escape. LGBT Noise, along with other activist movements such as Marriage Equality, is fighting for the option to marry, not the obligation to do so and choice, as all progressives will agree, is the essence of freedom, the essence of liberation – a word that should ring in the ear of all feminists.
Another understandable of criticism of marriage is that it will push the gay community towards a hetero-normativity and banality. Even worse, some argue the fight for gay marriage is a ‘bourgeois exercise in assimilation’. There is an understandable fear that radical gay culture which emerged from the Stonewall resistant of the 1960s is being subdued, regularised, and ultimately pacified. Generations of these radicals imagined a world in which the rules of matrimony would be suspended, or at least loosened to suit the way people actually live. We at Noise believe this opening up of social norms is very much a struggle worth fighting for. But we ask you, why do critics of our campaign for civil marriage believe this fight will stop just because gay people can wed?
Infact, by allowing the LGBT community into the formally ‘exclusive’ world of marriage, we can, by our presence, change its very nature. Although the campaign for civil marriage is viewed by some as a shortsighted goal, a conservative desire, a tribute to normalcy, I believe in the capacity of radicalising from within. In the short term it may look like conformism, but as gay people grow accustomed to this option, we will shape it to suit our particular needs. To quote Richard Goldstein (a US gay activist and editor of Village Voice magazine) ‘Queers won’t stop being queer just because they get hitched’ … ‘In time you will see leather weddings, trans matches that defy the boundaries of gender, alongside rice throwing trips to the Niagara Falls’. Gay relationships, in all there diversity, will help to mould and remould the institution of marriage into something completely new. Open relationships won’t suddenly cease to exist, nor will the boundless exploration of identity and desire, just because the option of marriage is open to us. The exciting outcome of widening our life choices could be to offer a menu of possibilities ranging from the more relaxed unions to covenant marriages that have much more long-term commitments. In the future people may choose to pass from one category to another as their attitudes change … this begins to look like the kind of world radicals want to see – a world choice!
Gay marriage will simply become, not unlike the straight version, one of a multitude of alternative options; thus, through redefining and reconstitution, the LGBT community has the power to make marriage a less oppressive and less exclusionary institution. In this respect, I argue, our campaign for gay marriage could be viewed as a desire to radicalise from within.
Exclusion from marriage – even if we do not, personally, wish to engage in it – cannot be seen as anything other than a negative. By exclusion we are denied the power to participate, and worse still, we are denied the power to better it, rearrange it, rebuild it, if we so wish – disregard it. The option of participation places us on a level playing field with the heterosexual community, what we choose to do with this new position of choice is entirely up to the individual – surely a position not unpalatable for feminists and socialist alike?
I’m not here to, naively, try to convince you that the campaign for civil marriage will suddenly transform our society into a utopian ideal for radical feminism, however, nor will banning gay marriage, prevent it.
The gay community can – and indeed should – desire a more equal and liberated society beyond the granting of Civil Marriage. We must recognise that marriage will not bring an end to all social ills; nonetheless, we must also accept that as a minority we cannot shoulder the burden of societal reform alone. We must therefore, align ourselves with other groups in wider society who are calling for economic and social change. For instance, the National Women’s Council has for many years tried to highlight how an unjust tax and welfare system impacts on co-habiting couples and single parents in particular. Noise will be launching a campaign drawing attention to the fact that the Civil Partnership Bill taxes co-habiting couples as parents but denies them any parental rights and responsibilities. As a potentially more palatable alternative to marriage, Civil Partnership falls far short.
It could be argued that our time and resources could be put to better use striving to improve Civil Partnership. This is the short-term strategy of GLEN. In our recent submission to the Law Reform Commission on Family Law Noise recommends that the diversity of family forms be recognised. We put forth that parent rights be granted to people in civil partnerships, civil marriages and in de facto relationships. Noise strongly rejects the idea of a hierarchy of relationships but holds marriage as the current equality option – because marriage remains the only form of recognition which offers constitutional protection. In this current campaign to achieve full marriage equality for all citizens, however, Noise believes that a constitutional referendum is not necessary.
Noise holds strong the view that marriage equality cannot be fought for in isolation. We agree at Noise that our constitution has many problematic and offensive provisions, especially from a feminist and children’s rights stand point. Our campaign must, therefore, be seen as one of the many voices calling for law reform, constitutional or otherwise. Ultimately, the ‘special place’ that marriage occupies in our constitution must be removed and all diversity respected; the removal of the privileges of marriage must extend across all tax and social welfare systems. As such our fight for Civil Marriage should be viewed as a complement, rather than an impediment, to these other very necessary fights for social justice.
The Irish LGBT drive towards granting Civil Marriage to all should also be viewed as a potential catalyst for greater reforms in the future. We must remember that all reforms are partial; things change and shift slowly. However, with each small reform a new window of opportunity is opened, where further change is possible. In the words of Sherry Wolf – ardent socialist and dedicated LGBT activist in the US – ‘reform and revolution are reciprocal’.
We only need to look at history for countless examples. The struggle and eventual achievement of women’s suffrage, although momentous in the power it bestowed us, alone, has not achieved feminism’s long-term goal of the full liberation of women. That fight is still being waged. Equally the granting of interracial marriages in the US, while opening up new acceptance of diversity of relationship forms and models previously unimaginable, it has not resulted in an end to racism. We believe our campaign for same-sex marriage should be viewed in a similar light. Gay marriage will not be the ultimate prize for everyone, although we should recognise and respect that it will be for some. Gay marriage will not end all of societies many social ills. However, it will place the LGBT community on a level playing field with out heterosexual neighbours. Only from this equal position – where are relationships are recognised, valued and protected on equal socio-economic terms to our straight counterparts – can we hope to push for greater social reform for all.
The ongoing debates in circles of feminism, socialism and anarchism about the ills of the capitalist-led, patriarchal, institution of marriage should and must continue. This does not mean that, in the meantime, LGBT activists like ourselves, should not be demanding an end to the institutions glaring heterosexual bias. Demanding institutional recognition of same-sex marriage will only help to underscore our struggle to eliminate all discrimination on grounds of sexuality at institutional level. In addition, by demanding inclusion into the said institution, we can, of course, should, continue to critique it. From within, I put forth, we can play an active and equal part in how it is reshaped in the future. As a community-based organisation, the Organisers of Noise are fighting for the rights of all LGBT people to gain access to civil marriage. Whether they desire to embrace, confront or disregard the said institution will be up to each individual, in our diverse community, to decide.
Lastly, whether you are an ardent advocate or the harshest critic of the same-sex marriage campaign, there can be no denying the powerful impact of the movement so far. The campaign for gay marriage is having a much wider and far reaching effect than anyone could have anticipated. Personally, one of the most inspiring aspects of our campaign has been what might be termed the ‘unintended consequences’. LGBT Noise’s campaign, in alliance with other effective activist groups, has unquestionably mobilised large numbers both inside and outside the gay community. If you need further convincing just look at the 5,000-strong, vibrant and vocal March for Marriage through the streets of Dublin, in August last year. The marriage campaign has tapped into the consciousness of so many people who were, until now, either apolitical or apathetic about social change. Our movement has energised and inspired people to think about their own rights – this cannot be anything but a positive thing.
At a time of unprecedented apathy towards politics, cynicism towards those in the seat of power, and disillusion at our individual influence to effect change in society; this is, indeed, a timely campaign. By bringing the struggle for LGBT rights into the public arena, into the mass media and, above all, into people’s own consciousness, this Civil Marriage campaign shows the capacity of a movement to change hearts and minds. And when you look again at the lessons of history – it is in the hearts and minds that the root of all social change has begun. It is my belief that this new confidence and vigour in the LGBT community will not subside once ‘Marriage Equality’ has been achieved. Once a spark has been ignited, it is not so easily extinguished. As the saying goes ‘Where things begin, is not always where they end’. Only time will tell where this new movement will ultimately lead, but I hope you agree we are living in an exciting time.
In the words of Sherry Wolf: in every age our world is in need of ‘a constant intervention of organised forces to give history a shove’. As Organisers for LGBT Noise we have not only embraced this philosophy, but through our activism – in alliances with other like-minded groups – intend to continue turning this philosophy into action. We hope you will join us!
Thank you